Because I am a researcher, writer and author, I receive many literary ‘goodies’ from fans, for which I truly am appreciative and grateful. The other day, a gentleman sent me some information about Saul Alinsky, the now-deceased, left-wing radical organizer from Chicago who, apparently, has influenced many in U.S. politics, including President Barack Hussein Obama and current 2016 presidential-hopeful, and former Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Never having been a fan of Alinsky’s, I must admit I had to do some research on him, even though I’m rather familiar with his bent on controlling humanity using social programs. Believing that past is—or can be—prologue, I’d like to analogize President Obama’s apparent following and obvious implementation of Alinsky’s socialist playbook rules with current presidential-hopeful, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s obvious previous fascination with Alinsky, his philosophies and organizational work.
In this exercise, I think I will be able to equate that, if Hillary becomes president, we will have the same regime as we’ve had – and many have loathed – since 2009 with all the force-fed legislation like the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), which, according to news reports, has been responsible for more people losing both jobs  and healthcare insurance.
Hillary Rodham was writing to Alinsky in 1971 and there’s an Internet site, The Hillary Letters, which posts some of her correspondence with the socialist activist, whom she addressed as “Dear Saul.” In Hillary’s July 8, 1971 letter to him she says, “You are being rediscovered again as the new Left-type politicos are finally beginning to think seriously about the hard work and mechanics of organizing.” She goes on to say, “The more I’ve seen of places like Yale Law School and the people who haunt them, the more convinced I am that we have the serious business and joy of much work ahead—if the commitment to a free and open society is ever going to mean more than eloquence and frustration,” and that “I miss our biennial conversations.” And, she asks if Alinsky ever makes it out to California, that she’s living in Berkeley and gives him her address and phone number.
In a July 13, 1971 letter to Hillary, Alinsky’s secretary, Mrs. Harper, says that he will be in San Francisco, California, on a date and the location. Hillary’s friendship with Alinsky apparently went back to her thesis-writing days in 1968 while at Wellesley College, when she met with him several times.
So, why was Hillary in California? She was interning at the left-wing law firm “Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, known for its radical politics and a client roster that included Black Panthers and other militants.”  At that time, Hillary apparently was very interested in obtaining Alinsky’s new book, Rules for Radicals. “‘The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power’, wrote Alinsky in his 1971 book. ‘Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.’”  That, dear readers, was – and apparently is – the Alinsky agenda set in writing to follow by his acolytes.
Alinsky’s last sentence above represents the great divide in philosophies between socialists and a capitalist economy—the ‘engine’ that drives jobs and wealth for everyone willing to work and not sit around collecting socialist handouts at the expense of taxpayers, some contend.
Wasn’t it Thomas Jefferson who said, “I’m a greater believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it”? 
Furthermore, if we examine the Obama administration’s strategies of the last six or so years, we find that the USA is really in dire straits with more and more socialism ‘ideals’ being dished out at every level of society, which changes the long-established governance principles of the USA as supposedly being a democratic republic. We got change Mr. Obama promised! Do we like it? Hillary probably will follow through with the same type of leadership and change following her, and President Obama’s, political mentor, Saul Alinsky.
The real hard question everyone should be asking him- and herself is, “Do I want 4 or more years of the same secretive deals, e.g., ObamaCare: “We have to pass the bill so you can see what’s in it”! Who ever heard of such bull crap? But, the ‘socialists’ in Congress apparently were able to pull it off and get away with it. Do we, as a nation, want that type of ram-rod regime headed by yet another president—again? That tactic apparently is an Alinsky-like strategy, which his devotees follow blindly, just like a religious belief system, even though Alinsky apparently despised religion.
To learn more about Saul Alinsky, I’ve turned to Richard Poe and David Horowitz, who wrote the bookThe Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party in which Richard, and his co-author David Horowitz, trace the rise of Alinsky’s political influence since the 1930s. 
In his native Chicago, Alinsky courted power wherever he found it. His alliance with prominent Catholic clerics, such as Bishop Bernard Sheil, gave him respectability. His friendship with crime bosses such as Frank Nitti – Al Capone’s second-in-command – gave Alinsky clout on the street. 
According to Poe and Horowitz,
Alinsky’s crowning achievement was his recruitment of a young high school student named Hillary Rodham. She met Alinsky through a radical church group. Hillary wrote an analysis of Alinsky’s methods for her senior thesis at Wellesley College. They remained friends until Alinsky’s death in 1972.
That Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama share an Alinskyite background tells us two things. First, they are leftists, dedicated to overthrowing our Constitutional system. Second, they will go to any length to conceal their radicalism from the public. 
Alinsky wrote two books, which have become ‘textbooks’ for implementing socialism; they are: Rules for Radicals and Reveille for Radicals. Another famous Alinsky piece is How to Create a Socialist State.
Here are Alinsky’s own rules as put down in Rules for Radicals, or what I’d call “levels of control”:
Always remember the first rule of power tactics: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
The second rule is: Never go outside the experience of your people.When an action is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear, and retreat.
The third rule is: Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.
The fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.
The sixth rule is: 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.
The seventh rule: A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time, after which it becomes a ritualistic commitment, like going to church on Sunday mornings.
The eighth rule: Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
The ninth rule: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
The tenth rule: The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.
The eleventh rule is: If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative.
The twelfth rule: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying “You’re right — we don’t know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us.”
The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. 
A question I’d like to pose for my readers is, “Does any of the above seem to be familiar in how things work in today’s political arena—especially in most Washington, DC affairs? If so, do you want that to become the ‘standard’ carried forward as how U.S. citizens will be treated and governed?
Glenn Beck’s website features “Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals”here.
In a 1972 Playboy interview, Alinsky said, “Let’s say that if there is an afterlife, and I have anything to say about it, I will unreservedly choose to go to hell.” What was his reason for saying that? “Hell would be heaven for me. All my life I’ve been with the have-nots. Over here, if you’re a have-not, you’re short of dough. If you’re a have-not in hell, you’re short of virtue. Once I get into hell, I’ll start organizing the have-nots over there.”  “Dough” apparently is the high-ranking socialists’ god? Remember when Hillary complained about how poor she was—weren’t she and Bill “dead broke”?  On July 30, 2014,The Washington Postarticle blared, “$5 million, $50 million or even more – just how rich is Hillary Clinton? Here’s why we don’t know.”  Besides her money problems, I haven’t even touched on Hillary’s secret emails while Secretary of State or the Benghazi disaster, both of which should follow her around like never-ending, negative credibility-factors.
So, how much is President Obama worth? On May 15, 2015, USA Todayran an article saying, “Obama could be worth as much as $6.9 million.”  Quite an accomplishment for someone who didn’t have high-paying jobs in the past, I’d say. What does that say about following the Alinsky protocol about “dough”?
Even though Alinsky was born Jewish and acknowledged that, he apparently paid no respects to Judaism, or any form of organized religion, even though he took to hobnobbing with Roman Catholic clerics! While surfing for Alinsky information, I found the website “Theistic Satanism” where Saul D. Alinsky is listed as “A role model for left-wing Satanists”!  How rather interesting a subtitle!
Wherever the USA is heading—or being led or driven—by left-wing socialists, certainly does not seem to be to the liking of a majority of citizens. According to a Gallup poll published in January 2014, 65 percent of U.S. citizens are dissatisfied with how government works! 
That’s a fair percentage of “dissatisfieds,” so will voters wake up and shake the political sand out of their heads, or still choose ‘leaders’ from the same socialist-leaning team in 2016 who apparently have been leading us into the ground—at least in this writer’s opinion—a First Amendment right, which I hope I still can invoke.
Socialism may be ‘trendy’, but it really doesn’t work very well in the USA, I’d say. How about you?
I’d like to leave my readers with these words from Thomas Jefferson, “I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”  That, dear readers, is total anathema to the Alinsky protocols, I offer.
What do you think?