By: Jerry Seper and Matthew Cella

The Iranians and the Syrians are on heightened military alert as the Russians fuel the Iranian nuclear reactor at Brushehr today and everyone has an opinion about when and who will attack it. If the world wanted to stop the plant from functioning, it could and would have done so long ago.

The military alert is understandable. Israel destroyed an Iraqi reactor that Saddam Hussein was building and a clandestine one being built by Syria

As anyone who has a World Almanac with its map of the world from the United Kingdom to a tip of Australia can determine, it is a very long way from tiny Israel to Iran. Distance increases the risk along with what is surely a ring of missile defense around the reactor.

While the Israelis have conducted some exercises to demonstrate their bombers could make the trip, they have been rather quiet about the Iranian reactor. A very real part of that involves Hezbollah in Lebanon which is armed to the teeth and Hamas in the Gaza strip, both of which are Iranian proxies in any conflict.

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took the occasion on Friday to announce that the Israelis and the Palestinian Authority (PA) had agreed to once again sit down and discuss peace. This is kabuki theatre, a charade, a farce. It’s the old land-for-peace swap that has not resulted in a day of peace for Israel since it was founded in 1948.

Mamoud Abbas, the head of the PA, was the right-hand man to Yassir Arafat, famed Nobel Peace Prize winner (thus rendering that award one of the great farces on the international scene) and he has no more power than that which the Israelis grant him. As for the rest of the Arab community, the Palestinians have been completely abandoned.

Muddledness at the Top
Our current crises demand clarity. This administration offers none.

By Dan Kennedy
Business & Media Institute
5/12/2010 12:15:33 PM

On the May 9 “Meet the Press,” host David Gregory had a disturbing discussion with Attorney General Eric Holder. What was so unsettling was the insistent use of law enforcement language rather than speaking of war on terrorism and terrorists; the refusal by Obama Administration and complicit mainstream media to acknowledge the fact that we are at war.

Key word: war. What is needed to save us is public and political agreement that we are engaged in World War III, and therefore other nations must be identified accurately as allies or enemies, based on their harboring and abetting those bent on our destruction or co-operatively, comprehensively and aggressively rooting them out and eradicating them. We need to act with our allies in ways appropriate to ally relationships, and act toward the allies of our enemies in ways appropriate to enemies – including trade embargos, closing off travel to and from, even – yes – profiling of the enemy states’ citizens in or entering our borders, and more. We need definitive, unambiguous clarity.

A nation, its political leaders and its citizenry behave very differently during the conduct of a war in which its homeland is under threat and attack than when that nation is merely bothered by occasional crime appropriately dealt with by routine law enforcement and judicial process. Presently, most American citizens, taking their cues from this President and his league of liberal ideologues, fools, incompetents and liars and the co-opted media, are muddling about as if in the latter circumstances. They are unconvinced we are above the “code red” level of, say, World War II.

For 30 years, I have been advising, consulting, coaching and assisting business owners, from small shop operators to CEO’s of billion dollar enterprises, with strategies to not only grow but strengthen their companies. The successful and the unsuccessful are foundationally separated by willingness and ability to clearly and candidly diagnose, name, enunciate and frankly discuss their problems, the threats to their prosperity or, at times, survival, and the realities in which they operate. Companies burdened with “see no evil, hear no evil, speak about no evil” leadership die.

For example, consider a small thing, like an employee engaged in malfeasance, sabotage or simply toxic influence on others. The rule of the business leader who keeps his company safe and strong is: fire fast, hire slow. He has clarity, decisiveness and zero tolerance for threats. (If this interests you, I’ve written an entire book about it: No B.S. Guide to Ruthless Management of People and Profits.)  More tolerant, gentle, indecisive, hesitant, timid, non-forthright leadership inevitably leads only one place: the steps of bankruptcy court.

Ultimately, if we can’t accurately and candidly articulate the threat to our very survival, identify and name and hold accountable the true enemy and its allies, we cannot possibly prevail. If we won’t even acknowledge that we are at war, we have already lost.

One of the panelists on “Meet the Press” did, at least, acknowledge that the Obama positions, policies and leadership on this matter – the safety, security and sovereignty of the United States – are, “muddled.”  He excused the muddledness due to the complexity of the problems we confront in this area – which he declined to name as World War III. But he has it all wrong. The complexity cannot be excuse for muddled thinking and the muddled, timid, too-slow actions such thinking produces. The complexity is all the more mandate for clarity.

We stand on a shrinking island of crisis. Our southern border is virtually non-existent, nominally defended, and the collectively enraged population of legal citizens in Arizona is demonized by Obama for passing a law-of-desperation that makes it illegal to be illegal. Not only are we doing nothing, we refuse to name the Mexican government itself as enemy for its role in the invasion and attack on our sovereignty. Our security in total is under sequential, accelerating attack by terrorists from abroad, harbored and abetted by other nations – not at all secretly. But we refuse to identify those nations as enemies and treat them accordingly.

In Washington, we are threatened by an ignorant, incompetent, criminally irresponsible government hell-bent on national bankruptcy, resolutely refusing to curb spending, and instead usurping private sector and expanding government at tyrannical speed.

These are not separate matters at all. They are all connected cars on the same runaway train, and we are all passengers being raced to our deaths. If we do not mutiny, rush the engine room, pull the emergency brake, and wrest control, America will be totally transformed just as Obama promised. Into the greatest train wreck in world history.

Dan Kennedy is a serial entrepreneur, adviser to business owners, sought-after speaker and author of 14 books. His latest, “Make ‘Em Laugh & Take Their Money: A Few Thoughts on Using Humor as a Speaker or Writer or Sales Professional for Purposes of Persuasion,”  contains a lelection of his BMI essays. More information about Dan can be found at www.NoBSBooks.com, and a free collection of his business resources including newsletters and webinars at www.DanKennedy.com.

By Robert Stacy McCain on 4.28.10 @ 9:26AM

Less than three weeks remain before the May 18 special election to fill the Pennsylvania 12th District House seat formerly held by Democrat Jack Murtha, and Newt Gingrich explains the significance:

By Ted Belman

The New York Times recently announced Obama Speech Signals a U.S. Shift on Middle East.

“When Mr. Obama declared that resolving the long-running Middle East dispute was a “vital national security interest of the United States,” he was highlighting a change that has resulted from a lengthy debate among his top officials over how best to balance support for Israel against other American interests.

“Mr. Obama said conflicts like the one in the Middle East ended up “costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure” — drawing an explicit link between the Israeli-Palestinian strife and the safety of American soldiers as they battle Islamic extremism and terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.”

To show that Obama was not alone in this, it buttressed his message by quoting from Sec’y Rice, Gen Patraeus and Martin Indyk. It might just as well have quoted from The Baker Report, Z Brzezinski and Sec’y Clinton.

Actually this shift was a long time in coming. There have always been voices in the administration that viewed Israel as a liability rather than an asset.

By JB Williams 

Members from all three branches of the Federal government already know that Barack Hussein Obama is ineligible for the office of President. National leaders, to include members of the US Supreme Court, already know that Barack Hussein Obama is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States of America, and therefore, is ineligible for the office he currently holds. (See JB’s new article on The Bottom Line on Natural Born Citizen)

What they don’t know is how long it will take for most Americans to figure it out, or what to do about it.

The diversionary search for an authentic birth certificate is ongoing and Obama has now spent in excess of $2 million in legal fees to keep that search

Eric Holder’s Department of Justice continues to deploy taxpayer funded attorneys around the country to file dismissals on behalf of Obama, denying all American citizens access to the courts as a peaceful remedy, which only fuels the fire of discontent and the questions about Obama persist.

Michelle Obama states that Kenya is Barack’s “home country.” She knows, after twenty years with Barack. The Ambassador or Kenya has confirmed the same  His family friends all know it, and are in fact quite proud of the fact that Americans had no hesitation in electing a “black man from Kenya” as President of the United States.

The US Supreme Court knows what the constitutional condition of “natural born citizen” means. Even the most far left member of that court, Justice Ginsberg, is on record proclaiming that a “natural born citizen” is a birth child of TWO legal US citizens.

Apr 19th, 2010

WASHINGTON (AP) – In a rare public dispute between a Democratic-led Congress and the White House, a Senate committee on Monday subpoenaed the Obama administration for secret documents and access to witnesses in last year’s mass shooting at the Fort Hood Army base in Texas.

Congress has been largely supportive of President Barack Obama’s policies and the White House prides itself on increased government transparency. Nonetheless, the chairman and ranking Republican of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee have alleged that the administration is covering up critical details on the case, including whether the government had access to information that could have prevented the shooting.

“Unfortunately, it is impossible for us to avoid reaching the conclusion that the departments simply do not want to cooperate with our investigation,” wrote Sens. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, in a letter accompanying the subpoena.

One of the cornerstones of the American experiment in human freedom is the tenet that military forces are never to be used against citizens, except in cases of extreme national emergency.  When military forces are allowed to engage in domestic issues a Pandora's box is opened that unleashes a slippery slope that erodes every known principle of human liberty.

(AP Photo/David Longstreath).  When armies are unleashed against citizens.

Fox News legal analyst and judge Andrew Napolitano has raised serious questions about a new 'private army' funded by the ObamaCare bill.

At issue is a provision, 2 pages long, tucked into the bill that creates and funds a 6000-person brigade of physicians that would be trained by the military and operate with the full powers of the military should the President so direct.

The provision also gives the President broad powers to take National Guard troops from the states in non-wartime and place them in the service of the Federal Government.  This mandate would override any objection raised by Governors, who at present possess the only civilian powers over the National Guard.

This video contains commentary on this subject by Andrew Napolitano.  To get to the portion of the program that discusses the private army provision, watch the entire video, which is a definite eye-opener.

Several troubling issues come to the surface concerning this portion of the ObamaCare bill, which has now been signed into law.

First, until now if the government needed physicians it could hire them to serve under Health and Human Services to work in the Centers for Disease Control or the Public Health Service.  For the first time in American history a special provision is made to place physicians in military training and service during non-wartime.

By Peter J. Smith

BOISE, Idaho, March 19, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Virginia and Idaho have now taken the lead among U.S. states in the fight against national health care, with the two states having successfully enacted laws empowering their attorneys general to sue the federal government for trying to force their respective residents to buy health insurance.

On Wednesday, Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter signed the Idaho Health Freedom Act into law, during the first public ceremony for this year's legislature.

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Re: The Slaughter Solution   [Anthony Dick]

I'm surprised there hasn't been more constitutional outcry over the so-called "Slaughter Solution." As the Washington Examiner describes the proposal: 

Each bill that comes before the House for a vote on final passage must be given a rule that determines things like whether the minority would be able to offer amendments to it from the floor.  In the Slaughter Solution, the rule would declare that the House "deems" the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the House. House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but they would then be able to say they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself.

It seems that voting on a rule that deems a bill to be passed differs importantly from actually passing a bill. The difference is not just formalistic but deeply functional. A core purpose of the constitutional legislative process is to ensure that lawmakers are held accountable to the public. Their legislative voting record has to be clear, so that the electorate can make an informed decision on whether to reelect them. The Slaughter Solution is a piece of subterfuge designed specifically to short-circuit this purpose of electoral accountability, so that congressmen can "say they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself." The very attractiveness of the maneuver shows that it plays some role in insulating lawmakers from popular disapproval of their vote, and for that reason it is constitutionally noxious.

Congressional Micromanagement of Health Care: Messing Up The FEHBP

March 10th, 2010

Author: Kathryn Nix

While Congressional leaders are feverishly plotting to jam the hugely unpopular Senate health bill through the House of Representatives the moment Speaker Pelosi thinks she has the votes, House liberals are also tinkering around with the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). This is the program that covers federal workers and retirees; it is a consumer-driven program of competing private health plans. Through more regulation, Congressional liberals would like to make it look a lot more like Obamacare.

Historically, the success of the FEHBP as a consumer-driven and competitive system of private health plans has been largely attributable to its wide range of personal choice, relatively light regulation, and the hands-off approach the Office of Personnel Management(OPM) in its administration. That can change, of course, depending upon who is running the White House.

Midterm election forecasts by political scientists and economists are starting to roll out, and the picture is not pretty for the Democrats. This one by Emory University political scientist Alan I. Abramowitz writing for Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball predicts a net loss of 37 Democratic House seats in November.

Abramowitz’s projections are based on four factors, including two that will likely continue to change between now and the election: the generic ballot (currently tied in Abramowitz’s model) and presidential approval (Obama +5 in Abramowitz’s model). The two other variables are already fixed (current number of GOP held seats and whether the president’s party is the same or different than the congressional majority).

Sabato’s own estimate is a little lower at a 27 net seat loss for the Democrats.

January 12, 2010

Senate Health Care Timeline

Obamacare is not yet law, but the battle over which elements of it should be repealed has already begun with both sides believing they will have the upper hand. Key to this debate will be which elements of Obamacare phase in when. Heritage Foundation scholar Robert Book has poured through the Senate bill and produced the following chart (pdf) detailing how the Senate version of Obamacare is scheduled to be implemented between 2010 and 2017. Highlights from each year include:

Attorney General Eric Holder is to justice what Nancy Pelosi is to fiscal responsibility: Less is good; none at all is “progressive” paradise!

Holder’s latest outrage involves ACORN, the street bullies and tramps that used “Chicago tactics” to elect Barack Obama, including voter fraud, illegal campaign practices, prostitution, and probably much worse.

 By Sher Zieve  Sunday, November 22, 2009

In case you hadn’t heard, the US Marxist Party’s Senate vote to ostensibly “continue debate” on its draconian version of “we will now control everything you say and do” ObamaCare proposed bill passed by 60-39—along straight party lines.  The last minute purchase of corrupt Marxist-Democrat Senator votes (with OUR tax money) at over $100Millions a pop clenched the deal.  The ObamaGov is placing the final nails in the coffin of our Republic and is replacing it with its onerous and totalitarian Marxist presence. 

Nov. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Republican lawmakers demanded a Congressional hearing to review whether the Federal Reserve Bank of New York was unprepared to deal with the bailout of American International Group Inc. last year.

The rescue, which funneled billions of dollars to banks that traded with AIG, amounted to a “backdoor bailout” of the firms, Representatives Roy Blunt of Missouri and Spencer Bachus of Alabama wrote in a letter to Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who heads the House financial services committee.

The New York Fed, led at the time by Timothy Geithner, gave up efforts to save taxpayer money on AIG’s rescue after the insurer’s trading partners refused to make concessions, the special inspector for the Troubled Asset Relief Program said in a report this week. Geithner, now the Treasury Department secretary, needs to tell Congress whether regulators got the best deal possible in the bailout, which swelled to $182.3 billion, the lawmakers said.

The inspector general’s report “paints a devastating picture of government regulators ill-prepared to deal with the failure of complex financial institutions like AIG, and who failed to fight for what was in the best interest of the taxpayers,” Blunt and Bachus said in the letter today.

Geithner today urged the Joint Economic Committee to pass a financial regulation overhaul intended to strengthen the banking system to avoid a repeat of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

Lt. Commander Walter Fitzpatrick III levels charge in an effort to avert what he described as a pending civil war

Nogales, Arizona 11/14/2009 12:51 PM GMT (TransWorldNews)

Strong charges by Lt. Commander Walter Fitzpatrick III, a retired US Naval officer were leveled at Preisident Obama as part of a criminal complaint filed with the Clerk of Court, Catawba County, NC (file #09R81) and a copy of the indictment was sent by Certified Mail to District Attorney James C. Gaither (NC District 25B), for further action according to his Oath of Office.”

Some of the details follow:

COUNT TWO:

The charge of “Treason” against Obama is before the people of the United States of America. That such complaint is CRIMINAL, of high crimes, and extremely damaging against the people.

Said complaint was formally brought by a Military Officer (retired) of the United States of America. All United States Military Officers are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States and such complaint is valid, explicit and proper; when an Officer is aware of such malfeasance of Treason by an offender it is that Officer’s SWORN duty to come forward and present such accusation and complaint;

The Military Officer who filed the complaint is Lt. Commander Walter Fitzpatrick, III, retired, United States Navy and a graduate of the United States Naval Academy;

Lt. Commander Fitzpatrick on March 17, 2009 did hereby make such criminal accusation and complaint against Obama and presented said complaint before the U.S Attorney Russell Dedrick, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Edward Schmutzer, Eastern District, Tennessee;

An original photocopy of said complaint was submitted to the Grand Jury as evidence for immediate investigation;

See more details here

by Liz Peek  Fox News

Nancy Pelosi envisions herself forever sculpted into liberalism’s Mt. Rushmore. But whether you are for or against it, the health care plan passed by the House is a truly a monumental disruption of our economy. Once enacted, we will never go backwards.

What was Speaker Nancy Pelosi thinking as she reveled in the passage of the House’s health care bill? Does she really imagine that this monstrous legislation will improve the lives of most Americans? Does she expect that creating 111 new government bureaucracies and offices will make it easier for most of us to receive medical treatment? Does she think that sharply raising marginal tax rates for our highest-earning citizens and small businesses will spur productivity and hiring?

No, I imagine that she was thrilled by the taste of victory. Somewhere along the way, this push became all about personalities and contest; the original goal of reining in health care costs was abandoned, and the prize at the end became passage of a landmark bill. Nancy Pelosi envisions herself forever sculpted into liberalism’s Mt. Rushmore.

A senior U.S. senator on Sunday said the shootings at Fort Hood could have been a terrorist attack, and that he would launch a congressional investigation into whether the U.S. military could have prevented it.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut who heads the Senate's Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, said initial evidence suggested that the alleged shooter, Army Maj. Nidal Hasan, was a "self-radicalized, home-grown terrorist" who had turned to Islamic extremism while under personal stress.

Mr. Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, had opened fire Thursday at a soldier processing center at Fort Hood, Tex., killing 13 and wounding 29 in the worst mass shooting on a military facility in the U.S.

Mr. Lieberman, appearing on "Fox News Sunday," said it was too early to reach definitive conclusions. But he added that if Mr. Hasan had become an Islamic extremist, "the murder of these 13 people [would constitute] a terrorist act."

What is government's role in the economy?  To answer that question, let us examine their sources of funding. At the state and local level, funding originates with taxes, Federal Government funds, and extensions of credit (bond issues). Unlike the Federal Government, state governments do not have the luxury of spending more than they have. When they do spend more than they have, they have to cut back on the services they provide, raise taxes, travel to Washington to ask for more funding, or all of the above.  Recent experience shows what happens when states run out of money - services are cut. 

By: David Freddoso
10/31/09 11:32 AM

You might be interested to hear what happened at yesterday's Capitol Hill presentation of the political science study you paid for -- the one promoted as a way of helping your congressman boost his approval rating by up to 18 points using Internet town halls.

The study, funded in part by the National Science Founation and conducted by a non-profit called the Congressional Management Foundation, drew mostly unremarkable conclusions. It found that Internet town halls are easy to hold and increase political participation. Most importantly, it found that they make voters more likely to agree with, like, and vote for their members after they participate in one.

In fact, the final report offered a fairly precise number by which members could boost their approval ratings if they would only hold more Internet town halls -- 18 percent. That finding is far less remarkable when you read the study and find that only 15 to 25 people took part in each of the 12 the town halls they studied in detail. Perhaps the more important conclusion about Internet town halls is that very few people take part in them.

I was not allowed to attend yesterday's presentation. When I tried, I was informed that it was for staff and members only. But a staffer who was there tells me over the phone that it was entertaining. For example, when asked whether his study had diverted National Science Foundation grant money...

by Thomas Sowell

Many years ago, at a certain academic institution, there was an experimental program that the faculty had to vote on as to whether or not it should be made permanent.

I rose at the faculty meeting to say that I knew practically nothing about whether the program was good or bad, and that the information that had been supplied to us was too vague for us to have any basis for voting, one way or the other. My suggestion was that we get more concrete information before having a vote.

By John W. Whitehead
October 22, 2009

"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree."—James Madison

Truth is often lost when we fail to distinguish between opinion and fact, and that is the danger we now face as a society. Anyone who relies exclusively on television/cable news hosts and political commentators for actual knowledge of the world is making a serious mistake. Unfortunately, since Americans have by and large become non-readers, television has become their prime source of so-called "news."

This reliance on TV news has given rise to such popular news personalities such as Keith Olbermann, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Wolf Blitzer and Lou Dobbs, among others, who draw in vast audiences that virtually hang on their every word. In our media age, these are the new powers-that-be. Yet while these personalities often dispense the news like preachers used to dispense religion, with power and certainty, do they really deliver up objective reporting about the news? Or are they merely a conduit for propaganda and advertisements delivered in the guise of entertainment and news? Moreover, given the preponderance of news-as-entertainment programming, have viewers lost the ability to differentiate between news commentary and news reporting?

Sadly, in the short term, there is not much that the average viewer can do to change the nature of television news. Yet while television news cannot—and should not—be completely avoided, the following suggestions will help you better understand the nature of TV news and minimize its impact on you.

Kabul, Afghanistan

“I HOPE people who say this war is unwinnable see stories like this. This is what winning in a counterinsurgency looks like.”

Lt. Col. William F. McCollough, commander of the First Battalion, Fifth Marine Regiment, is walking me around the center of Nawa, a poor, rural district in southern Afghanistan’s strategically vital Helmand River Valley. His Marines, who now number more than 1,000, arrived in June to clear out the Taliban stronghold. Two weeks of hard fighting killed two Marines and wounded 70 more but drove out the insurgents. Since then the colonel’s men, working with 400 Afghan soldiers and 100 policemen, have established a “security bubble” around Nawa.

Colonel McCollough recalls that when they first arrived the bazaar was mostly shuttered and the streets empty. “This town was strangled by the Taliban,” he says. “Anyone who was still here was beaten, taxed or intimidated.”

Today, Nawa is flourishing. Seventy stores are open, according to the colonel, and the streets are full of trucks and pedestrians. Security is so good we were able to walk around without body armor — unthinkable in most of Helmand, the country’s most dangerous province. The Marines are spending much of their time not in firefights but in clearing canals and building bridges and schools. On those rare occasions when the Taliban try to sneak back in to plant roadside bombs, the locals notify the Marines.

The key to success in Nawa — and in other key districts from Garmsir in the south to Baraki Barak in the center — has been the infusion of additional United States troops. The overall American force in Afghanistan has grown to 68,000 from 32,000 in 2008. That has made it possible to garrison parts of the country where few if any soldiers had been stationed before. Before the Marines arrived in Nawa, for instance, there were just 40 embattled British soldiers there.

By Lisa Richards
October 21, 2009

“Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday.” Letter from L. David Alinsky, son of Neo-Marxist Saul Alinsky
The Boston Globe, August 31, 2008

What man is free who has to beg the government for his livelihood? When men are told how much they can and cannot earn, what they can own, what they cannot attain, they become slaves to men in power. When people are placed under living conditions, not of their own deciding, but that of thgovernment, they are slaves, owned and controlled. Such policies cripple hearts and minds, creating people without incentives or cares of their own well-being. These people become easy
pawns in the hands of the government which uses people to its own benefit: power.

Eventually government control appears normal and people forget to question its wrongs, its divine assumption of the right to kingship…or Messiah.

Twentieth century radical communist Saul Alinsky cleverly conned Americans by using the Founding Fathers as one of his models for “change.” But Alinsky was nothing like the Founders; he was a Chicago Marxist who tried to start a revolution to take down the very foundations of America in the
name of the poor.

Alinsky, like Barry Obama, used that word “change.” He wanted to “change” America, get rid of the wealthy, make everyone equal, he wanted the poor to rise up and create class warfare. Hillary Clinton so adored Alinsky’s radical anti-American ideals, she wrote her college thesis on the Marxist. Alinsky was so impressed with Hillary’s praise of his Marxist ideals, he wanted to hire her.

Imagine praising Hitler and having him offer you a job. It’s no different. The Jewish Alinsky was a communist who wanted destructive uprisings.