Hillary Clinton has made a concerted effort to cover her tracks when it comes to her relationship with the late Saul Alinsky. For those not in the know, Alinsky was an influential leftist revolutionary who wrote Rules for Radicals which both Clinton and Barack Obama took to heart early in their political careers.
Now, after much digging, the Washington Free Beacon has revealed for the first time Hillary Clinton’s letters to Saul Alinsky himself.
The letters obtained by the Free Beacon are part of the archives for the Industrial Areas Foundation, a training center for community organizers founded by Alinsky, which are housed at the University of Texas at Austin.
The letters also suggest that Alinsky, who died in 1972, had a deeper influence on Clinton’s early political views than previously known.
A 23-year-old Hillary Clinton was living in Berkeley, California, in the summer of 1971. 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.
On July 8, 1971, Clinton reached out to Alinsky, then 62, in a letter sent via airmail, paid for with stamps featuring Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and marked “Personal.”
“Dear Saul,” she began. “When is that new book [Rules for Radicals] coming out—or has it come and I somehow missed the fulfillment of Revelation?”
“I have just had my one-thousandth conversation about Reveille [for Radicals] and need some new material to throw at people,” she added, a reference to Alinsky’s 1946 book on his theories of community organizing.
Clinton devoted just one paragraph in her memoir Living History to Alinsky, writing that she rejected a job offer from him in 1969 in favor of going to law school. She wrote that she wanted to follow a more conventional path.
However, in the 1971 letter, Clinton assured Alinsky that she had “survived law school, slightly bruised, with my belief in and zest for organizing intact.”
“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,” wrote Clinton.
According to the letter, Clinton and Alinsky had kept in touch since she entered Yale. The 62-year-old radical had reached out to give her advice on campus activism.
“If I never thanked you for the encouraging words of last spring in the midst of the Yale-Cambodia madness, I do so now,” wrote Clinton, who had moderated a campus election to join an anti-war student strike.
If you’re at all familiar with Alinsky’s work, you’ll know that it remains the playbook for Democrats.
Take for example rule #5:
Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
Sounds like a lot of Democrats I know.
No, she’s not sorry for using the power of the IRS to target people whose political ideologies were different than hers. She’s just sorry she got caught.
Lois Lerner is toxic — and she knows it. But she refuses to recede into anonymity or beg for forgiveness for her role in the IRS tea party-targeting scandal.
“I didn’t do anything wrong,” Lerner said in her first press interview since the scandal broke 16 months ago. “I’m proud of my career and the job I did for this country.”
Lerner, who sat down with POLITICO in an exclusive two-hour session, has been painted in one dimension: as a powerful bureaucrat scheming with the Obama administration to cripple right-leaning nonprofits. Interviews with about 20 of her colleagues, friends and critics and a survey of emails and other IRS documents, however, reveal a much more complicated figure than the caricature she’s become in the public eye.
The portrait that emerges shows Lerner is, indeed, fierce, unapologetic and perhaps even tone-deaf when she says things that show her Democratic leanings. She had a quick temper and may have intimidated co-workers who could have helped her out of this mess. It’s easy to see how Republicans have seized on the image of a devilish figure cracking down on conservative nonprofits.
“We followed the trail where it leads, and we saw it lead to Lois Lerner,” House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said at a hearing Thursday. “She refers with disdain to conservatives; she’s an active liberal; and it’s clear her actions were set out to be detrimental to conservatives.”
The record of Lois Lerner’s wrongdoing at the IRS is now irrefutable. Not only did she target conservatives, but she broke the Federal Records Act in the coverup of her actions.
There has to be a strategic reason why she’s speaking up now, but I couldn’t begin to guess what that might be.
They’re desperate to save the planet! Well, except for the waterways, which they apparently care nothing about.
from New York Post:
Manhattan’s flood of green protesters had climate-change skeptics seeing red Sunday.
“Their love for the Earth is so real, they couldn’t even use a trash can,” tweeted a disgusted @chelsea_elisa, along with a photo of an overflowing trash can in Manhattan, after tens of thousands of marchers invaded the city on fleets of smog-producing buses.
David Kreutzer, a research fellow at the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation, shared a similar photo of the marchers’ refuse trashing the city’s streets.
“Somehow this doesn’t seem too green 2me,” Kreutzer tweeted.
He and other critics of the People’s Climate March called the protesters hypocrites for wasting paper and burning fossil fuel in getting to the big event.
“The hypocrisy varies from person to person,” economist Kreutzer, 61, told The Post. “The ones that fly in on private jets are the most hypocritical.”
He was referring to celebrity A-listers who joined Sunday’s march.
Stars such as Leo DiCaprio and Mark Ruffalo, an outspoken opponent of fracking, paraded through Midtown with people from around the country.
Compare this to Tea Party events like the ones that Glenn Beck has organized where attendees actually made a point to clean up all the trash before they left.
How do you waste $22 TRILLION dollars? Yes, that’s Trillion with a capital T. It’s easy…just get the government to do it for you.
from Washington Times:
This year marks the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon Johnson’s launch of the War on Poverty. In January 1964, Johnson declared “unconditional war on poverty in America.” Since then, the taxpayers have spent $22 trillion on Johnson’s war. Adjusted for inflation, that’s three times the cost of all military wars since the American Revolution.
Last year, government spent $943 billion providing cash, food, housing and medical care to poor and low-income Americans. (That figure doesn’t include Social Security or Medicare.) More than 100 million people, or one third of Americans, received some type of welfare aid, at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient. If converted into cash, this spending was five times what was needed to eliminate all poverty in the United States.
The U.S. Census Bureau has just released its annual poverty report. The report claims that in 2013, 14.5 percent of Americans were poor. Remarkably, that’s almost the same poverty rate as in 1967, three years after the War on Poverty started. How can that be? How can government spend $9,000 per recipient and have no effect on poverty?
In the process, we’ve created hundreds of millions of welfare-dependents. It’s a sad state of affairs, and honestly, any arguments that welfare lifts people out of poverty should have been put to rest already. Welfare doesn’t work. The only the the government can do to help lift people out of poverty is get out of the way and provide greater liberty for individuals and the free market to work.
That’s right. Obama flew to his golf game, and you, the taxpayer, paid for his flight and all the Secret Service agents and entourage it took to get him there.
This was golf round number 196 for Obama.
New York City is always a cornucopia of liberal insanity, but today it was especially so. Some media outlets are claiming 400,000 people marched to demand action on the climate change, and boy were there some looneys in the bunch.
from Time Magazine:
For demonstrator Favianna Rodriguez, climate change is inextricable from social issues like feminism and immigration policy. To protest a “culture of hypersexuality,” she marched topless, with yellow butterfly stickers over each nipple.
Rodriguez works with CultureStrike, an organization that supports the arts movement around immigration, but she helped design signs for the Climate March because she says climate change is an example of social inequality.
“The destruction we’re facing has been wrought under male leadership, and women and children are disproportionately affected,” she said. “Addressing climate change is going to require a very strong shift in leadership, and require us to include the vision of women and youth.”
These people definitely haven’t been reading this website, or they’d know the science definitely is not settled. The whole debate is rediculously politicized and not at all about actual science, and you can tell that right off the bat by the supposed “solutions” to the problem: taxes. That’s always what liberals turn to as the answer. More taxes and less freedom. No thanks.
UPDATE: More crazies via Weasel Zippers…
Of course the communists were there.
I really don’t know. How could you be?
Yeah, I’m pretty sure that has nothing to do with science. There’s a word for this that I can’t quite think of…
The race baiters are simply not winning the public opinion war on the Washington Redskins. The name is not offensive to the vast majority of fans, and it doesn’t appear that any amount of media bullying and shaming is going to change that.
from Washington Examiner:
Virginia, home to several active Native American tribes from the confederacy once ruled by Pocahontas’ father, overwhelmingly supports the Washington Redskins keeping its name, according to a new poll.
The support is also bipartisan, and has the strong backing among African-Americans and women.
Overall, 71 percent of voters support keeping the name, while 21 percent want it changed, according the poll released Friday by the Wason Center for Public Policy at Christopher Newport University. What’s more, 68 percent said the name Redskins is not offensive to Native Americans, while 23 percent said it is.
Liberals in Congress, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, have challenged the name, calling it racist. Some are even considering punishing the NFL if team owner Daniel Snyder doesn’t drop it.
Poll after poll have found wide support for the Redskins name.
The Wason Center poll is important because it focused on much of the team’s support area, Virginia, home to two Redskins training facilities. It is also a state where residents have a great affection, awareness and give much attention to the Native American population. It is a state with rich Native American history, being the home of Pocahontas.
But it is also a politically-divided state and the poll found one thing they are united on: The ‘Skins. Just 9 percent prefer the Dallas Cowboys, the team’s rival.
“It’s hard to find 71 percent of Virginia voters agreeing on anything,” said Quentin Kidd, director of the Wason Center for Public Policy. “But support for the Redskins’ name clearly draws together people of different political stripes who would otherwise be at crossed swords, like it draws together members of the general assembly from different parties.”
You don’t sing “Hail to the Redskins” if you mean the term as an insult. For Redskins fans, the name is a point of pride. They ARE the redskins.
If you’ve got a problem with the name, it more likely you’re the racist than the fans of the football team.
Stories like this make me proud to live in Tennessee. These bold high school girls are standing up to the bullies at the ACLU who seek to infringe upon their 1st Amendment right to pray in public.
After Oneida High School found out they had to drop the prayer from their football games, many in the community felt they were missing something. The change came after pressure and a letter from the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, or ACLU.
One group couldn’t let that stand. That group has one of the biggest voices during a football game. It’s the cheerleading squad.
Kevin Acres sits in the booth for every Oneida High School home game. This year, his repertoire will be missing something— the pregame prayer.
"Far as I know we have been playing football here since 1930 and been praying ever since," said Acres.
A couple of years ago, the ACLU asked schools to stop announcing prayers over the PA, but Oneida bucked the order and kept the prayer in the pre-game.
"We just felt as long as no one here locally complained, we can continue to do it," said Acres.
That went on until this season. The school started feeling pressure from outside groups to end that religious tradition, so they replaced it with a moment of silence.
"I heard the moment of silence, but it was kind of a sick feeling in my stomach," said head football coach Tony Lambert.
In this moment, Acres gave people a choice.
"During our moment of silence, if you want to say a prayer, that would be perfectly fine," said Acres.
Asia Canada is a cheerleader for Oneida. She and her squad felt a moment of silence wasn’t enough, so they took action.
"He called for the moment of silence and I started off, ‘Our Father who art in heaven’ and everyone joined in," said Canada.
Even the visiting team’s cheerleaders and fans joined in.
"When they started saying it, the crowd started saying the Lord’s prayer. And by the time the prayer was over with, the entire stadium was saying it," said Acres.
And it has become a tradition before every home game; the cheerleaders lead the prayer, not over the PA, but with their own voices.
What a fantastic story! Adult leaders could learn something from these cheerleaders’ boldness. If more school districts would respond with actions like these when the ACLU or one of the atheist groups threatens their 1st Amendment rights, they would eventually get the message that their bully tactics won’t work anymore.
Talk about no good deed going unpunished. Good grief! This is the kind of nonsense our kids are learning from public school.
An eighth grade student from Weaverville Elementary School got a detention slip for sharing his school prepared lunch Tuesday.
Kyle Bradford, 13, shared his chicken burrito with a friend who didn’t like the cheese sandwich he was given by the cafeteria.
Bradford didn’t see any problem with sharing his food.
"It seemed like he couldn’t get a normal lunch so I just wanted to give mine to him because I wasn’t really that hungry and it was just going to go in the garbage if I didn’t eat it," said Bradford.
But the Trinity Alps Unified School District has regulations that prohibit students from sharing their meals.
The policies set by the district say that students can have allergies that another student may not be aware of.
Tom Barnett, the Superintendent of the Trinity Alps Unified School District says that hygiene issues also come into play when banning students from sharing meals.
"We have a policy that prohibits students from exchanging meals. Of course if students are concerned about other students not having enough to eat we would definitely want to consider that, but because of safety and liability we cannot allow students to actually exchange meals," said Barnett.
Bradford’s mother Sandy Bradford thinks that her son did the right thing by sharing his lunch. She also believes that it isn’t up to the school to discipline her son for good manners.
And so, instead of learning manners, this kid will learn from school to be selfish, germaphobic, how to add 2+2 in 15 steps.