The US Senate just rejected the proposed budget of Barack Hussein Obama by a vote of 97 to 0.

That is correct. All Democrats and all republicans in the Senate rejected the spending plans proposed by Obama. The Ryan budget fared better than the Obama budget.

Timothy P. Carney made the following comments in the Washington Examiner on May 26, 2011:

“Obama spent two years pretending to battle special interests, all while institutionalizing bank bailouts, letting drug companies and insurance companies write healthcare reform, handing out trillions in subsidies to tech and green energy companies, supporting ethanol subsidies (production of ethanol increased the cost of corn and associated food products), giving tax dollars to failed automakers, granting special breaks to politically connected labor unions (like for teachers and exemptions for Obamacare), and setting off a feeding frenzy on K Street. Americans see that the politically connected are thriving at everyone else’s expenses while Obama calls for common sacrifice.

… Obama shattered records in raising funds from Wall Street, big Pharma, and tech companies like Google and MicroSoft. Obama’s $1 million haul from Goldman Sacks (recipient of a special contract to process all Fed transactions and home of Ben Bernanke) in 2008 was more than any politician had raised from a single company …”

Obama is a bought man. He is a puppet. He sold out the common tax payer in America. He lacks any executive experience. And he lacks any executive integrity because he never was an executive. He was a community organizer.

From Rules for Conservatives (due to be published at the end of the summer, 2011):

The Ideology of Change.

Saul Alinsky: he (the community organizer) does not have a fixed truth – truth to him is relative and changing.

The objective of the radical is change. It does not matter from what or to what. The objective is change. Without causing change, there is no need and no justification for the community organizer.

Saul Alinsky points out that the community organizer is not interested in political ideology. The organizer is interested in power, and that power is gained through promoting change. If the society is black, then change it to white. If the society says yes, then teach it to say no. The implementation of change provides power to those who lead the effort. And power is the objective… not any specific ideology.

Let me add that change is both a noun and a verb. While the objective might be change (a noun), the act of change is a verb …. change this or change that. Change as a verb is action. It grabs the imagination. It causes followers to act blindly just because of being part of “changing” something. To Alinsky and radicals, change is the ideology. Right or wrong, change provides power. And all that matters to the community organizer is how to seize power. Radicals seize power in the process of promoting change …. any change.

What change was promised in the 2008 election? None was really defined. Problems with healthcare, financial organizations, and the economy were highlighted to stir up the “Have-nots” and the “Want-Mores,” but the solutions encapsulated by the word “change” were vague other than to close Gitmo and get out of Iraq within a year … of which neither was done within the year following the 2008 election as promissed.

Change was sold. And change was bought. Change is the real ideology of radicals and community organizers. Any change that can justify their existence. Any change that can provide more power to them.

Of Means and Ends.

Saul Alinsky: Does this particular end justify this particular means?

So many of us have been taught, especially by religious teachings, that the end does not justify the means. Saul Alinsky instructs radicals to throw out that concept. He clearly states that “the means-and-end moralists or non-doers always wind up on their ends without any means.”

To Saul Alinsky, not only does the end justify the means, but winning justifies anything and everything. The radical, the community organizer, must use a value system that eliminates a moral conscience in order to seize power from those who have it. All actions must be fair game depending on the particular end. You would not kill someone to win a baseball game (that particular end would not justify the means), but you might threaten to kill a family member of a judge to stop that judge from ruling against you and/or your cause.

Lying? No big deal if it helps accomplish the objective of seizing power.