The opportunity for them to embrace a teachable moment so as to explain, in layman’s terms, why the country has suffered under the current administration’s policies, and why their proposed platforms bring relief to individuals and business owners across the political ideological divide, is slowly fading into the history books as “what could have been.” It doesn’t have to be this way, but, then, the proprietary minions of the inside-the-beltway GOP establishment don’t much care for the notions of we “fly-over” types. They know all about campaign strategy. Just ask them.

If avoiding the alienation of the electorate’s goodwill wasn’t enough of a reason not to go so personally and caustically negative, there is the notion that in doing so a great amount of damage would be done to each of the candidates, so much so – and for no other reason than to win the nomination at all cost – that the Obama campaign would be handed a full arsenal of negative talking-point ammunition for the General Election campaign. Armed with this free opposition research, already tested for its maximum destructive potency, and close to a $1 billion campaign war chest, David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, David Plouffe and Roberts Gibbs could get a mentally challenged three-toed tree sloth elected over the Republican challenger.

And while there is merit to the argument that the negative attack campaigning is “honing” the eventual candidate’s ability to confront the Obama campaign’s inevitable onslaught of attack ads and smear tactics, the fact of the matter is this: Axelrod, Jarrett, Plouffe, Gibbs and President Obama himself are infinitely more acclimated and proficient in the ways of Saul Alinsky than anyone on the Right side of the aisle, short of David Horowitz. The idea that any Republican candidate can compete in the arena of Alinsky negative political campaigning is a reality only in the realm of the absurd. Only a megalomaniac of a Republican campaign strategist would even entertain such a ridiculous notion.

Proof positive that the attack and smear campaign strategy currently being employed by the GOP primary candidates is doing more harm than good comes in the poll numbers. Yes, Mitt Romney’s attack ads aided his campaign in Iowa against Newt Gingrich. And yes, Newt Gingrich’s attack ads helped him in South Carolina. And again, attack ads helped Mr. Romney beat Mr. Gingrich in Florida – even though it cost him close to $17 million to achieve that victory. But, in the end, it was Rick Santorum who – without spending millions of dollars – swept the caucuses in Minnesota, Colorado and Missouri. Out of all of the Republican candidates, Santorum has waged the least negative campaign where attacking his fellow Republicans is concerned. I suppose one could go as far as to say that not only does Mr. Santorum believe and adhere to the Ten Commandments, he holds faithful to the “Eleventh Commandment” as well, or, at least better than the others.

But aside from the GOP primary candidates’ poll numbers and approval ratings – and perhaps more importantly, we need to look at what happened to President Obama’s poll numbers while the mainstream media was fixated on the negative campaigning of the GOP primary candidates.

In December of 2011, at the quasi-official onset on the GOP Primary cycle, President Obama’s poll numbers were something that the “axis political powers” of Axelrod, Jarrett, Plouffe and Gibbs were starting to become concerned about. His disapproval rating stood at 51.4 percent while his approval rating was an alarming 43.2 percent. Yet today, in just two and a half short months, Mr. Obama has reversed those numbers. Today, Mr. Obama’s disapproval rating is 47.0 percent and his approvals are at 49.0, according to the RealClearPolitics.com average of the major polls as of February 9, 2012.

Traditionally, negatives, or disapproval ratings – the percentage of people sampled who voice a disapproval of the elected official’s performance – are much harder to turn around than approval ratings. When someone disapproves of the performance of an elected official it takes an incredible amount of “good behavior” on the elected official’s part or an extraordinary event to change that perception. This is also the case with voter turnout. It is always easier to motivate people to turn out at the polls to vote against someone or something. To wit, in 2008 Mr. Obama’s supporters were more motivated to vote against President George W. Bush than they were convinced by the obtuse and undefined notion of “hope and change,” a recycled campaign slogan from the Clinton campaigns.

It can be easily established that Mr. Obama didn’t execute a change of agenda to affect “good behavior”:

▪ His performance in Middle East diplomacy has been dismal; his alienation of the Israelis has resulted in a movement to the Right among the American Jewish voters.

▪ The American voter has finally come to the realization that the Obama Administration’s Labor Department has been “cooking the books” where the unemployment numbers are concerned; true unemployment, when those who have given up looking for work out of exasperation are calculated in, stands at 22.5 percent.

▪ And Mr. Obama has gone out of his way to offend not only Catholics with an incredible transgression against religious liberties in his contraception mandate, a mandate aimed at Catholic universities, hospitals and philanthropic organizations, he has motivated the whole of the religious community in the United States to rally against this element of Obamacare.

So, with the idea that Mr. Obama has turned his disapprovals around because he executed “good behavior” disproved, we can only surmise that something else affected this dramatic turn-around; something extraordinary. Now, what took place between last December and today? Could it have been Republican primary votes and caucuses in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida, Minnesota, Missouri and Colorado? Could it have been millions of dollars spent on ads ripping our Republican candidates apart; ads that smeared the records and characters of those who would run against Mr. Obama in November?

As I stated in an earlier article on this very subject:

“Mr. Gingrich, you’re a professor (and not a fake activist professor, like the one currently inhabiting the Oval Office)…seize the teachable moment to explain to the American people why Capitalism works, why limited government works, why American entrepreneurship is the best in the world when allowed to be free…

“Mr. Romney, seize the teachable moment. Abandon the negative campaigning and explain to the American people why Capitalism is good; why venture Capitalism serves a great purpose; and why redistribution of wealth only creates a non-motivated society that eventually devolves into the Atlas Shrugged storyline.”

I meant it then and, with the reality that this ridiculous and self-serving negative campaigning is literally aiding Mr. Obama’s approval ratings, I mean it even more now. Our candidates – Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul – have a golden opportunity to inform and educate the American citizenry on some of the most basic and critical elements of Americanism; elements blurred by the bribery entitlement mentality of the Progressive Movement and, especially, the Obama Administration. Pray tell, what do you really think this underwater mortgage homeowner bailout is all about? Why now? Think about it!!

There comes a time when even politicians have to come to the realization that they have an obligation to do what is right for the country before they do what is advantageous for themselves. That time, for the Republican Primary participants, is now. It is one thing to debate differences where issues and ideology are concerned. We the People expect and deserve that from those vying for public office. It is quite another to employ, narcissistically, the tactics of slash-and-burn politics for the sole reason of “winning.” We the People, the nation, in the memories of the Framers and the blood of true Revolutionaries – our children’s’ futures – do not deserve that.

Obama's Alinsky-Style Power Analysis

New York Times columnist Jodi Kantor’s book, The Obamas, tries very, very hard to paint a sympathetic picture of her eponymous subject matter–she gets her digs in against the supposedly racist tea party everywhere she can–but every once and a while the truth cracks through. Take this interview at the Texas Book Festival for example:

The Obamas often don’t mingle freely – they often just stand behind the rope and reach out to shake hands but he sees Jerry Kellman, his old community organizing boss, and he’s so happy to see him he reaches across and pulls him in. And Obama says, “I’m still organizing.” It was a stunning moment and when [Kellman] told me the story, it had echoes of what Valerie Jarrett had told me once – “The senator still thinks of himself as a community organizer.” How fully has this guy resolved himself to what he’s really doing? On the one hand, he’s passing these backroom deals to pass health care reform, but on the other he’s telling his old boss he’s still a community organizer. I think that plays into what will happen in the 2012 race.

Jerry Kellman was Barack Obama’s former boss, a student of Saul Alinsky’s in the 1970s, and a permanent fixture of the progressive left in Chicago.

While some have downplayed Obama’s connections to Saul Alinsky, Kellman’s link is pretty easy to discern.

Here he is talking about his relationship with left-wing activism, Alinksy and Obama in Illinois Issues, a student magazine, for example:

Kellman arrived in Chicago again in 1970, this time to stay for the long haul. He began an education in community organizing at a school run by Saul Alinsky, the late Chicagoan considered by many as the modern practice’s father.

Alinsky was a radical, but his method of reaching the core of people’s needs and concerns through one-on-one interviews influenced many organizers, perhaps most notably Obama.

In 1988, Obama wrote an article for Illinois Issues, “Problems and promise in the inner city,” about his experiences as an organizer in and around Chicago. In it, he describes how nowhere was the promise of organizing more apparent than in the traditional black churches. The piece later became part of the book After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois.

…

Kellman drew a lot from Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation, including methods to analyze how power is obtained, and used this knowledge while taking on the mortgage banking industry on Chicago’s west side, in addition to other endeavors.

Not surprisingly, Kellman has a signed copy of Barack Obama’s Dreams of My Father on his desk, with the message, “To Jerry, a friend and a mentor.”

Some of us wish Obama had different friends and mentors.

According to reports published by the National Staff Organization – a group made up of NEA and state affiliate union staffers:

“Fifteen states are considered to be financially distressed because of membership loss and their very survival is in jeopardy. And because of financial hardship, 41 state executives are on NEA’s payroll instead of being paid by their state. Two states—Indiana and South Carolina—remain under an NEA trusteeship.”

Teachers union accounts are buying red pens by the box these days.

NSO President Chuck Agerstrand called it a lesson in “trickle-down economics.”

Or maybe it’s just “trickle-down karma.”

It’s ironic that the very same financial problems unions have created for government schools – through collectively bargained contracts that give annual, automatic pay raises and world class benefits – are now appearing in their own organizations.

The teacher unions’ laser-like focus on left wing politics means that state legislatures – many of which are currently controlled by Tea Party Republicans – have no incentive to help rescue them.

The unions’ chickens have come home to roost, as the saying goes.

What’s the solution?  Creating a “culture of organizing,” according to the NSO, which wants to boost the number of dues payers and thus soothe the financial problems.  So prior to the 7-day Caribbean cruise, staffers participated in a three-day retreat to learn how to better organize.

The staffers studied organizing theory charts and read quotes from Saul Alinsky. The National Education Association is now teaching an organizing method the Service Employees International Union has been using as well: “Constant Organizing Goals.”

In a 2010 PowerPoint document, SEIU described the COG method this way:

“[It] requires unions to build public relationships involving a quid pro quo interchange driven by self-interest and guaranteed by mutual accountability.”

This underscores the notion that the union’s strategy is to meet its needs first and not seek what is in the best interest of students or taxpayers.

The NEA’s bargaining strategy method has these four steps:

1. Educate
2. Agitate
3. Escalate
4. Evaluate

The further into the process, the theory goes, the more power is built.  But the power, of course, is for high salaries, better benefits, and fewer responsibilities.  That’s great for the adults, but doesn’t do much for the students.

But after all – it’s not about the students.  Somebody has to bail water out of the sinking union boat and it’s not going to be students.  Teachers, grab a bucket.

No, Mitt Romney is not a racist. As I researched history, over the years I have come to find that the opposite is the case. The Romney Family has a legacy of pro-civil rights, progressive activism and an understanding of how poverty and inequality can hurt people.

This portrait would jibe with Mitt Romney’s image as a progressive Governor of Massachusetts, while suggesting any serious conversion to conservatism would not only entail a change in viewpoint but a rejection of Mitt’s Father, George — someone he has regularly mentioned as a major influence while campaigning. Taken as a whole, the new information could serve to fuel existing significant doubt amongst an already skeptical conservative base that Romney’s already vague conversion to conservatism is more one of electoral convenience than a principled decision.

During all of this advocacy, his son, Mitt, was evolving as a man. He idolized his father and emulated his legacy. Mitt Romney lived amongst Blacks in metropolitan Detroit. He went to the prestigious Cranbrook School. One of our board members, Claude McDougal, is a fellow alumnus of the school.

Buzzfeed first reported the elder Romney’s connection to Saul Alinsky, along with photos of the two men together, in a report from yesterday.

“I think you ought to listen to Alinsky,” Romney told his white allies, according to T. George Harris’s 1968 book, “Romney’s Way.” “It seems to me that we are always talking to the same people. Maybe the time has come to hear new voices,” he said.

The Progressive Alinsky is infamous and actually toxic on the right. Given George Romney’s endorsement of him, coupled with his acknowledged strong influence on son Mitt, will do little to assure suspicious conservatives concerned about Mitt Romney’s record as a Progressive, including his introduction of RomneyCare in Massachusetts.

The AFL-CIO boss believes the end justifies the means. Breaking the law is acceptable if it advances the cause. Unions should “forget about the law; this is about more than that,” he said at the “Future of Unions” roundtable in Detroit on April 7th.

Like many union leaders, occasionally the slippery Trumka pretends to like capitalism. He supports vigorous enforcement of intellectual property rights, not because he actually believes in them but because his members work in industries that depend on their enforcement. Turning a blind eye to the manufacture of counterfeit machine parts could put union members out of work.

But unlike most high-profile leftists, Trumka doesn’t even make an effort to conceal his radicalism. “Being called a socialist is a step up for me,” he told Bloomberg News in June. In 1994, Trumka proudly accepted the Eugene Debs Award named after the five-time presidential candidate and labor organizer who founded the Socialist Party of America.

As an AFL-CIO executive, Trumka helped to create “Union Summer,” a program for training young people as organizers and political activists. Participants were made to recite a pledge called “Working Class Commitment” that included the Marxist idea “that we [union workers] produce the world’s wealth … [and] will end all oppression.”

Trumka, a mine worker-cum-lawyer, admits he got involved in “the labor movement not because I wanted to negotiate wages,” but “because I saw it as a vehicle to do massive social change to include lots of people.” As he’s climbed the ranks of AFL-CIO leadership, Trumka has moved away from his modest roots. His 2011 compensation package at AFL-CIO totaled $293,750, according to LM-2 disclosure forms on file with the U.S. Department of Labor. Trumka apparently lives in a four-bathroom house assessed at $747,650 in Rockville, MD, a suburb of Washington, D.C.

He helped to turn the AFL-CIO away from boosting wages and improving working conditions. Now, the labor federation focuses on recruiting government workers who benefit from higher tax rates and bigger government, a growing constituency within the Democratic Party. The federation also blackmails employers by generating adverse publicity, harassing investors, and linking arms with the media and radical activists.

While at the helm of the AFL-CIO, Trumka helped repeal a longtime rule that banned Communists and fellow-travelers from leadership positions in the organization and its unions. The move to open the previously patriotic union to subversives delighted the Communist Party USA. “The radical shift in both leadership and policy is a very positive, even historic change,” CPUSA National Chairman Gus Hall said in 1996.

Trumka bears more than a passing resemblance to legendary gangster Al Capone, who ruled Chicagoland with an iron fist during the Prohibition Era.

Like Capone, Trumka stays close to his politicians. Trumka brags about his coziness with the Obama administration. “I’m at the White House a couple times a week – two, three times a week,” he said. “I have conversations every day with someone in the White House or in the administration. Every day.” Soon after being inaugurated, President Obama named Trumka to his Economic Recovery Advisory Board, which is akin to inviting an arsonist to advise on fire safety.

Both Capone and Trumka share an irredeemable corruptness. Capone bought and sold politicians by the dozen, while Trumka has on more than one occasion refused to cooperate with investigations into union corruption. Trumka indicated that he would have invoked the Fifth Amendment if he had been subpoenaed by Congress to testify about money-laundering schemes in 1998. His boss, John Sweeney, covered for him instead.

And like Capone, whose enforcer, Frank Nitti, educated Saul Alinsky in mob management techniques, Trumka uses violence and intimidation to work his will. (My book, Subversion Inc., details the sordid story of Alinsky and Nitti.)

Violence was commonplace when Trumka was president of the AFL-CIO-affiliated United Mine Workers of America from 1982 to 1995. In 1993, he told Illinois UMW members to “kick the shit out of every last” worker who violated the sanctity of his picket lines. Union goons damaged homes, fired gunshots at a mining company’s office, and killed the power supply for a mine, stranding 93 miners below ground.

After a UMW member shot and killed non-union worker Eddie York, eight UMW strikers threw rocks at security guards who came to check on the victim. Trumka not only refused to discipline the hoodlums, but used a metaphor to justify their behavior. “[I]f you strike a match and put your finger in, common sense tells you you’re going to burn your finger,” he said.

Trumka fought a lawsuit filed by York’s widow for four years and then abruptly settled out of court. The legal bargain came when federal prosecutors announced they planned to release evidence from the trial of Jerry Dale Lowe, who was previously convicted on conspiracy and weapons charges related to York’s murder.

Trumka encouraged and approved acts of violence by UMW strikers during a labor dispute in the late 1980s. As Virginia Circuit Court Judge Donald McGlothlin, Jr. declared, “The evidence shows beyond any shadow of a doubt that violent activities are being organized, orchestrated and encouraged by the leadership of this union.”

Of course President Obama is eager to help Trumka push his violent past down the memory hole. The White House website states that in 1990 Trumka received the Labor Responsibility Award from the Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change “[b]ecause he consistently utilized non-violent civil disobedience throughout” strikes. Yasser Arafat’s claim to the Nobel Peace Prize enjoys roughly the same moral legitimacy.

It seems doubtful that Trumka could have gotten away with his shenanigans on the national stage in Capone’s day. But unlike in the Roaring Twenties, today there’s no Eliot Ness to go after Trumka. President Obama would never hire such an investigator and cross such an important friend and political ally.

Trumka has reciprocated by vilifying Obama’s adversaries, including the Tea Party movement that aims to restore fiscal responsibility to government. Sounding like crackpot actress Janeane Garofalo, Trumka says anti-Obama sentiment among voters may be blamed on “right-wing race-haters” who “just can’t get past the idea that there’s something wrong with voting for a black man.”

In the upcoming presidential election cycle, Trumka claims AFL-CIO will be more independent of Democrats because lawmakers in that party haven’t completely implemented Big Labor’s agenda.

“We’re going to use a lot of our money to build structures that work for working people,” he said. “You’re going to see us give less money to build structures for others, and more of our money will be used to build our own structure.”

Trumka is establishing a so-called super PAC that will allow AFL-CIO to pump limitless quantities of cash into politics. The goal is obviously to make sure the Democratic Party and President Obama don’t move rightward during election season next year.

For all we know, Obama told Trumka to do it.

(This article was originally published by Front Page Magazine.)

Matthew Vadum is a senior editor at a conservative watchdog group in Washington, D.C. Vadum’s book on ACORN and its infiltration of the Obama administration was published in May 2011 by WND Books. The book is Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers. Vadum is a nationally recognized expert on the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and has written hundreds of articles on the group and hundreds of blog posts. His groundbreaking research on the organized crime syndicate was praised and cited by Michelle Malkin in her New York Times bestseller, Culture of Corruption. Malkin credits Vadum with being one of two people in the nation with the “foresight and insight in reporting on the [ACORN] story when no one else would.” Vadum’s work is also cited in David Freddoso’s New York Times bestseller The Case Against Barack Obama, Arianna Huffington’s Third World America, John Fund’s Stealing Elections (revised edition), and Peter Schweizer’s Architects of Ruin.

Astro-turfing campaigns can generate big money, and ACORN’s lucrative protest-for-profit program is nothing new. As I note in my book, Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers, ACORN has acquired great expertise in manufacturing so-called grassroots protests.

Left-wing billionaires Herb and Marion Sandler, the founders of World Savings Bank, gave ACORN affiliates close to $11 million to manufacture mobs to protest their competition in subprime mortgage lending. The United Federation of Teachers paid ACORN $500,000 to create a spontaneous uprising against charter schools in Manhattan.

The SEIU-funded Working Families Party, a front group for ACORN, placed a want ad on Craigslist dated Sept. 26. The ad indicates that WFP was recruiting activists to carry out “direct action,” leftist argot for a variety of activities aimed at forcing sociopolitical change.

The line between direct action and violent terrorism can become blurry. Extreme forms of direct action can lead to bodily injury and sometimes death. The labor movement is no stranger to assault and killings. Left-wing activists David Gilbert and Kathy Boudin participated in an attack on an armored car that left two police officers and a security guard dead. Two anarchists tried to disrupt the 2008 GOP convention with Molotov cocktails. The eco-terrorist Sea Shepherd Conservation Society admits both to attacking whaling ships with acid and sinking them.

WFP’s ad is titled, “FIGHT TO HOLD WALLSTREET [sic] ACCOUNTABLE NOW! MAKE A DIFFERNENCE [sic] GET PAID!” It states:

The WFP is seeking immediate hires.

You must be an energetic communicator, with a passion for social and economic justice.

Only outgoing, articulate dedicated, determined candidates will be considered for the positions.

For those candidates that qualify WFP offers substantial paid-training provided by senior leadership, on varied issues such as: advocacy, public speaking, mobilizing, fundraising, networking and organizing. We invest in passionate people with excellent communication skills and a full benefits package is offered to those candidates that qualify. In addition, there is opportunity for advancement and travel to our satellite chapters and out of state affiliates.

This is not a policy job! Through direct action you will be shaping NY state politics for the next 20 years.” [emphasis added]

As previously reported, WFP has been involved in organizing the Occupy Wall Street protests since the beginning.

As radical journalist Laura Flanders reported, WFP organizer Nelini Stamp has “been here since day one and she is part of the organizing team and the outreach team that has managed to bridge the distance between that first day and this day and between the grassroots folks here and the labor movement.” Stamp said the protests are aimed at “trying to change the capitalist system” and bringing “revolutionary changes to the states.”

WFP organizer Matthew Cain also acknowledged the party’s involvement on Oct. 5th and helpfully provided a photograph of party staffers bearing a blue and white WFP banner during a march in lower Manhattan. Across from Foley Square,

several WFP field staff were standing on the steps. For some of the staffers, it was their first time at the square, but for many others they had already spent nights sleeping in the park. Even those who have been there for two weeks or more have not seen their spirits diminished – they’re every bit as committed as they were when they first showed up.

Of course WFP executive director Dan Cantor, a longtime ACORN operative, is pleased with Occupy Wall Street so far. Cantor told supporters in an email that “the spirit of Wisconsin and Tahrir Square is alive and well in New York City.”

Nowadays WFP goes to great lengths to try to convince onlookers that it is separate from ACORN, the disgraced Saul Alinsky-inspired activist group. The shell corporation that ran the 370-plus affiliate strong ACORN network filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy last November, but its state chapters changed their names and continue to operate. The vote-manufacturing nonprofit Project Vote, which used to employ Barack Obama as an organizer, is still in business. So is ACORN Housing, which changed its name to Affordable Housing Centers for America.

But the Working Families Party is ACORN. The minor political party shares an office address with ACORN a mile away from the Brooklyn Bridge. Among the party’s co-founders are ACORN’s former national chief organizer, Bertha Lewis. Her former right-hand man, Democratic National Committee executive director Patrick Gaspard, formerly an SEIU 1199 official and Obama White House political director, also goes way back with the party.

WFP’s confusing, ACORN-like organizational structure has been known to frustrate even the most dedicated investigators, allowing the party to keep some distance from ACORN.

Through the party’s multiple arms, WFP enjoys the “benefits of a political party (legitimacy in voters’ minds, ballot line), a non-profit (tax-exemptions, uncapped donation limits and tax deductions) and a for-profit (no disclosure requirements, ability to collect fees backed by taxpayer-supported matching funds from candidates),” notes Edward-Isaac Dovere of New York’s City Hall News.

The party has sister WFP-branded parties in Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Oregon, South Carolina, and Vermont. Like ACORN, WFP advocates more government spending, higher taxes, universal government-run healthcare, campaign finance restrictions, free universal higher education, rent control, same-sex marriage, an immigration amnesty for illegal aliens, and “greening” the economy by creating heavily subsidized union jobs in the energy sector.

Meanwhile, new front groups created by ACORN are also deeply involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement. They include New York Communities for Change, Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, Action United (Pennsylvania), Organize Now (Florida), and New England United for Justice (Massachusetts).

The protests, which have spread to several large U.S. cities, are part of what ACORN’s neo-communist founder Wade Rathke calls an “anti-banking jihad.” ACORN allies are also involved in the protests, which aim to destabilize the nation’s financial system. SEIU board member Stephen Lerner said he wants to “bring down the stock market” through a campaign of disruption. He said last week that SEIU plans to terrorize bank executives at their homes.

With paid professional assistance from ACORN, Lerner’s work has become that much easier.

(This article was originally published by Front Page Magazine.)

* * * * *

Americans need to know that ACORN is restructuring in time to help re-elect President Obama in 2012. Obama used to work for ACORN and represented the group in court as its lawyer. These radical leftists who use the brutal, in-your-face, pressure tactics of Saul Alinsky want to destroy America as we know it and will use any means to do it.

Buy my book Subversion Inc. at Amazon and in Barnes & Noble and Books-A-Million bookstores. Visit the Subversion Inc. Facebook page. Follow me on Twitter.

However, in the future, should the Prime Minister desire another sit-down with the President of the United States, he’ll have the option of purchasing a roll of tickets for the “Sometime soon, can we meet for dinner/Reelect Barack Obama” raffle.

Before the “Sometime Soon, Can We Meet For Dinner?” initiative, Netanyahu didn’t stand a chance in hell of getting Barack to sit through an entire conversation.  Now, at least Bibi has as much opportunity as anyone else willing to contribute five bucks.

Now, if by chance Bibi’s ticket is pulled out of the spinning drum, Obama, albeit under duress, will be obliged to endure eating blintzes and can no longer escape a Jerusalem settlement discussion using dinner getting cold as an excuse.

The President of the United States selling dinner raffle tickets may indicate that the man is forlorn and in need of genuine companionship. Begging to be shown love by the people who just three years ago were showering him with confetti and weeping at the mere mention of his name, frankly, is both “creepy” and pathetic.

Barack Obama’s dine-with-me/love-me idea started when the 2012 reelection campaign sent out an email with this subject line: “Sometime soon, can we meet for dinner?” Why would an American president ask such an unusual question? Obviously, to goad supporters into donating money in hopes of winning face time with Mr. Lonely.

The email also says, “So whenever I can, I want to take the opportunity to meet you.” Wouldn’t a message like that coming from anyone besides the President alert Americans trained to be careful online that it may be time to call in the authorities?

Nevertheless, Obama’s endearing words reminded voters that he and they are more than just political allies.  The President said “Supporters like you are reason I’m here, and that the values we share have always made our organization more than just a political campaign.”

Honestly, the President’s fundraising/supper-with-a-supporter email was more like an awkward love letter than a powerful politician’s solicitation for money.

That aside, winning benefactors will have a once-in-a-lifetime chance to experience what Bibi Netanyahu was denied, which is to enjoy dinner and a chat with Barack Obama and be thanked “in person,” something a former Democrat president, who shall remain nameless, provided for free.

In addition, the email updated constituents on Obama’s summer meeting with volunteers from around the nation, which could be liberal code for ACORN workers and Black Panther poll watchers.  The online correspondence also expressed the President’s heartfelt desire “to talk one on one with the people…taking ownership of [the] campaign and [to] connect with the work going on every day in neighborhoods across the country.”

Try as he might to disguise it, Barack sounded as if the real reason for the odd fundraising style, besides being starved for the cheering displays of adoration that he’s become accustomed to, might be that the President is unable to pry himself away from his love of community organizing.

If Barry really wants to inspire community involvement, for an extra $2 the President could suggest a secondary raffle for a chance to win his very own well-worn, personally autographed copy of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.”

Moreover, and not to be overly critical, but based on some of the high class dinners Barry has treated friends to in the past, like the time he took Dmitry Medvedev to Ray’s Hell Burger, the $5 may not go directly into the campaign coffers – but could be used to cover the cost of the date.

Let’s remember, the President has tried the raffle thing before, but from the looks of the polls, even enjoying a Ray’s B.I.G. Poppa with Big Poppa doesn’t seem to be turning things around. Even still, Obama said he wants to “keep doing these dinners throughout the campaign.” With the economy in the tank and the line at the unemployment office getting longer every day, and with more and more fast food restaurants taking food stamps, should the President of the United States really be spending time supping with sycophants like the Obama Girl?

In the end, history has proven that dining with the Prime Minister of Israel holds little sway in Obama’s world.  Instead, it’s things like raffle dinners that sets Obama’s campaign apart, because he believes “dinners like these are how [he] will continue to put people at the heart of [his] campaign — and prove that [he doesn’t] need checks from Washington lobbyists or special-interest PAC money to win an election.”

However, what Obama does “need” are $5 donations squeezed out of inexplicably loyal supporters who otherwise don’t have two nickels to rub together.

Couple the dine-with-me email with Obama imploring cheering crowds in North Carolina to prove their love for him by passing his jobs bill, and the whole sorry state of affairs gets even more peculiar.  Crying out for dinner dates and hollering “If you love me, you got [sic] to help me pass this bill,” is either pure desperation, unbridled narcissism, or both, sending the situation from the realm of the strange into the annals of the absurd.

However, there’s always a bright side. The next time Bibi Netanyahu is in a room with Obama and the conversation morphs into a “hazing in stages,” the Prime Minister knows he can distract Barry from stomping off to dinner by changing the subject and proposing an idea for yet another raffle, where for just 50 cents unlimited winners get to give America’s love-deprived President a big smooch.