Guys, this is the age of information....you should try and gain information...might help you.

First Saul Alinsky was an activist. He only talked and wrote about bringing down governments and society in the name of the people. FACT is in his book prior to Rules For Radicals, Reveille for Radicals he is pretty clear that all he wants is NO government.

A few quotes and I will tell you although I doubt any of you care, if you want to know about this man, do some reading. He was the best organizer ever. He was a good man if you judge only by his wanting to help the oppressed, but all of his works simply leave the people he "saves" in a vacuum,

He has been studied by BOTH parties and in all political science courses. Most advocates understand the limits to following him. He was the master community organizer..now those few quotes...

First, about Ms Clinton..he thesis is public now if you really want to look and read it....

"The thesis offered a critique of Alinsky's methods as largely ineffective, all the while describing Alinsky's personality as appealing. The thesis sought to fit Alinsky into a line of American social activists, including Eugene V. Debs, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Walt Whitman. Written in formal academic language, the thesis concluded that "[Alinsky's] power/conflict model is rendered inapplicable by existing social conflicts" and that Alinsky's model had not expanded nationally due to "the anachronistic nature of small autonomous conflict."[1]

In the acknowledgements and end notes of the thesis, Rodham thanked Alinsky for two interviews and a job offer. She declined the latter, saying that "after spending a year trying to make sense out of [Alinsky's] inconsistency, I need three years of legal rigor." Rodham, an honors student at Wellesley, received an A grade on the thesis.[1]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillar..._senior_thesis

"The problem with the Alinsky method is that the end game is amorphous; the end game is the acquisition of power but little is said of what to do with that power once acquired. The core of Alinsky's method is destruction, destruction of the "system" that allows a disparity of wealth. There is no discussion of what is to replace this system once it is brought down. However, there is little doubt that Alinsky's idea of a better "system" is one that brings forced equivalence or Marxism. Fundamentally, the struggle to get power is the essence of Alinsky, what to do with the power once acquired is another matter altogether."


Just a moment...

A link to his words from his first book...a nice summary...

Reveille for Radicals by Saul Alinsky

And by the way, he has also been studied by the White Supremecy groups who still to this day think they can make it work.

Why would anyone object to our leaders using it to perection....from one of the links above...

"“Change” is both the tool and the goal, but it is rarely defined in any way that is not strictly local and economic; better housing for the poor, better economic opportunity, better wages, better municipal services, etc. However, at the national level "change" is left undefined. In fact it seems, the process of change itself, not the implementation of "change," is the goal.
This is amoral political agitation that appears to be about something positive but is really about deconstruction. Once the institutions of "oppression" that require "change" are destroyed, there is no plan delineated by Alinsky (nor his current crop of followers) as to what will replace them."


If you limit your knowledge of Alinsky to the commandments then you do not and will not understand Alinsky.