A fine perceptive analysis.

Great article.

Class warfare is the  heart of their arguments (haves and have nots).

Think about this please: 

Our tax code currently nurtures class warfare by mandating redistribution of wealth to the have nots through a 67,000 page tax code based on income.

Naturally the have nots, basing their theories on income, look to the tax code as the deciding factor whether the "rich" are giving enough.

Take away this denial to freedom, the 16th amendment and implement a National Sales Tax (NST) on only New Retail Sales instead.

Supply a prebate check according to family size to every American, rich or poor, to completely offset the taxes on the first $2000 a month of new retail purchases and repeal all payroll withholding. (Equal treatment under the law completely erasing class distinctions)

Effects:

1.) Erasing Class rhetoric from our tax code and the Democratic agenda: The have nots keep all of their paycheck (no payroll withholding) + they receive a prebate check at the beginning of each month, not the end) The have nots seeing a limo drive by know that this "rich" man is paying 23% tax on the limo that is rented or purchased, because they also know there are no loophole exemptions, subsidies, depreciation tables, deductions, that the rich can use to lessen their "burden of responsibility".

2.)No other country has completely used new retail sales as revenue gathering instead of income taxes. That is our niche! Every company, foreign or domestic, would be faced with investing in any other country and pay for the compliance and lobbying associated with all tax systems that us "exceptions" to choose "winners and losers" by taxing income, to investing here in the U.S. with NO threat to their income savings and investments. No more offshore accounts or subsidiaries would have to be supported. How many hundreds of billions of dollars would flood back into the country? 

3.) Gain tax revenue by capturing the 300 Billion -1 Trillion dollar underground economy. That means the cash only economy. Those drug dealers purchasing bling cars and bling homes would finally be paying their 23% tax on bling. Ahhhhhh.. how sweet it is

4.) Introduces choice back into our tax system where if I/ we choose to purchase a used house, used car, used "anything", we don't pay the Federal Government to redistribute our wealth.

Read the facts and then think about the advantages before you write the words "regressive to the poor and middle class" or any of the other misinformation out there.

You'll only be proven to be agenda driven by the have nots.... They have nots are greedy too and there are a lot more have nots than haves. So which is the greater danger to freedom. The greedy poor or the greedy rich? Rhetorical, don't answer.. 

Both have been living "high off the hog" since the passage of  the 16th amendment.

You want change? You want your freedom back? You want to decrease the class warfare jargon from the left? You want all of your paycheck to do with as you wish? You want to return to the principle of our founding fathers (federalist paper 21)? 

Really? 

If you don't go to www.fairtax.org and join this fight, you're only blowing smoke about how much you want freedom back. 

I have no time to respond to you.. ..

Freedom first, then we can talk about other things..

 Obama exists because of an American electorate which has become amoral.  Obama is proof.

Obama's link to Wright, Ayers, Flager, Alinsky, Cloward-Piven and his insipid secrecy are filiments of a disease invfecting America. This disease has become the greatest and most successful attack on America ever completed.

We are in a war few can acknowledge.

Our Political Saviors - bigeye.com/alinsky

This article is absolutely superb, but unless I missed something, it does not mention the root historical catalyst of the political/cultural phenomenon that has spawned the likes of Obama:  Vietnam.

In this war, we were supporting an admittedly corrupt and undemocratic government against an even worse adversary.  This was not unlike Korea, except that the South Koreans had more motivation to defend themselves, and the North Koreans lacked a military leader with the singular genius of General Giap.

While we wring our hands over the corruption we see in the Karzai government of Afghanistan today, for example, many forget that South Korea was an authoritarian dictatorship for decades after the war, before evolving into the democracy they are today.  Chiang Kai Shek ruled Taiwan with brutal repression, until similar changes ultimately occurred there.  This is not to say that we should turn a blind eye to the abuses of dictators who would be our allies, but neither should we expect Jeffersonian democracy overnight. 

In the case of South Vietnam, after the battle of Ap Bac in 1963, perhaps a good case can be made that we should have walked out and redrew our local Cold War defensive perimeter at the Thai frontier.  But for a variety of reasons, some more noble than others, we decided to stay and fight.  By any reasonable measure, we should have won.  We nearly did.  But we were undone, because while we concentrated on the clash of arms in a two-dimensional sense, General Giap expanded the battle to include a new dimension of media-driven impressionism combined with utter cold-blooded ruthlessness.

Everything that is being done to Israel today, was done to us in Vietnam.  This is no coincidence.  Yasser Arafat traveled to Hanoi in the late 1960s to get advice on how to defeat a materially more powerful foe.  Giap's writings on this subject have been translated into Arabic and are widely circulated among the Palestinians to this day.

Only today, the Arabs have greatly expanded on what Giap had devised, having petrodollar funding and a compliant media that he only could have dreamed of.  But I digress.

Back to the original point, in Vietnam, we were fighting an utterly ruthless totalitarian enemy who used child warriors, suicide bombers, and civilian-clothed terrorist/combatants who hid among the general population so as to deliberately increase casualties among the same so as to give us a black eye in world opinion, and who very deliberately manipulated the media and academic circles in the U.S. and the West generally so as to turn public opinion against the war in these socieities.  Sound familiar, everybody?

We trounced the Viet Cong in the wake of Tet in 1968.  They were ready to sue for peace, until they saw the fruits of their disinformation efforts among the Western media as to how this battle was reported.  We pretty much pummeled them into nothing during the two Linebacker campaigns of 1972, especially the second one, but even after the peace that ensued, they counted on our broken will to ensure that we would do nothing when they flouted the agreement and invaded anyway.  And they were right on the mark.

Despite what impressions some may have, the counter-culture student left in the U.S. was never really that big.  Many may have adopted the costumes, but the hard core believers were small in number.  But their views appeared to be validated by our defeat in Vietnam.  For, in the singularly innocent American psyche, the "good guys" are supposed to win in any war.  Since we lost, we could not have been the "good guys".  We deserved to lose.  It logically followed then, that the murderous bastards in Hanoi must have been the "good guys".  We simply could not accept, as a nation, that we were in the right - at least more in the right than our opposition - we could have won, and we walked away anyway.  So, in order to digest the indigestible, we had to make the North Vietnamese regime in Hanoi into a somehow noble "David" that defeated the American "Goliath", we turned black into white.  In the wake of this, even the political right in this country could not and even today cannot come to grips with what happened in Vietham; even as they refuse to concede that the Hanoi regime represented the "good guys", they retreat to the almost equally delusional position that even if our goals had been noble, we were fighting an "unwinnable war".

And, by the way, that the U.S. "pig empire" was the villain in all of this is what the hippies who worshipped at the altar of Saul Alinsky had been saying all along, who now looked so vindicated in the eyes of their generational peers who had mostly sat on the sidelines through the whole thing, wondering who was right, dumbfounded when our helicopters were perched on top of our embassy in Saigon.  I was only 13 years old at that time, but even I knew that our country would never be the same.  Suddenly, 2+2=5.  Once you have done this, anything is possible, anything can be rationalized.

Fast forward to the present.  Obama becomes positively indignant when supporters of McCain suggest that he could not really have patriotic credentials on a par with those of the Senator from Arizona.  Objectively, such critics of Obama could not have been more correct, but in the upside-down political culture of post-Vietnam America, among a certain segment cut from the cloth of Barack Obama, to hate America - or what most of us take as that which America has traditionally stood for - is somehow a kind of special patriotism unto itself.  Indeed, it is superior to the kind of more "traditional" patriotism of someone like John McCain; that is for squares, chumps, and neanderthals.  Obama's is a more "sophisticated", "postmodern" patriotism.

And who will question this?  Absurd as many may feel in their gut that this may be, well, such people as Obama's teachers were "right" about the misguided nature of our "imperialistic" war in Vietham, so perhaps they are right about Obama as well.  Those who question this can easily be painted as "racists" and "reactionaries".

This is where the power has come from, that has given rise to the disciples of Alinsky who occupy the halls of power today in Washington (and elsewhere).  In addition to winning on the battlefield as we had - if we had also won the battle for the hearts and minds of the American public, and thus maintained the psychological will to prevail in SE Asia as we could have and should have done, the Alinsky types like Obama would today still represent no more than an insignificant fringe, not unlike the "beat" movement of the 1950s, with little credibility or influence.

We need to return to the principles espoused by Mr. Adams.  We need to rediscover what we stand for, what we are willing to fight for.  In short, we need to return to the level of civilizational self-confidence, if you will, that prevailed in this country circa 1964.  We need to finally, truly recover from our "Vietham Syndrome", whose flower now sits in the Oval Office. 

We fight an adversary today, in the form of Islamist fundamentalists, over whom we have every advantage save one: we don't know what the hell we are fighting for, and they do.  And until we figure out something worth defending about ourselves besides being fat and comfortable, as long as we keep making excuses and maintaining a state of bullshit PC denial about what our adversary is about, then we are going to keep getting hit.  How many of our innocents are going to have to die before we galvanize something resembling genuine national will, before we can clearly perceive Obama and his ilk for the traitorous frauds they are, I have no idea.  I am afraid that it will be many.

If Alinsky really was such a quasi-Satanic nihilist as you allege, how do you explain his well-known, longstanding friendship with the brilliant Catholic thinker Jacques Maritain? You might be interested in reading the volume of collected letters between Alinsky and Maritain, published by University of Notre Dame Press, which would show that your (cherry-picked) quotations give a quite misleading impression of the man.

 To my view you miss the impact of Alinsky on "the left" and ignore the impact on "the right"

Example: Reason Magazine July 1 2010

The point is reactionaries of any stripe pickup any tool at hand in the service of "fundamental truths"

There is also a profit making class of cable journos, push polsters and campaign beaurocrats who pretend sympathy and self-promoting indignation and laugh all the way to the bank as they patronize various reactionary "T" parties and angry insurrectionists.

This is your best point:

The Alinsky puddle-deep “philosophy” is incredibly dangerous because it elevates “struggle” and “change” over humanity, individuals, and institutions that, while they may be flawed (but can be improved) must be destroyed simply because they are institutions. This is anti-intellectualism and a denial of context and history which results in what can only be endless agitation, conflict, and de-construction. This is a philosophy of a great cosmic vacuum in which stability and quality are sucked up forever until there is only "struggle."