WAR OF PERCEPTION

Saul D. Alinsky: A role model for left-wing satanists

The 1972 Vintage Books paperback edition of Rules for Radicals by Saul D. Alinksy has a page of quotes just before the table of contents. In the last of the three quotes, Alinsky himself said the following:

"Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins -- or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer."

On page 71, speaking of his training program for political organizers, Alinsky remarked:

"The qualities we were trying to develop in organizers in the years of attempting to train them included some qualities that in all probability cannot be taught. They either had them, or could get them only through a miracle from above or below."

And, on the last page of a 1972 Playboy Interview with Saul D. Alinsky, he said:

ALINSKY: Sometimes it seems to me that the question people should ask is not "Is there life after death?" but "Is there life after birth?" I don't know whether there's anything after this or not. I haven't seen the evidence one way or the other and I don't think anybody else has either. But I do know that man's obsession with the question comes out of his stubborn refusal to face up to his own mortality. Let's say that if there is an afterlife, and I have anything to say about it, I will unreservedly choose to go to hell.

PLAYBOY: Why?

ALINSKY: Hell would be heaven for me. All my life I've been with the have-nots. Over here, if you're a have-not, you're short of dough. If you're a have-not in hell, you're short of virtue. Once I get into hell, I'll start organizing the have-nots over there.

PLAYBOY: Why them?

ALINSKY: They're my kind of people.

I'm not sure whether Alinsky really was a Satanist/Luciferian of some sort or whether he was just joking. He may well have been just joking. The man certainly did have a sense of humor.

When asked his religion, he would always say that he was Jewish. But, on many levels, he seemed to have distanced himself from his Orthodox Jewish background. For example, in Rules for Radicals, when praising Moses as a "good organizer," Alinsky did so in a manner rather irreverent toward the egotism of the Biblical God (pp. 89 to 91).

Be that as it may, he's an excellent role model for politically left-leaning Satanists, whether theistic or symbolic. (When I say "role model" I mean only in a very general sense, not one to be followed slavishly.) Certainly he can be said to have manifested his true will. And he espoused a lot of values that are familiar to today's Satanists, such as his emphasis on power, self-interest, creativity, and practicality.

Rules for Radicals is full of pragmatic realism. For example, on page 88:

"In mass organization, you can't go outside people's actual experience. I've been asked, for example, why I never talk to a Catholic priest or a Protestant minister in terms of the Judaeo-Christian ethic or the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount. I never talk in those terms. Instead I approach them on the basis of their own self-interest, the welfare of their Church, even its physical property."

Alinsky accomplished a lot. He built many organzations that gave lot of people the power to improve their lives.

In Part 7 of the 1972 Playboy interview, Alinsky said:

"The biggest obstacles we faced were the apathy and despair and hopelessness of most of the slum dwellers. You've got to remember that when injustice is complete and crushing, people very seldom rebel; they just give up. A small percentage crack and blow their brains out, but the other, 99 percent say, "Sure, it's bad, but what can we do? You can't fight city hall. It's a rotten world for everybody, and anyway, who knows, maybe I'll win at numbers or my lottery ticket will come through. And the guy down the block is probably worse off than me.

The first thing we have to do when we come into a community is to break down those justifications for inertia. We tell people, "Look, you don't have to put up with all this shit. There's something concrete you can do about it. But to accomplish anything you've got to have power, and you'll only get it through organization. Now, power comes in two forms -- money and people. You haven't got any money, but you do have people, and here's what you can do with them." And we showed the workers in the packing houses how they could organize a union and get higher wages and benefits, and we showed the local merchants how their profits would go up with higher wages in the community, and we showed the exploited tenants how they could fight back against their landlords. Pretty soon we'd established a community-wide coalition of workers, local businessmen, labor leaders and housewives -- our power base -- and we were ready to do battle."

Unlike many leftists, Alinsky avoided dogma. In Part 10 of the 1972 Playboy interview, he said:

"I've never joined any organization -- not even the ones I've organized myself. I prize my own independence too much. And philosophically, I could never accept any rigid dogma or ideology, whether it's Christianity or Marxism. One of the most important things in life is what judge Learned Hand described as "that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're right." If you don't have that, if you think you've got an inside track to absolute truth, you become doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated. The greatest crimes in history have been perpetrated by such religious and political and racial fanatics, from the persecutions of the Inquisition on down to Communist purges and Nazi genocide. The great atomic physicist Niels Bohr summed it up pretty well when he said, "Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an affirmation, but as a question." Nobody owns the truth, and dogma, whatever form it takes, is the ultimate enemy of human freedom.

Now, this doesn't mean that I'm rudderless; I think I have a much keener sense of direction and purpose than the true believer with his rigid ideology, because I'm free to be loose, resilient and independent, able to respond to any situation as it arises without getting trapped by articles of faith. My only fixed truth is a belief in people, a conviction that if people have the opportunity to act freely and the power to control their own destinies, they'll generally reach the right decisions. The only alternative to that belief is rule by an elite, whether it's a Communist bureaucracy or our own present-day corporate establishment. You should never have an ideology more specific than that of the founding fathers: "For the general welfare." That's where I parted company with the Communists in the Thirties, and that's where I stay parted from them today."

But his "belief in people" certainly did not translate into utopian idealism. Also in Part 10 of the 1972 Playboy interview, Alinsky said:

"People don't get opportunity or freedom or equality or dignity as an act of charity; they have to fight for it, force it out of the establishment. [...] Reconciliation means just one thing: When one side gets enough power, then the other side gets reconciled to it. That's where you need organization -- first to compel concessions and then to make sure the other side delivers. If you're too delicate to exert the necessary pressures on the power structure, then you might as well get out of the ball park. This was the fatal mistake the white liberals made, relying on altruism as an instrument of social change. That's just self-delusion. No issue can be negotiated unless you first have the clout to compel negotiation.[...]

In fact, of course, conflict is the vital core of an open society; if you were going to express democracy in a musical score, your major theme would be the harmony of dissonance. All change means movement, movement means friction and friction means heat. You'll find consensus only in a totalitarian state, Communist or fascist.

My opposition to consensus politics, however, doesn't mean I'm opposed to compromise; just the opposite. In the world as it is, no victory is ever absolute; but in the world as it is, the right things also invariably get done for the wrong reasons. We didn't win in Woodlawn because the establishment suddenly experienced a moral revelation and threw open its arms to blacks; we won because we backed them into a corner and kept them there until they decided it would be less expensive and less dangerous to surrender to our demands than to continue the fight. I remember that during the height of our Woodlawn effort, I attended a luncheon with a number of presidents of major corporations who wanted to "know their enemy." One of them said to me, "Saul, you seem like a nice guy personally, but why do you see everything only in terms of power and conflict rather than from the point of view of good will and reason and cooperation?" I told him, "Look, when you and your corporation approach competing corporations in terms of good will, reason and cooperation instead of going for the jugular, then I'll follow your lead." There was a long silence at the table, and the subject was dropped."

Given Alinksi's overall approach to organizing, he has been called a "Machiavelli for the common man." In Rules for Radicals, Alinksy's response to those who ask "Does the end justify the means?" was "The means-and-end moralists, or non-doers, always wind up on their ends without any means" (p. 25).

Some relevant web pages: 1972 Playboy Interview with Saul D. Alinsky, on the Progress Report website, which also has an article Saul Alinsky and the Industrial Areas Foundation by Sanford D. Horwitt

Brief excerpts from Rules for Radicals on the websites of Latter Rain (a left-wing Christian site), Thinking Peace and Maurice Institute Library.

As even the Latter Rain site acknowledges, in an introduction to its excerpt from Rules for Radicals:

"Alinsky's field of action was the field of change and a constant stream of conflict. Alinsky knew that in today's world, people are not motivated by altruism, you need to somehow appeal to their self-interest. The right thing usually done for the wrong reasons. When he came into a community in order to organize it, he had to get the local churches involved. He said that he never appealed to the ministers or priests in terms of Christian principles because they did not really believe in Christianity. Therefore, Alinsky appealed to what really motivated them, their self-interests and talked more about membership and more money. It worked every time."

Some may ask: Is left-wing politics of any kind consistent with Satanism? LaVeyans have often equated Satanism with pure capitalism.

I do not see Satan as championing any particular social, economic, or political order. I see Satan as encouraging us to think for ourselves and to be in touch with our own personal nature. It is up to us to figure out what kind of social, economic, or political order would work best for us, given our own circumstances.

I personally feel that it's in my best interests to live in the kind of society that, on the whole, works best.

My opinion of pure capitalism and economic libertarianism is that they work fine in a society that is largely rural and where there are a lot of small farm owners, as was the case in much of the U.S.A. until the early 20th century or so. However, in a more urbanized society, neither pure socialism nor pure capitalism works well; some sort of mixed economy is needed and can indeed work well, as per the example of most (though admittedly not all) continental Western European countries.

In small towns, "big government" may seem utterly unnecessary. A lot of small towns even have volunteer fire departments. This would never work in a big city like New York. In a small town where everyone knows everyone, there are strong social incentives to do various kinds of volunteer work. The social rewards for volunteer work are much less in a large city.

In a highly urbanized society, the alternative to having at least a moderately limited "welfare state" is to have very high crime rates every time there's an economic downturn. This sort of thing happened quite a bit in the early 20th century, if I'm not mistaken.

Anyhow, as the financial troubles of the Church of Satan itself should more than adequately demonstrate, we Satanists need to drop the fantasy that we're a bunch of supermen. Yes, we should aim to empower ourselves through our own individual efforts, but it also helps to have organizations that empower entire communities.

By Diane Vera

 

 

 

Book on Greek-Jewish roots of Sarkozy goes on sale in Greece

_{By DPA / Haaretz}

A book on the Greek-Jewish roots of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, whose family can be traced back to the Jewish community in the northern port city of Thessaloniki, went on sale in Greece Thursday.

The book, whose English title reads Me, the Grandson of a Greek, was
launched during a lavish gathering in Athens late Wednesday by Greek Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyianni, former Socialist foreign minister Theodoros Pangalos, former prime minister Constantinos Mitsotakis and the ambassadors of France and Israel.

The book written by three Greek authors gives a historical account of the maternal family of Sarkozy, who were a part of the Jewish community in Thessaloniki, once nick-named the "Jerusalem of the Balkans."

The book reveals that Sarkozy's mother's family came to Thessaloniki from the French region of Provence.

Sarkozy's great-grandfather, Mordechai Mallah, a well-known Thessaloniki jeweler, and his wife, Reina, had seven children. One of them was Aaron, Sarkozy's grandfather.

At the age of 14, Aaron and his mother left for France where Aaron studied medicine and served as a doctor during World War I. He later met his wife, a nurse, in Paris and converted to Catholicism in order to marry her, taking the name Benedict. One of their children, Andree Mallah, married a Hungarian refugee named Paul Sarkozy. The couple had three sons, one of which was named Nicolas.

Paul Sarkozy left the family when Nicolas was 5 years old and the young boy was largely looked after by his grandfather, who used to tell his grandchildren stories from Thessaloniki.

Nicolas Sarkozy and his brothers did not know of their Jewish roots until after their grandfather passed away in 1972. The book's authors' claim Benedict did not tell his grandchildren about their Jewish roots in order to protect them, fearing another Holocaust, which ended up killing many of the Mallah family.

The authors write that at the age of 20, Nicolas Sarkozy travelled to
Thessaloniki to sell his family's property after they were struck with
financial problems.

Approximately 6,000 are left of the Jewish Community of Thessaloniki today.

More than 50,000 of them were massacred during the Nazi occupation of Greece.

Greek Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis presented Sarkozy with a copy of the book at the last EU Council meeting in Brussels. The Greek premier also promised him it would be translated into French.

The Urbanization Of Our Federal Government

With Sonia Sotomayer’s Supreme Court confirmation a “shoe-in”; social engineers have accomplished an important goal: The urbanization of the federal government.

The goal appears to be a complete overhaul of the federal government, so that it will resemble our major urban centers.

Approximately 40 years ago, our major cities began the process of handing over the reins of power to non-Whites and females. Most people believe the disintegration of our major urban centers is a natural process due to the increase in population and wear and tear.

However, no one has ever studied the linkage between non-White / female rule and urban deterioration. This is the uncomfortable truth, that no one in politics or the media appears ready to contemplate.

California’s recent financial disaster should be viewed as a direct result of 40 years of non-White rule, female rule, and illegal alien abuse of our welfare system.

With Justice Sotomayer on the Supreme Court, we have an agent of Mexico, working on behalf of the government of Mexico, for the citizens of Mexico, who violate our immigration laws when they cross the border illegally.

The urbanization of our federal government has begun; It won’t be long before we have gang-bangers on the floor of congress, flashing gang signs on CSPAN.

Non-White rule has created the biggest crime wave in our history as a nation and no one in the media bothers to report this self-evident truth.

Philadelphia, Detroit, New Orleans, Los Angeles, New York, D.C., St Louis, Houston; Every major urban center run by non-Whites and females is tantamount to a third world nation.

And now the people who destroyed America’s cities have set their sights on the federal government.

The new health care reform is the silver bullet that will put down the White middle class, once and for all.

ALL White-middle-class-working-men, should be up in arms about Obama’s health care reform bill. We will be the ones forced to pay for this public service. We will be forced to pay for it, just like social security and all the other taxes that are deducted from our paychecks, whether we use the service or not.

This is what they did in California 40 years ago, when social engineers introduced Medical. The opponents of Medical, said it would bankrupt the state. Well the state is bankrupt, and no one discusses the linkage between this health reform, the warnings from the original opponents of Medical and the financial crisis in California.

If the federal government sets up national health care, what effect do you think this will have on the Mexicans across the border? Do you think it will act as an incentive for more illegal crossings or less?

How do you think Justice Sotomayer will rule, if the constitutionality of our borders and Illegal Alien participation in our national health care system ever comes into question and reaches the Supreme Court.

How do you think a “Chief Justice” Sotomayer will rule?

And the hits keep coming…

By Peter Schaenk

　

Specter's switch puts Dems near filibuster mark

WASHINGTON – Veteran Republican Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania switched parties Tuesday with a suddenness that seemed to stun the Senate, a moderate's defection that pushed Democrats to within a vote of the 60 needed to overcome filibusters and enact President Barack Obama's top legislative priorities.

Specter, 79 and seeking a sixth term in 2010, conceded bluntly that his chances of winning a Pennsylvania Republican primary next year were bleak in a party grown increasingly conservative. But he cast his decision as one of principle, rather than fueled by political ambition as spurned GOP leaders alleged.

"I have found myself increasingly at odds with the Republican philosophy and more in line with the philosophy of the Democratic Party," he said at a news conference. He added, "I am not prepared to have my 29 year record in the United States Senate decided by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate."

Not long after Specter met privately with Republican senators to explain his decision, the party's leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell, said the switch posed a "threat to the country." The issue, he said, "really relates to ... whether or not in the United States of America our people want the majority party to have whatever it wants, without restraint, without a check or balance."

As a result of last fall's elections, Democrats control the White House and have a large majority in the House. Specter's switch leaves them with 59 Senate seats. Democrat Al Franken is ahead in a marathon recount in Minnesota. If he ultimately defeats Republican Norm Coleman, he would become the party's 60th vote — the number needed to overcome a filibuster that might otherwise block legislation.

Specter, who has a lifelong record of independence, told reporters, "I will not be an automatic 60th vote." As evidence, he pointed out he opposes "card check" legislation to make it easier for workers to form unions, a bill that is organized labor's top priority this year.

His move comes as Democrats are looking ahead to battles on health care, energy and education.

Specter was one of only three Republicans in Congress who voted for Obama's economic stimulus bill earlier this year, a measure the senator said was needed to head off the threat of another Great Depression.

Specter called the White House on Tuesday to notify Obama of his decision to switch. The president called back moments later, according to spokesman Robert Gibbs, to say the Democratic Party was "thrilled to have you."

Several officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said discussions of a possible switch had reached into the White House in recent days, although Gibbs said he had no details.

Gibbs said Obama would raise money for Specter as well as campaign personally for him if asked.

Specter told reporters at his news conference that Gov. Ed Rendell, a Democrat, had suggested a meeting in Washington for this week at which the party's leadership could formally "endorse my candidacy."

In Pennsylvania, State Rep. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, swiftly announced he was no longer interested in running for the Senate next year. The only announced Democratic candidate has been Joe Torsella, chairman of the State Board of Education.

Among Republicans, former Rep. Pat Toomey is expected to run. He had been poised to challenge Specter, who defeated him narrowly in a 2004 primary.

"I welcome Senator Specter and his moderate voice to our diverse caucus," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a statement that was a jab at the Republicans.

Other Democrats spread the word on Twitter in a way that reflected surprise. "Specter to switch parties? Wow," said a message sent by Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri.

At his news conference, Specter grew animated as he blamed conservatives for helping deliver control of the Senate to Democrats in 2006, making it impossible to confirm numerous judicial appointees of former president George W. Bush.

"They don't make any bones about their willingness to lose the general election if they can purify the party. I don't understand it, but that's what they said," he added.

Ironically, Specter had spoken recently about the importance of a strong Republican presence in the Senate.

"If we lose my seat they have 60 Democrats, they will pass card check, you will have the Obama tax increases, they will carry out his big spending plans. So the 41st Republican, whose name is Arlen Specter, is vital to stopping tax increases, passage of card check and the Obama big spending plans."

Pennsylvania has voted increasingly Democratic in recent elections, and Obama's candidacy in 2008 prompted thousands of voters to switch their registration to his party. Specter said their migration had left the GOP primary electorate "very far to the right."

After nearly six full terms in the Senate, Specter is one of a handful of moderate Republicans left, a politician of remarkable resilience who has maneuvered successfully to protect his seat at home and his seniority rights in Congress.

In line to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2004, he was forced to reassure conservatives he would not attempt to thwart them on Bush's conservative judicial nominees. As a senior lawmaker on the Senate Appropriations Committee, he is responsible for a steady stream of federal projects in his state.

In recent years, he has battled Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymphatic system, but maintains a busy schedule that includes daily games of squash.

Specter was the sixth senator to switch parties in the past 15 years, and the first to leave the Republicans since former Sen. James Jeffords of Vermont became an independent in 2001. Jeffords' defection gave Democrats control of the Senate. Reid, then the second-ranking Democrat, played a role in that change, as well, offering to give up a committee chairmanship so Jeffords could retain it.

As one of the most senior Republicans in the Senate, Specter held powerful positions on the Judiciary and Appropriations committees. It was not clear how Democrats would calculate his seniority in assigning committee perches.

As recently as late winter, he was asked by a reporter why he had not taken Democrats up on past offers to switch parties.

"Because I am a Republican," he said at the time.

Tuesday's switch was not Specter's first.

He was a Democrat until 1965, when he ran successfully on the Republican ticket for district attorney in Philadelphia.

America's Most Dangerous Cities

In March 2008, Kwame Kilpatrick was charged with eight felonies, including perjury and obstruction of justice. In August, he violated his bail agreement and was thrown in jail. His actions were deplorable for anybody, but Kilpatrick was no Average Joe--he was the mayor of Detroit.

Unfortunately for the Motor City, Kilpatrick, 38, is just one ripple in the area's sea of crime. Detroitis the worst offender on our list of America's most dangerous cities, thanks to a staggering rate of 1,220 violent crimes committed per 100,000 people.

"Detroit has, historically, been one of the more violent cities in the U.S.," says Megan Wolfram, an analyst at iJet Intelligent Risk Systems, a Maryland-based risk-assessment firm. "They have a number of local crime syndicates there--a number of small gangs who tend to compete over territory."

Detroit was followed closely on the list by the greater Memphis, Tenn., and Miami, Fla., metropolitan areas. Those three were the only large cities in America with more than 950 violent crimes committed per 100,000 people.

Behind the Numbers

To determine our list, we used violent crime statistics from the FBI's latest uniform crime report, issued in 2008. The violent crime category is composed of four offenses: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault. We evaluated U.S. metropolitan statistical areas--geographic entities defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget for use by federal agencies in collecting, tabulating and publishing federal statistics--with more than 500,000 residents.

Though nationwide crime was down 3.5% year over year in the first six months of 2008, the cities atop our list illustrate a disturbing trend: All 10 of the most dangerous cities were among those identified by the Department of Justice as transit points for Mexican drug cartels.

Run by crime lords like Joaquin Guzman Lorea, these gangs--and their violent turf wars--are spreading into the American Southwest and beyond. Places like Stockton, Calif., nearly 500 miles from Tijuana, have seen an uptick in related violent crime.

"Stocktonis a major transit point along the I-5 corridor on the way to Seattleand Vancouver," says Wolfram. "A lot of it is similar to crime happening in the Southwest. For the most part, it's drug gang on drug gang."

Motown Blues

The situation in Mexico has escalated in recent years, but Detroit has been dealing with the same problems for decades. An industrial boomtown during the first half of the 20th century, the population of Detroit proper swelled from 285,000 in 1900 to 990,000 in 1920, reaching a peak of 1.8 million in 1950.

Only half that number still lives within city limits. Starting in the 1960s, Detroit began a precipitous decline. Most scholars blame rapid suburbanization, outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, and federal programs they say exacerbated the situation by creating a culture of joblessness and dependency. Residents fled to the suburbs and to other regions of the country entirely, leaving behind a landscape littered with abandoned buildings.

"Factories that once provided tens of thousands of jobs now stand as hollow shells, windows broken, mute testimony to a lost industrial past," wrote Thomas J. Sugrue in his book The Origins of the Urban Crisis. "Whole sections of the city are eerily apocalyptic."

Detroit isn't the only city on the list that's suffering from abandonment issues.

In Las Vegas, Nev., for example, the housing boom created loads of excess inventory. When the market tanked, homeowners suddenly found themselves with properties worth far less than the mortgages they'd taken out. In the worst cases, banks foreclosed, leaving people without homes--and with more debt than they'd had to begin with. As a result, Sin City is even emptier than Detroit.

"Detroit has trouble showing improvement in its crime rate because dedicated, desperately needed and appropriate resources are not invested in public safety. Painfully, it is not a priority," says Wayne County Prosecuting Attorney Kym L. Worthy. "I wish that those with the resources would view domestic terrorism like they do terrorism across the water. It used to be that we were keeping our head above water and treading quickly. Now we are drowning, and no one seems to really care. All they tell me to do is cut some more."

Few Signs of Improvement

Making matters more difficult, as municipal budgets shrink during this recession, crime-fighting funds are often among the first casualties.

"There's less public spending during downturns," says Wolfram. "Police departments and incarcerations systems are tough to fund."

The news has been bad for decades, but there may yet be hope for Detroit. The city's new mayor, Kenneth V. Cockrel Jr., assumed office on Sept. 19, 2009--and hasn't committed a single felony.

Top 5 Most Dangerous Cities:

No. 1 Detroit, Mich.

(Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn, Mich., metropolitan statistical area)

Population: 1,951,186

Violent Crimes per 100,000: 1,220

No. 2 Memphis, Tenn.

(Memphis, Tenn.-Miss.-Ark. metropolitan statistical area)

Population: 1,295,670

Violent Crimes per 100,000: 1,218

No. 3. Miami, Fla.

(Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall, Fla. metropolitan statistical area)

Population: 2,401,971

Violent Crimes per 100,000: 988

No. 4 Las Vegas, Nev.

(Las Vegas-Paradise, Nev., metropolitan statistical area)

Population: 1,834,533

Violent Crimes per 100,000: 887

No. 5 Stockton, Calif.

(Stockton, Calif., metropolitan statistical area)

Population: 684,406

Violent Crimes per 100,000: 885

To determine our list, we used violent crime statistics from the FBI's latest uniform crime report, issued in 2008. The violent crime category is composed of four offenses: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault. We evaluated U.S. metropolitan statistical areas--geographic entities defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget for use by federal agencies in collecting, tabulating and publishing federal statistics--with more than 500,000 residents.

Click herefor the full list of America's Most Dangerous Cities.

by Zack O'Malley Greenburg