spendius
 
  1  
Mon 1 Mar, 2010 06:16 pm
@Irishk,
The usual I should think.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Mon 1 Mar, 2010 07:53 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76170
ELECTION 2008

Guess who recommended Obama to enter Harvard
Mystery man in senator's memoir now revealed as disciple of socialist agitator

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 24, 2008
8:54 pm Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Saul Alinsky
In a revelation tying Barack Obama even closer to radical community organizing, WND [World News Daily] has learned that a renowned disciple of the late socialist agitator Saul "The Red" Alinksy wrote a letter of recommendation for Obama when he applied to Harvard Law School.

Obama approached Northwestern University professor John L. McKnight " a loyal student of Alinsky's radical tactics " to pen the Harvard letter in the late 1980s. McKnight serves on the boards of radically anti-American groups in Chicago, including one accused of thuggery.

Obama in his 2006 memoir alludes to McKnight " whom he describes as an "older man who had been active in the civil rights efforts in Chicago in the sixties" " but stops short of identifying him by name. He referred to him only as "my friend."

But McKnight, who enforced affirmative action for Attorney General Robert Kennedy, was far more than that to young Obama. He helped train him in the agitation tactics of Alinsky, who wrote the organizing manual, "Rules for Radicals," which he dedicated to mankind's "very first radical, Lucifer."

The Chicago-based Gamaliel Foundation lists McKnight as a board director. From1985 to 1988, Obama worked for a subsidiary of Gamaliel, where he cut his teeth as a community organizer on Chicago's South Side. McKnight and Gamaliel, which was founded on Alinsky's principles, provided training for the budding radical.

Before leaving for Harvard, Obama wrote an article published in a journal titled, "After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois," in which he praised McKnight and his organizing strategies. He also decried "institutional racism" and called for more "power" to put in place "a systematic approach to community organization."


Barack Obama teaching Alinsky organizing tactics

While at Harvard, he found time to take advanced training courses at the Industrial Areas Foundation, a group founded by Alinsky and affiliated with Gamaliel. He also would return to Chicago to work as a consultant and trainer for Gamaliel.

Under the tutelage of McKnight and other hardcore students of Alinsky, Obama says he got the "best education I ever had, better than anything I got at Harvard Law School." He made the remark last year while campaigning in Iowa.

His mentor McKnight also sits on the board of a militant leftist group called the National People's Action, the professor's curriculum vita reveals. NPA employs the hardball street tactics of Alinskyite organizing.

NPA claims to be simply a coalition of neighborhood advocacy groups based in Chicago, but conservative analyst Michelle Malkin describes it as a "left-wing goon squad." She says NPA has been known to bus hundreds of angry protestors to the homes of business and government leaders to demand "justice" for inner-city blacks.

While preparing to intimidate the families of officials and trample over their private property, she says NPA picketers belt out the following battle cry:

Who's on your hit list, NPA?
Who's on your hit list for today?
Take no prisoner, take no names.
Kick 'em in the a-- when they play their games.
"NPA's militant tactics cross the bounds of decent political debate," Malkin wrote in 2004.

Obama, in his 1995 memoir, said he wanted to go to Harvard Law School to "learn power's currency in all its intricacy," with the goal of "making large-scale change" as a national politician.

John L. McKnight

Before writing his recommendation, McKnight, a former ACLU director, advised Obama not to "compromise" his principles.

While Obama says he's perhaps more tolerant of compromise than McKnight, he says his views haven't really changed from his days organizing on behalf of radical Alinsky groups like Gamaliel and ACORN in Chicago.

"My views are not so much more refined than they were when I labored in obscurity as a community organizer," he averred in his 2006 autobiography.

Socialist dream

Alinsky, the father of community organizing, dreamed of socialism one day replacing the "jungle" of American capitalism. He wrote that he hoped "for a future where the means of production will be owned by all of the people instead of just a comparative handful."

Alinsky dedicated the first edition of his book, "Rules for Radicals," to Satan: "Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom " Lucifer."

McKnight has advocated for another war on poverty, something Obama is proposing with his "Urban Prosperity" plan.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  0  
Tue 2 Mar, 2010 07:08 am
I thought Obama was going to let the Patriot Act expire?

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2010/03/president_obama_1.php

Quote:
The Patriot Act was supposed to expire on Sunday. But don't worry, folks: President Obama signed the reauthorization that was sent to him by Congress last week, so it's still in effect for another year. That means roving wiretaps, records seizure, and "lone wolf" surveillance are good to go!


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gmao3Tg9nvBQeAOMAVzmeZkrmAoAD9E4QD501

Quote:
The Senate also approved the measure, with privacy protections cast aside when Senate Democrats lacked the necessary 60-vote supermajority to pass them. Thrown away were restrictions and greater scrutiny on the government's authority to spy on Americans and seize their records.
okie
 
  -1  
Tue 2 Mar, 2010 06:24 pm
@mysteryman,
The irony of this is the liklihood, in my opinion, that Obama and the Democrats are far more likely to abuse or misuse the surveillance activities under the Patriot Act than Bush would ever have dreamed of doing. Remember the Democrats defense of the innocent John and Alice Martin that just happened to tap and record Newt Gingrich's cell phone conversation with John Boehner? They claimed then that it was just an innocent happenstance, no harm. It all depends upon the character and trustworthiness of the president and the administration. I am more uneasy now than under Bush, no doubt at all. We've already experienced the president collecting an enemies list in regard to his legislative initiatives.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  -2  
Tue 2 Mar, 2010 08:18 pm
Obama who acts like a disciple of Saul Alinsky.
Saul Alinsky wrote:
Radicals should be political relativists. They should take an agnostic view of means and ends;
The radical is not a reformer of the system but its would-be destroyer;
The radical is building his own kingdom, a kingdom of heaven on earth;
The revolutionary’s purpose is to undermine the system by taking from the haves and giving it to the have-nots, and then see what happens;
The most basic principle for radicals is lie to opponents and disarm them by pretending to be moderates and liberals;
The radical organizer does not have a fixed truth"truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing; he is a political relativist.

0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Wed 3 Mar, 2010 02:50 pm
Good afternoon. I missed this news from Monday.
Representative Nathan Deal (R-GA) resigned his seat to devote all his time to his race for Governor of Georgia. Some members of the Republican leadership are miffed at him.
His departure comes just a couple of week's ahead of the expected "up or down" vote in the House on the health care bill. There are now 4 vacant seats in the 435 member House. In addition to Deal, 2 Dems have resigned and 1 Dem died. There is no time to hold any special elections to fill those seats before the health care vote.
431/2 = 216 votes needed for passage.
The earlier vote in the House was 220-215 in favor, with the 3 Dems voting yes and Deal voting no. One Repub voted yes but is now expected to vote no. Adjusting for that, assuming no other changes occur, the split is 216-215.
Irishk
 
  2  
Wed 3 Mar, 2010 06:15 pm
Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-AZ originally voted 'yes', but is leaning toward voting 'no' this time. He explains his reasons in salon.com today.

"I'm pretty certain there's more than just two this time," Grijalva said
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 3 Mar, 2010 06:16 pm
@realjohnboy,
Not another edge of the seat jobs surely?

They keep you all alert for when the ads come on.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Wed 3 Mar, 2010 06:35 pm
Well, this is interesting.
Did the dem house members finally grow some balls and force him out, or did he "see the light" and step down on his own?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=9995001

Quote:
New York Rep. Charles Rangel temporarily stepped aside as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee Wednesday as he struggled with mounting ethics woes that left his political future uncertain at best
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Wed 3 Mar, 2010 07:06 pm
@mysteryman,
highly unlikely....prob he was assured that it was to be a PR move, on a predetermined schedule, and since the cost to him is minimal he agreed to take one for the team.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Wed 3 Mar, 2010 07:26 pm
Insurance rates are soaring, new employers are not offering health care, existing employers are dropping it at a high rate, people are dying due to lack of coverage, the cost is killing the country, etc. What more is needed to convince the right to agree to HC reform?
ican711nm
 
  1  
Wed 3 Mar, 2010 07:42 pm
@Advocate,
The right already agrees to HC reform. The disagreement is over the kind of reform. What more is needed to convince the left to agree to the right's HC reform?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Wed 3 Mar, 2010 07:44 pm
@ican711nm,
The 'right' doesn't, in fact, agree to HC reform. Prominent members of your party continually claim that America has the best system in the world and that reform isn't necessary.

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  1  
Wed 3 Mar, 2010 07:55 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Perhaps you would care to name them.

My impression is that the Republicans have instead asserted that health care reform is needed, but that the Democrat proposal would constitute an untimely increase in the very entitlements that are already breaking our budget; would not likely deliver the "cost curve bending" that the administration affirms will occur; and would constitute an unwarrranted government intrusion into a major sector of our economy and the personal lives of citizens.

There's a lot of poll data out there that suggests the public doesn't like the Democrat proposed legislation.

I suspect the Democrats are betting (1) they can force the legislation through on reconciliation and (2) their losses this November will still yield them enough power in the Senate to block any attempt by a Republican Congress to overturn the Legislation. Given the President's veto power this is a likely scenario, though I still doubt that the Democrats will get enough vote for the reconciliation tactic. I'm wavering a bit because by now they likely have a heead count. Still it's tough to get a Senator or Congressman to commit political suicide.

At a time when the European social democrat model is looking uncreasingly unsustainable, it is remarkable that America is moving toward it.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Wed 3 Mar, 2010 08:04 pm
@georgeob1,
The problem with your equation is that you see passing HC reform as a guarantee of 'political suicide.' At least half the country doesn't see it this way, and you know as well as I do that the only thing worse then passing legislation which isn't that popular, is trying to do so and failing.

The Dems will pass it or go down in flames, because weakness doesn't sell in Washington. There's no political win for them in not doing so.

Every Republican who says they want to 'start over' on Health Care is essentially saying that they want no reforms. When Republicans had control of the Congress, they did absolutely nothing about it - even though none of these statistics are secret and the problems that we all supposedly agree on have long been known. The solutions proposed by your side are - like every solution offered by the Republican party these days - very transparent ways to either benefit an already profitable sector of business or to make money for rich people. I find the idea that Republicans have offered any serious sort of reform at all to be laughable.

Or perhaps you could outline for me what those solutions are? I will remind you that Paul Ryan's plan isn't even supported by your own leadership in the House, and that the Republicans in the Senate are unwilling to put forth one of their own - just some general points.

Quote:
At a time when the European social democrat model is looking uncreasingly unsustainable, it is remarkable that America is moving toward it.


While I love how you take a knock at Europe every chance you get, I would remind you that we are hardly in a position to be criticizing other nations at this point.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Wed 3 Mar, 2010 08:24 pm
@Irishk,
Irishk wrote:

Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-AZ originally voted 'yes', but is leaning toward voting 'no' this time.

Well, Raul is unhappy about the disappearance of the "Public Option." Dude, the public option died a month or two or three ago. It ain't coming back.
It seems to me that, perhaps, the most contentious issue amongst Democrats may be about abortion.
I wont even try to lay out what is going on there. Perhaps one of yall can fill us in on that.
Thank you.
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Wed 3 Mar, 2010 09:45 pm
Republicans met with Obama and other Democrats at the Blair house. There Republicans proposed solutions to both current healthcare ptoblems and current budget problems. Obama rejects their proposed solutions, and is instead going to propose solutions that will cause additional healthcare and budget problems.

The big question is whether or not Obama can get enough votes to support his solutions. If he does, then we can say goodbye to our Constitutional and Capitalist systems. You who are Obama's disciples will be responsible for the consequences, not George Bush .

Barach Obama is applying Saul Alinsky's principles for destroying these systems.
Saul Alinsky wrote:
Radicals should be political relativists and should take an agnostic view of means and ends;
The radical is not a reformer of the system but its would-be destroyer;
The revolutionary’s purpose is to undermine the system by taking from the haves and giving it to the have-nots, and then see what happens;
The most basic principle for radicals is lie to opponents and disarm them by pretending to be moderates and liberals;
The radical organizer does not have a fixed truth"truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing;
The issue is always the revolution;
The stated cause is never the real cause, but only an occasion to advance the real cause which is accumulation of power to make the revolution;
The radical is building his own kingdom, a kingdom of heaven on earth.


0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Wed 3 Mar, 2010 10:14 pm
@Advocate,
Quote:
Insurance rates are soaring, new employers are not offering health care, existing employers are dropping it at a high rate, people are dying due to lack of coverage, the cost is killing the country, etc. What more is needed to convince the right to agree to HC reform?


what more is needed to convince the Left that health care must be fundamentally reformed, and the cost of the activity lowered??
Irishk
 
  2  
Thu 4 Mar, 2010 09:49 am
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:

Irishk wrote:

Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-AZ originally voted 'yes', but is leaning toward voting 'no' this time.

Well, Raul is unhappy about the disappearance of the "Public Option." Dude, the public option died a month or two or three ago. It ain't coming back.
It seems to me that, perhaps, the most contentious issue amongst Democrats may be about abortion.
I wont even try to lay out what is going on there. Perhaps one of yall can fill us in on that.Thank you.


11 of Stupak's list of 12 are Democrats. Sounds like bipartisan opposition to me.
Advocate
 
  1  
Thu 4 Mar, 2010 09:51 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Insurance rates are soaring, new employers are not offering health care, existing employers are dropping it at a high rate, people are dying due to lack of coverage, the cost is killing the country, etc. What more is needed to convince the right to agree to HC reform?


what more is needed to convince the Left that health care must be fundamentally reformed, and the cost of the activity lowered??


The left is absolutely convinced, which is why it is working so hard to reform the system. The right has no comprehensive plan, but, being in the pocket of the insurance industry, is working hard to kill any reform. As Cong. Anthony Weiner said, the GOP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the insurance industry.
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1592
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.17 seconds on 05/03/2024 at 12:45:23