OBAMA HELPED FUND 'ALINSKY ACADEMY' Teaches tactics of direct action, confrontation and intimidation

Obama definitely has his game face on and he is rolling chicago style organizing antics like there is no tomorrow.
He was raised for his present day position of destroyer.

Obama is no doubt a communist. What remains to be a question is whether he wants the United States to go through a communist revolution.

This is not Fox News talking points, just fact.

WTF! "The Post American World"?!?!?!?!

Hey he is shaking the system up, more power to him! Someone has to do it!

+1000000

Biden and his Proxy Obama Serving the “White and Black Popes”

Again, Marco Ponce has created another masterpiece! It would be laughable if it was not the cold, deadly truth!

The fact is Zibignew Brzezinski is a Roman Catholic Knight of Malta connected to the Jesuits of Georgetown University and was the mentor of Barry Soetoro, alias “Barack Hussein Obama” while attending Columbia University, now Columbia College, in New York.

The fact is “Obama” was mentored by “ex-Jesuit” Greg Galluzzo of the Gamaliel Foundation when Obama was working the streets of Chicago.

The fact is that Roman Catholic papal knight Joe Biden is the White master of Mulatto Obama. Biden was the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which he chaired, and holds honorary degrees from the Order’s Saint Joseph’s University in Philadelphia and the University of Scranton in Pennsylvania.

The fact is Biden is a darling of the Jesuits of Georgetown University and abject slave to the Temporal Power of Pope Benedict XVI.

The fact is Benedict XVI—”the White Pope”—is the utter creature of “the Black Pope,” Adolfo Nicolas, remembering the Jesuits are the “penholders” of the pope! The foreign policy of the Biden/Obama administration is the foreign policy of the Vatican. From FDR to Obama, all foreign policy has been dictated by Rome overseen by the Jesuit Superior General.

[link to www.vaticanassassins.org]

Oh God, not this shit again.

The quickest way to get my dander up is to try to intimidate me.

That's very true. I went to that same school of coumminty organizing. I was sent by Catholic Human Development. While I was gung ho on helping my community, I was very put off by the agressive communist agenda.

Bush was AWOL from the service for 2 years. Nitpick what you want.

NOVEMBER 3, 2008 12:00 A.M.
What We Know About Obama
The illusion of pragmatism advances far-left goals, in baby steps.

Reflecting on all that I’ve written about Barack Obama over these past six months, four inter-related points stand out: Obama’s radicalism, his stealthy incrementalism, his interest in funding and organization-building, and his willingness to use — or quietly support — Alinskyite intimidation tactics. Since we stand on the cusp of the election, I’ll lay out the bottom line. For those who want to know more, go back and read the detailed studies on which I base these conclusions.

Obama’s troubling associations are more than isolated friendships or instances of bad judgment. His ties to Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Rashid Khalidi, Michael Pfleger, James Meeks, ACORN, the New Party, and the Gamaliel Foundation all reflect Obama’s sympathy with radical-left ideas and causes — wealth redistribution prominent among them. At both the Woods Fund and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, for example, Obama and Ayers channeled money into ACORN’s coffers. ACORN, a militant group pursuing economic redistribution, succeeded in undermining credit standards throughout the banking system, thereby modeling the New Party’s plans to tame capitalism itself. So the association with Ayers is not an outlier issue, but part and parcel of a network of radical ties through which Obama’s supported “major redistributive change.” Via ACORN, that project has already nearly wrecked our economy. What will happen when it’s generalized?

Similarly, Obama’s “association” with Wright was far more than a mere pastor-parishioner — or even mentor-protégé — relationship. Obama’s work with the Gamaliel Foundation required him to “organize” left-leaning churches into a larger political force. His real interest in Wright, Pfleger, and Meeks was to turn them into the nucleus of a far broader politicized coalition of radical black churches — as shown, for example, by his work with them on the Illinois racial-profiling bill. Again, we are not dealing with mere “associations,” but with intentional political partnerships.

Although media malfeasance is at the heart of our ignorance about these broader patterns, Obama’s absorption of Alinskyite strategies of stealthy incrementalism have helped to hide the truth. Following well-worn organizer strategies, Obama knows how to wrap ideological radicalism in the soothing rhetoric of “pragmatism” and classic American values. There is a kernel of truth to the pragmatism, however. Radical though his ultimate goals may be, Obama follows classic organizer strategy — pursuing his ends in tiny, incremental, and cumulative baby-steps. The municipal “living wage” campaigns supported by Obama, Wright, and groups like ACORN and the New Party were never designed, in themselves, to bring fundamental economic change. These ordinances actually applied to only a very small number of companies. The broader purpose of these battles was to build coalitions for deeper structural change on the national level, when the moment was right. Obama would likely hew to this incrementalism in power, with the same radical long-term goals in mind.

"Obama was a master at channeling funding to his organizer allies. He was the key force turning the Woods Fund toward a major increase in support for community organizers, at a moment when other foundations shied away from funding the militant and confrontational tactics of groups like ACORN. In his now infamous 2001 radio remarks, Obama’s preferred strategy for promoting “major redistributive change” was through society-wide organizing from below. As president, Obama would connect his massive youth-volunteer program to his favorite community-organizer groups, thereby creating a political force for long-term restructuring of the American economy. This was the program of the New Party, and I believe it is still Obama’s long-term goal.

In pursuit of his goals, Obama has shown himself willing to quietly support, and sometimes to openly use, radical Alinskyite tactics. At the Woods Fund, Obama’s allies bragged about the way their “post-ideological” cover had allowed them to fund ACORN’s confrontational tactics, while escaping public criticism. Obama has shamelessly used Alinskyite “direct action” to silence and intimidate political foes during the current campaign (a matter well-known to conservatives, yet little noted by the mainstream press). Victory would only cement the conviction in Obama and his allies that these tactics had “won,” and therefore should be used again.

Has Obama changed? Was he merely using his radical Chicago allies to gain national renown, and thereby an opening for a more moderate political program? I find this view unconvincing. Obama has often claimed that his early community organizing, and his redistributive legislative work, were at the very core of his political identity. We’ve heard his radicalism on the radio in 2001. Does anyone really believe that he’s changed in 2008? Obama’s political radicalism consolidated his shaky personal identity. It formed him as an adult. He cannot abandon that inner stance without losing hold of an already precarious self. Obama chose to live in Hyde Park — chose that radical setting as the site of his adult self-creation. Hyde Park was never the place Obama needed to conquer in order to escape. On the contrary, it was the personally chosen home he now hopes to nationalize by spreading his organizing gospel to America’s youth.

Obama is clever and pragmatic, it’s true. But his pragmatism is deployed on behalf of radical goals. Obama’s heart is, and will remain, with the Far Left. Yet he will surely be cautious about grasping for more, at any given moment, than the political traffic will bear. That should not be mistaken for genuine moderation. It will merely be the beginning stages of a habitually incremental radicalism. In his heart and soul, Barack Obama was and remains a radical-stealthy, organizationally sophisticated, and — when necessary — tactically ruthless. The real Obama — the man beyond the feel-good symbol — is no mystery. He’s there for anyone willing to look. Sad to say, few are."

— Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

[link to article.nationalreview.com]

Left of Liberal
Obama’s New Party-endorsed first run for office began in late 1995. So it’s of interest that New Party co-founder Joel Rogers published an essay describing the Left’s need for the New Party in the March/April 1995 issue of The New Left Review. (The New Left Review, can fairly be described as a prestigious outlet for writing that is largely Marxist/Socialist in content.) Since the revelation of Obama’s New Party ties, Rogers has striven to paint his outlook as mainstream and moderate. Yet this 1995 article, contemporaneous with Obama’s run for office as a New Party-endorsed candidate, gives the lie to that claim.

[link to article.nationalreview.com]

loserloserloserlose
loserloserloserloserloserloserloserloserloserloserloser rloserloserloserloserloserlosloserloserloserlose
loserloserloserloserloserloserloserloserloserloserloser rloserloserloserloserloseloserloserloserlose
loserloserloserloserloserloserloserloserloserloserloser rloserloserloserloserloserlosloserloserloserlose
loserloserloserloserloserloserloserloserloserloserloser rloserloserloserloserloserloserloser erloser rloserloser erloser
loserloserloserlose
loserloserloserloserloserloserloserloserloserloserloser rloserloserloserloserloserlosloserloserloserlose
loserloserloserloserloserloserloserloserloserloserloser rloserloserloserloserloseloserloserloserlose
loserloserloserloserloserloserloserloserloserloserloser rloserloserloserloserloserlosloserloserloserlose
loserloserloserloserloserloserloserloserloserloserloser rloserloserloserloserloserloserloser erloser rloserloser erloser

And who do you suppose teaches establishment CEOs, politicians, and Generals how to lie, steal, cheat, intimidate, and kill the people who stand against them?

Skull and Bones doesn't do all of that kind of education.

surprise surprise surprise

:ofingr7:

I would be ashamed to admit to being a supporter of this man, he is a scheming manipulative self absorbed marxist who hates the USA who hates Christians who has lied and plotted to ram his agenda down our throats. I am so ashamed this man has made it where he has being the liar the sport of wealthy men like Soros. This is such s heart wrenching time for real Americans.

Agreed, but I am ashamed that more people didn't truly listen to his campaign commercials of "get to know the candidates, know the issues, don't vote for them because they look better or act more hip.

If anyone had researched what Hannity and Fox stated prior to the election to verify what they had found, they would never have voted for this guy.

I think that although this guy is a little over the top, I think he reflects many people's frustration.

This oranization sounds like another that British charity concerned with group behaviour and organisational behaviour founded in 1946. What's it's name again? You know...the one founded by prominent figures from that one clinic including Elliott Jaques, Henry Dicks, Leonard Browne, Ronald Hargreaves, John Rawlings Rees, Mary Luff and Wilfred Bion, with Tommy Wilson as chairman, funded by a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation

According to its website, the other Institute engages in educational, research, and consultancy work in the social sciences and applied psychology. Its clients are chiefly public sector organizations, including the European Union, several British government departments, and some private clients. The Institute has its own publishing house, and owns and edits Human Relations, the international social sciences journal. It also edits the journal Evaluation.

The evil just doesn't stop does it.

:dtowclose:

Want more warning flags?

Here are two different campaign offices.
[link to i61.photobucket.com]

[link to img135.imageshack.us]

A Peace sign with Che Gueavara?

I'll tell you - I am sad that my friend Shepard Fairey designed that Obama poster, giving him an indie rock credibility that he simply never deserved. I am going to have to grill him about that someday.

What are you talking about?

:yuumo: BUMP

for truth