This is worth a read:
Alinsky citing reveals SEIU-Obama ideology
U.S. purposefully mismanaged by President Andy Stern
The 2008 election was aimed, as Barack Obama said, “to fundamentally change America.” The American people did not do their homework. They thought he believed in the original paradigm. They were intentionally misled, but this could have been prevented.
Ask the leaders of the Democratic party who Saul Alinsky is and you will likely get obfuscation. They will tell you Barack Obama spent three years teaching Alinsky’s philosophy and methods but he likely will not answer questions about Alinsky. Hillary Clinton wrote her college dissertation on Alinsky but you won’t likely get a peep out of her.
Bluntly put, Alinsky is opposed to freedom. He is an elitist. He believed in communism and atheism. The fundamental values, as stated at the beginning of this column, are seen by Alinsky as horrors that have created mass inequities and careless behavior. What makes Alinsky dangerous is that he is insidious.
Alinsky’s primary approach to politics is deceit. The ends justify the means. He would create a communist Utopia dominated by his friends but not through open and honest debate. Therefore, they disguise themselves as believers in the republic and democracy. Gaining control is objective No. 1. This was the beginning of their revolution. The goal, then, for Alinsky was “to take from the haves and give to the have-nots.”
Obama taught this. He “community organized” under this philosophy. He has surrounded himself with people of like mind. John Holdren, Cass Sunstein, Anita Dunn, Valerie Jarrett, and Van Jones are just a few of the core conspirators.
Alinsky knew the core beliefs of the American people. He knew they had to be deceived and manipulated. His opinion was they were too selfish to give up the America that was constructed by the founding fathers. His followers have taken over the Democratic Party although many Republicans also are participating in the movement under the guise of progressivism.
The change they want will fundamentally eliminate freedom, representative government, democracy, free enterprise, private ownership, individual responsibility and religious faith. I have no problem with them telling you that and putting it up for debate but they will not because they would be thrown out of office.
This strategy has been known since the late 1960s. Since they cannot challenge those positions successfully, the next best thing is to get into the current system through deceit. Tell people you are something you are not. Then destroy people’s belief in the system by destroying it from within. This is the strategy employed by the disciples of Alinsky.
Alinsky said, “Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, nonchallenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution.”
(from news-herald.com)
Related video: Saul Alinsky takes the White House
One of the fundamental “disappointments” that independents – who have massively abandoned Obama and his agenda – have is that Obama misrepresented himself (i.e., he lied) about who he was and what he would be about if he were elected president.
Too many people did not see Obama’s anti-free market agenda (Obama’s demagoguery of banks, of car companies, of insurance companies, of the Chamber of Commerce, of Fox News, etc.) coming. They should have seen it, and they would have had they paid better attention, or had the mainstream media attempted to do its constitutionally-appointed duty. But now they are left fearful. Now they and the businesses they work for are being inundated with fundamentally hostile attacks against business. And as a result we are forced to live through a period in which fully 77% of investors view their president as “anti-business.”
People didn’t vote for that. They were lied to.
At the same time, Obama has surrounded himself with openly Marxist advisers (see also here), which brings out the crystal-clear-in-hindsight fact that Obama’s long association with Marxist radicals such as Frank Marshall Davis, Jeremiah Wright, and Bill Ayers.
An American Thinker piece ties Obama’s relationship with the pedophile communist Frank Marshall Davis to an early indoctrination in the philosophy of Saul Alinsky.
You reveal yourself in whom you choose as friends. And Obama revealed himself:
“To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.”
To cite Dr. Raymond Stantz from Ghostbusters, I wouldn’t have touched these people with a ten meter cattle prod. And few Americans would have.
SEIU union president Andy Stern, who has visited the White House more than anyone else since Obama was elected, offers this view of the world:
– “Because workers of the world unite, it’s not just a slogan anymore.”
That is a radical agenda from a clearly Marxist worldview. And how does Obama respond to this vision?
“Your agenda has been my agenda in the United States Senate. Before debating health care, I talked to Andy Stern and SEIU members.”
“We are going to paint the nation purple with SEIU.”
In a frightening way.
And so people who understood Obama weren’t at all surprised that he would pick a manufacturing czar such as Ron Bloom who said:
Generally speaking, we get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to game the system, to beat the market or at least find someone who will pay you a lot of money, ’cause they’re convinced that there is a free lunch.
We know this is largely about power, that it’s an adults only no limit game. We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun. And we get it that if you want a friend you should get a dog.”
If this agenda doesn’t terrify you, it is because you are ignorant. Just take a look at the giant black hole that Illinois state union employees and their unsustainable benefit schemes have put the taxpayers in. And that same black hole is probably in your state, too.
Unions – whether public or private sector – are breaking the back of this country. They are breaking down our society. They are fundamentally destroying our American way of life.
And they now have someone who is helping them do it in the White House.
You start throwing out radical names of dangerous people that Obama has been associated with and a pattern emerges: the aforementioned Davis, Jeremiah Wright (see also here and here and here), Khalid al-Mansour (more here), Rashid Khalidi, Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers. And you realize that Obama has been steeped in a profoundly Marxist worldview. Obama isn’t stupid; he knows that the American people don’t want that ideology. But no one can conceal his worldview completely. Critical observers saw it clearly.
And they accurately understood what it would portend if he was elected president.
Obama underscores the self-concealment of his worldview in his book which bears its title in inspiration of a Jeremiah Wright sermon that described his view that “white folks’ greed runs a world in need” (The Audacity of Hope):
A politician who has Obama’s ostensible verbal skills is, quite simply, not a “blank screen” unless he wants to be.
Obama did not want us to know who he was, because we would have rejected him as our leader if we knew.
The more we finally learn about who Obama really is and what he really wants to do, the less we are going to like it.
Tags: agenda, agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun, Andy Stern, Anita Dunn, anti-business, anti-free market, Bill Ayers, Cass Sunstein, demagoguery, Frank Marshall Davis, I chose my friends carefully, I serve as a blank screen, it's not just a slogan anymore, Jeremiah Wright, John Holdren, Khalid al-Mansour, Marxist, Marxist professors, Obama, paint the nation purple with SEIU, persuasion of power, power of persuasion, Rashid Khalidi, Ron Bloom, saul alinsky, SEIU, Tony Rezko, Valerie Jarrett, Van Jones, We know that the free market is nonsense, white folks' greed runs a world in need, workers of the world unite, worldview, Your agenda has been my agenda
Start Thinking Right 
February 22, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Why do you say Frank Marshall Davis was a “pedophile”? Because his porn memoir-novel included sex with an underage teenager? Do you also consider the author of porn memoir-novel “Lolita” to be a pedophile, or just Davis? A novel is fiction!
February 22, 2010 at 3:54 pm
SPN headlines got the inside scoop on the new trial site:
http://stupidassnews.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/terror-trial-goodbye-new-york-hello-judge-judy/
Have a great day! :-)
February 22, 2010 at 8:01 pm
From the UK Telegraph article entitled, “Frank Marshall Davis, alleged Communist, was early influence on Barack Obama“:
There’s the answer to your question. Davis acknowledges that he is writing about direct actual experiences via a pseudoname, and then proceeds to recount the experience of himself having sex with a 13-year old girl. That is a confession.
I find the author of the porn novel “Lolita” to be disgusting, but not necessarily a pedophile unless said author told his readers that these were actual experiences, and then records a pedophile experience.
In any event, I am perfectly warranted to call Davis what he essentially calls himself.
February 22, 2010 at 8:04 pm
Note to Judge Judy:
You go, girl.
February 22, 2010 at 8:11 pm
“Davis acknowledges that he is writing about direct actual experiences via a pseudoname.”
Untrue. Davis never made any of those statements. Fictional character Bob Greene made those statements, just as fictional character Gulliver outlined fictional adventures in “Gulliver’s Travels,” and fictional character Fanny Hill outlined fictional adventures in “Fanny Hill.” In NONE of these cases did the actual author state that the adventures in their novel actually happened.
Calling Davis a pedophile based on his novel makes no more sense than calling David Letterman a pedophile based on his joke. Both lies are widespread in the right-wing blogosphere, and reflect the pinnacle of intellectual dishonesty. Both misrepresent the core values of artists by spreading falsehoods that gullible readers accept as truth, and who then spread further in good faith.
Such misrepresentation exploits mainstream unawareness of literary styles such as the semiautobiographical novel (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobiographical_novel or http://www.artandpopularculture.com/Autobiographical_novel), memoir-novel (see http://www.answers.com/topic/memoir-novel-1 or http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O54-memoirnovel.html) and the first-person narrative (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-person_narrative or http://www.artandpopularculture.com/First-person_narrative), by claiming that the artist actually experienced fictional events when it serves their disinformation purposes.
Casual readers of Hamden’s story may not have noticed his sleight of hand when substituting author Davis for fictional character Bob Greene as the subject of experiences in the book. This deception, however, reveals Hamden’s intent to directly smear Davis and thereby indirectly smear Obama through guilt-by-association.
There are at least four disclaimers that shield Frank Marshall Davis from literal attribution of this novel:
a. All memoir-novels, whether pornographic (e.g., John Cleland’s “Fanny Hill”), satirical (e.g., Jonathan Swift’s “Gulliver’s Travels”), or other genre (e.g., Daniel Defoe’s “Moll Flanders”), are allegedly true but nevertheless fiction. The fictional authors of memoir-novels, such as “Bob Greene,” claim that such incidents actually occurred although they, too, are fictional. In a broader sense, ALL first-person narrative novels, such as Nabokov’s “Lolita” and Mark Twain’s “Huckleberry Finn,” claim authenticity despite obviously being fiction. To claim that some memoir-novels are literally true (if convenient for one’s political agenda), while acknowledging that other memoir-novels are truly fiction, is intellectual dishonesty.
Please note that Jonathan Swift (writing as fictional character Gulliver in memoir-novel “Gulliver’s Travels”) described various encounters with Lilliputians and other characters, and Vladimir Nabokov (writing as fictional character Humbert Humbert in memoir-novel “Lolita”) described various encounters with Lolita and other characters. Upon what rational basis can someone claim that Davis’s story is history, while other first person narrative memoir-novels are fantasy? To literally attribute memoir-novel character Bob Greene’s encounters to Davis, but not attribute the encounters of memoir-novel characters Gulliver and Humbert Humbert to their respective authors, indicates a flagrantly biased double standard to smear Barack Obama through guilt-by-association.
b. Scandalous memoirs such as “Sex Rebel: Black (Memoirs of a Gash Gourmet)” have been a literary genre for centuries. According to Wikipedia, such scandalous memoirs are allegedly factual, but are largely invented. The title, alone, qualifies it as a “scandalous memoir.” It is the epitome of dishonesty to claim, without empirical evidence, that fictional characters’ experiences actually occurred in their author’s real life .
c. The fictional character Bob Greene, not author Frank Marshall Davis, “changed names and identities” of other characters. According to dictionary.com, “identity” means “condition or character as to who a person or what a thing is: a case of mistaken identity.” Changing name AND identities means changing names AND other “condition or character as to who a person or what a thing is,” which may include biographical data such as age. Further, “taken from actual experiences” does not mean they are accurate representations of any experiences.
d. Edgar Tidwell, the expert on the life and writing of Frank Marshall Davis, says the book is “semiautobiographical,” which (according to dictionary.com) means “1. pertaining to or being a fictionalized account of an author’s own life. 2. pertaining to or being a work of fiction strongly influenced by events in an author’s life.” “Sex Rebel: Black” is therefore a fictionalized account of events in Davis’s life.
In an honest evaluation, any of these disclaimers should protect the author from literal interpretation. The combination of all four should provide absolute protection from any culpability. Unfortunately, Davis’s accusers are dishonest. Like Mike Nifong, the disgraced ex-D.A. in the Duke lacrosse case, their campaign to demonize their target ignores exculpatory evidence in their reckless rush to judgment. In order to smear Barack Obama through guilt-by-association with Frank Marshall Davis, they are virtually lynching Davis by grossly misrepresenting his character and influence. Such misrepresentation may be symptomatic of the accuser’s own psychological disorder, indicated by projection of the accuser’s own pedophilic fantasies onto the author.
In “Sex Rebel,” Davis’s Bob Greene (not unlike Nabokov’s Humbert Humbert) hesitates at a pubescent girl’s sexual invitation, but foolishly relents. Like “Lolita,” this faux foreword is written by a Ph.D impersonator who details the psychological significance of the memoir. Like Nabokov, Davis wanted to write under a pseudonym to shield his reputation, but felt compelled to reveal his authorship. As a result, however, Davis has been posthumously accused of pedophilia, while “Lolita” is “considered by many to be one of the finest novels written in the 20th century.” In 1998, it was named the fourth greatest English language novels of the 20th century by the Modern Library,” despite also being initially dismissed as pornography, according to Wikipedia.
February 22, 2010 at 8:25 pm
If you don’t want to believe that a writer who says, “I’m writing under a false name, but all the details I’m recording are true,” and then records pedophile acts, fine. There’s a sucker born every minute, and you happen to be one of them.
Particularly after Roman Polanski, I don’t understand why I should refuse to believe these people are capable of such acts – particularly when they actually say, “This is true, and I did it, and I’m telling you about it under a pseudoname.”
In point of fact, the details of the sex novel match the details of Davis’ personal life to a ‘T’.
I like literal interpretations because I live in a place called the real world. On your view, I could confess to a bunch of rape/murders to the police, and then later tell them my confession had occurred under the guise of some fictional identity which I was role playing. Sadly for that view, if the police had victims, that confession would be admissible in a courtroom, and it would be damning.
If you have some kind of proof that he never had this relationship, fine. But the quote I cited is ample reason for me to call him a pedophile, and I will continue to do so.
Let me ask you a question: what is it about pedophiles that makes you think, “I’m going to protect these people and defend their reputations?”
February 22, 2010 at 9:13 pm
As they say on CSI: Follow the evidence!
Davis never said ““I’m writing under a false name, but all the details I’m recording are true” although his fictional character said that they were BASED on actual experiences.
It is the NORM of scandalous memoirs. By definition, such scandalous memoirs are allegedly factual, but are largely invented. The title, alone, qualifies it as a “scandalous memoir.”
YOU WROTE “I find the author of the porn novel “Lolita” to be disgusting, but not necessarily a pedophile unless said author told his readers that these were actual experiences, and then records a pedophile experience.”
Humbert Humbert told his readers that these were actual experiences, but Nabokov never made that claim. Bob Greene told his readers that these were actual experiences, but Davis never made that claim. Fanny Hill told her readers that these were actual experiences, but Cleland never made that claim. Gulliver told his readers that these were actual experiences, but Swift never made that claim.
If you review the library of autobiographical novels, you will find that the fictional authors ALL claim their adventures occurred. Here is a list of popular autobiographical novels, in which the first-person narrator claims the adventures actually happened:
Charles Dickens, David Copperfield (1850)
George Borrow, Lavengro (1851)
Leo Tolstoy, Childhood (1852)
Charlotte Brontë, Villette (1853)
Leo Tolstoy, Boyhood (1854)
Leo Tolstoy, Youth (1856)
Thomas Hughes, Tom Brown’s School Days (1857)
Fitz Hugh Ludlow, The Hasheesh Eater (1857)
Charles Dickens, Great Expectations (1860), which has many autobiographical elements but to a lesser extent
Louisa May Alcott, Little Women (1868)
Samuel Butler, The Way of All Flesh (1903)
D. H. Lawrence, Sons and Lovers (1913)
Jack London, John Barleycorn (1913)
Somerset Maugham, Of Human Bondage (1915)
James Joyce, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man (1916)
F. Scott Fitzgerald, This Side of Paradise (1920)
Marcel Proust, In Search of Lost Time (1927), aka A Remembrance of Things Past
Ernest Hemingway, A Farewell to Arms (1929)
Thomas Wolfe, Look Homeward, Angel (1929)
Louis Ferdinand Céline, Journey to the End of the Night (1932), as well as “Death on Credit” (also, “Death on an Installment Plan”) and subsequent books as well.
Gertrude Stein, The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas (1933), a mock autobiography of Stein’s secretary and companion purported to be Toklas’s views of Stein.
Henry Miller, Tropic of Cancer (1934)
Ayn Rand, We, the Living (1936)
Henry Miller, Tropic of Capricorn (1939)
James A. Michener, The Fires of Spring (1949), semi-autobiographical
Graham Greene, The End of the Affair (1951)
Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man (1952)
James Baldwin, Go Tell It on the Mountain (1953)
Saul Bellow, The Adventures of Augie March (1953)
William S. Burroughs, Junkie (1953)
James Agee, A Death in the Family (1957)
Jack Kerouac, On the Road (1957)
Jack Kerouac, The Dharma Bums (1958)
Elie Wiesel, Night (1958), sometimes considered an autobiographical novel although classified as a memoir by the author.
Ian Fleming, (1960’s) Some of the James Bond experiences are based in his own World War II spy missions.
Nikos Kazantzakis, Report to Greco (1961)
Sylvia Plath, The Bell Jar (1963)
Kenzaburo Oe, A Personal Matter (1964)
Isaac Bashevis Singer, In My Father’s Court, (1966)
Frederick Exley, A Fan’s Notes (1967)
Maya Angelou, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings (1969)
Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1971)
Rita Mae Brown, Rubyfruit Jungle (1973)
Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (1973)
Pat Conroy, The Great Santini (1976)
Samuel R. Delany, Heavenly Breakfast (1979)
Philip K. Dick, VALIS (1981), perhaps the only book that could be considered both an autobiographical novel and a work of science fiction
Isabel Allende, The House of Spirits (1982), includes many elements from her family history
Charles Bukowski, Ham on Rye (1982)
J. G. Ballard, Empire of the Sun (1984)
Marguerite Duras, The Lover (1984)
Jeanette Winterson, Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit (1985)
Jaan Kross, The Wikman Boys (1988)
Samuel R. Delany, The Motion of Light in Water (1988)
Tim O’Brien, The Things They Carried (1990)
Davis Miller, The Tao of Muhammad Ali (1996), described as a ‘non-fiction novel’.
Homer Hickam, Rocket Boys (1998)
James Frey, A Million Little Pieces (2003), marketed as a memoir before a media controversy questioned its accuracy.
Craig Thompson, Blankets (2003), an autobiographical graphic novel.
Tobias Wolff, Old School (2003), loosely based on Wolff’s life although more novel than biography.
Mohammad Ali wih Hana Yasmeen Ali, The Soul of a Butterfly (2004)
James Frey, My Friend Leonard (2005)
Sherman Alexie, The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian (2007)
Daniel Selby Retracing My Steps (2009)
Mona Simpson, Anywhere But Here
For objective articles on this issue, please see http://wxxxnews.blogspot.com/2008/10/sex-rebel-black.html and http://iamthelizardqueen.wordpress.com/2008/10/14/the-national-enquirer-wingnuttery-and-autobiographies/#comment-5904
“Truth is generally the best vindication against slander.”
– Abraham Lincoln
February 22, 2010 at 10:26 pm
I’ll simply repeat it:
In the introduction to Sex Rebel, Mr Davis (writing as Greene) explains that although he has “changed names and identities…all incidents I have described have been taken from actual experiences”.
Did you put Herman Melville and Moby Dick on your list (“Call me Ishmael”?).
On the down side, I don’t believe Ishmael describes himself molesting a 13-year old girl. And I don’t believe that Ishmael’s story matches all the personal details of Herman Melville’s life to a ‘T’ the way “fictional character” Bob Greene’s life mysteriously matched Frank Marshall Davis’ actual personal life.
Your point of view regarding literature and moral reality is reminiscent of another literary figure, the deconstructionist, postmodernist, Nazi writer Paul de Man:
“The bleakest of crimes” included Nazism and the Holocaust in de Man’s rhetorical justification. In yours, it includes child molestation.
I googled that de Man quote, and it is fitting the title of the article I found it in: “Deconstruction, de Man, and the Resistance to Evidence.”
I think you are a major waste of humanity for being such a passionate defender of this scumbag, and for your postmodern hostility to objective reality. But whatever you do, don’t take my statement literally.
Now begone, pedophile protector. I’m through wasting bytes arguing with you over a trivial point.
February 22, 2010 at 10:43 pm
Kaleokualoha,
I am exercising my prerogative as moderator to refuse to keep publishing your perversions (and I don’t have to remind you not to take such a statement on my part literally; it is nothing but a well-known literary device, after all).
I allowed you to present your case, but enough is enough.
I called Frank Marshall Davis a pedophile. I provided the information which justifies my claim, which itself amounts to a very minor part of an article that is about Barack Obama’s ties to radicalism and the rotten fruits of those ties.
Please get over it and move on.
Michael Eden
January 18, 2012 at 5:35 pm
Daniel J Selby’s book, Retracing my Steps, is an all made up Fantasy about his life. He imagines he’s famous. He has an elaborate IMdb resume that would knock your socks off if any of it were true. He claims to have made a Fig Newton Commercial with Vivian Vance of I Love Lucy fame, and was very close to her until her death. Vivian Vance never made a fig newton commercial, with Daniel or otherwise. He says he was friends with Karen carpenter til she died in 1983. Not even close. To try to prove to everyone he knew her, he took a pic from The Carpenters Christmas album, deleted Richard’s face from the photo and photo-shopped his face onto Richard’s Body…Pretty scary at best. So in turn, there is a lot of deceptive people out there who pretend to be someone else. To make my point, go to danielselby.com on IMdb.
January 18, 2012 at 10:21 pm
The GodFather’s Fan,
A guy who lives in his own world of lies. Sounds like a typical, garden-variety liberal to me.
April 3, 2013 at 9:27 pm
In her thesis, she concluded he was unrealistic, out of touch, and his methods wouldn’t work.
But you won’t hear a peep of that here, will you?
April 3, 2013 at 9:28 pm
Details on Clinton’s thesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_senior_thesis