Posts Tagged ‘Frank Marshall Davis’

Saul Alinsky And the Obama-SEIU Ideology

February 22, 2010

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.”

– “We like to say: We use the power of persuasion first. If it doesn’t work, we try the persuasion of power.”

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):

I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”

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.

Advertisements

Obama’s Mentor/Pastor For 23 Years A Confirmed Marxist

November 3, 2009

Remember this poster?

I don’t know (or frankly care) what you thought about the “Obama as Joker” motif, but the label at the bottom is shockingly real.

We voted a Marxist into the White House.  Our greatest Democrat president of the last fifty years, John F. Kennedy, along with our greatest Republican president of the last fifty years, Ronald Reagan, are both rolling in their graves right now.  They dedicated themselves to fighting Marxism.  John F. Kennedy was actually murdered by a Marxist assassin.  And yet, tragically, the country these two great men left behind actually invited a Marxist into the White House.

During the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama said, “Judge me by the people with whom I surround myself.”

Obama has surrounded himself with all sorts of incredibly radical and extremist figures (see here for a small sample), but none was more of a sustained influence on him than the man whom Obama chose to be his pastor and spiritual mentor for 23 years – the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

This is from Jeremiah Wright’s September 17, 2009 speech honoring the socialist Monthly Review. As Jeremiah Wright puts it, Monthly Review offers what it calls “no-nonsense Marxism.”

Jeremiah Wright knew where he was and why he was there.  He delivered his speech from prepared written remarks.  He praised the self-acknowledged-socialist Monthly Review as “a forum for commentary and analysis from a specifically socialist perspective.”  He lauded the publication for its “no-nonsense Marxism.”

He said, “You dispel all the negative images we have been programmed to conjure up with just the mention of that word socialism or Marxism.”

Wright salutes and praises “six decades of dedicated [Marxist] service.”

The man who Barack Hussein Obama chose to follow for 23 years, to be his teacher, his mentor, his spiritual guide -the man he chose to marry him to his wife and baptize his children – expressed his view of the United States of America as follows:

“the land of the greed and the home of the slave.”

Which of course reminds us of the fact that Barack Obama sat in a church whose pastor said things like:

“No, no, no.  Not God bless America; God damn America.”

Take a tour of how Barack Obama’s pastor for 23 years routinely preached evil of America and Americans.

Are you aware that that’s how your new president thinks of you?

Barack Hussein Obama’s spiritual leader and mentor for 23 years says of Marxist ideology went on to say to an audience of socialists:

“Thank you for fulfilling the invaluable purpose … [of] offering insights that force your readers to wrestle with reality in some new and exciting ways, moving us inch by inch from a herd mentality to a place where we have to come to grips with the uncomfortable truths with our world.”

This “moving us inch-by-inch” thing is frightening.  What kind of place are we being led to?  Well, let’s find out.  The man who introduced Jeremiah Wright was Robert W. McChesney, who wrote an article entitled, “Journalism, Democracy, and Class Struggle,” in which he declared, “Our job is to make media reform part of our broader struggle for democracy, social justice, and, dare we say it, socialism.”

And of course Obama has surrounded himself with radical Marxists who in his administration who are working to do that very thing.  There’s Obama’s Communications Director Anita Dunn, who in addition to being a demagogue warring against a free press is also an admitted follower of Maoist communist ideology.  There’s Obama’s FCC Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd who praised Venezuelan socialist dictator Hugo Chavez, and praised Chavez’ seizure and control of the media.  There’s Obama’s manufacturing czar Ron Bloom, who called the free market “nonsense” and said, “We kind of agree with Mao.”  We can add Obama’s former Green Jobs Czar Van Jones, who was not only an admitted communist, but a man who held all kinds of frightening extremist positions.

And there’s Obama himself who wrote in his Dreams of My Father book:

“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 the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.”

And before Obama surrounded himself with all those Marxist professors, he was mentored in Hawaii by communist Frank Marshall Davis.  And after those Marxist professors, Obama chose to go to Jeremiah Wright’s black liberation theology (i.e. Marxist) church.

At some point if you are not a complete fool you seriously need to ask yourself WHY Barack Hussein Obama chose to  spend 23 years in a Marxist “black liberation” church that preached anti-white racist hatred and anti-Americanism.  As I pointed out back in March of last year:

Liberation theology was developed in the early 1970s to pave the way for the communist Sandinistas to infiltrate – and subsequently dominate – Nicaraguan society. The Sandinistas understood full well that they had no hope of installing a Marxist regime in a country that was well over 90% Roman Catholic unless they could successfully subsume Catholicism into their cause of Marxism. And the wedding of Marxism with Christianity was brought about in a clear effort of the former to crush the latter.

Where are these people leading us?  Toward their ideology, toward Marxism.  Inch-by-inch whenever necessary; yard-by-yard whenever possible.  But there is one direction this “change” is heading.

McChesney co-authored an article in Monthly Review entitled, “A New New Deal Under Obama?”  And he said about Obama’s New Deal, “In the end, there is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles.”

The goal of these Marxists radicals is to overthrow the capitalist free market system that has made America the greatest, most powerful, and most free nation on earth and impose a socialist system in its place.  Think Cloward-Piven strategy, the strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis:

This was an example of what are commonly called Trojan Horse movements — mass movements whose outward purpose seems to be providing material help to the downtrodden, but whose real objective is to draft poor people into service as revolutionary foot soldiers; to mobilize poor people en masse to overwhelm government agencies with a flood of demands beyond the capacity of those agencies to meet. The flood of demands was calculated to break the budget, jam the bureaucratic gears into gridlock, and bring the system crashing down. Fear, turmoil, violence and economic collapse would accompany such a breakdown — providing perfect conditions for fostering radical change. That was the theory.

Let’s take a moment to learn about what two men who have regularly visited the Obama White House have said.

George Soros is a terrible and evil man.  He has been such ever since he was a Nazi collaborator during his youth.  Given the fact that “NAZI” was merely an abbreviated form of “Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei” (National Socialist German Workers Party), it was never far for him to go to embrace the liberal socialism of his fellow fascists.

George Soros – the money behind many liberal organizations such as MoveOn.org – has visited the Obama White House four times.  And what is the message he is communicating to Obama?  Something very much like this:

But the system we have now has actually broken down, only we haven’t quite recognized it and so you need to create a new one and this is the time to do it.

It’s like Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel says: “Never let a serious crisis go to waste.  What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.”

And the fact that your ideological brethren have deliberately created the crisis is really besides the point.  What matters is “change.”

Andrew Stern, the president of the historically thuggish (and see here) SEIU (Service Employees International Union) that gave $60 million to buy the Obama presidency, has been at the White House 22 times.  When he visits Obama, he has  stuff like this to say:

ANDY STERN: And we are beginning. We have offices now in Australia and Switzerland and London and South America and Africa. We’ve been working with unions around the world. And what we’re working towards is building a global organization because “Workers of the world, unite!” — it’s not just a slogan anymore. It’s a way we’re going to have to do our work.

That little slogan “Workers of the world, unite!” comes directly from The Communist Manifesto. Stern is quite the  fan of Marxism.

STERN: We’re trying to use the power of persuasion. And if that doesn’t work, we’re going to use the persuasion of power because there are governments and there are opportunities to change laws that affect these companies. And I’m not naive. We’re ready to strike.

This White House visitor sounds like a union thug.

From Chicago Public Radio, WBEZ, February 20, 2007:

NARRATOR: It started last summer with the so-called Big Box Ordinance. Labor wanted it. Business didn’t.

STERN: We took names. We watched how they voted. We know where they live.

NARRATOR: In October, Andy Stern, the president of the Service Employees International Union:

STERN: There are opportunities in America to share better in the wealth, to rebalance the power. And unions and government are part of the solution.

We know that Obama is on the same page as Stern regarding spreading the wealth around.  I mean, after all, our first Marxist president is already on the record wanting to spread the wealth around.

Obama is still with SEIU.  He vowed to “paint the nation purple,” the colors of SEIU.  Stern’s quoting Karl Marx, promising to use thuggish “persuasion of power tactics,” and using the power of government to impose the hardcore union agenda on the country, doesn’t frighten Obama away.  Quite the opposite.  And Obama is still supporting the ACORN agenda (just a little more quietly since it became public that this leftwing organization is so vile it was actually willing to help a prostitute cheat the tax system to buy a house in order to import underage illegal immigrant girls to start a brothel).

We are at a crisis point in which we could literally implode under the massive weight of our own debt.  But instead of slowing down our deficit spending, Obama is actually stomping on the accelerator and increasing our speed as we hurtle off the cliff.  Because his people have a plan to take rapid political advantage of the ensuing chaos and fear.

Under Obama, even the former communists in Russia who used to write the propaganda for the Soviets are shaking their heads in amazement over how quickly we are speeding toward our societal demise.

Anti-Free Press Obama Demagogue Anita Dunn A Self-Admitted Marxist

October 16, 2009

Anita Dunn is Barack Obama’s White House Communications Director, anti-Fox News demagogue — and a self-acknowledged Maoist Communist.

Glenn Beck provided the stunning video of Anita Dunn speaking on June 5 of this year:

Speaking to an audience of high school students, Barack Obama’s Communications Director said the following:

“A lot of you have a great deal of ability.  A lot of you work hard.  Put them together, and that answers the ‘why not?’ question.  There’s usually not a good reason.

And then the third lesson and tip actually come from two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Tse-Tung and Mother Teresa — not often coupled with each together, but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is, you’re going to make choices. You’re going to challenge. You’re going to say, “Why not?” You’re going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before. But here’s the deal: These are your choices. They are no one else’s.

In 1947, when Mao Tse-Tung was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over, Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalist Chinese held the cities, they had the army, they had the air force, they had everything on their side.  And people said, “How can you win? How can you do this? How can you do this against all of the odds against you?” And Mao Tse-Tung said, you know, “You fight your war, and I’ll fight mine.” And think about that for a second.

You know, you don’t have to accept the definition of how to do things, and you don’t have to follow other people’s choices and paths, OK? It is about your choices and your path. You fight your own war. You lay out your own path. You figure out what’s right for you. You don’t let external definition define how good you are internally. You fight your war. You let them fight theirs. Everybody has their own path.”

Well, that’s just great.

For what it’s worth, Adolf Hitler also laid out his own path.  He too figured out what was “right for him.”  He certainly didn’t let any “external definitions define how good he was internally.”  Oh, did he ever fight his war.  And Adolf Hitler most definitely had his own path.

And Hitler actually murdered fewer than Anita Dunn’s political hero.

Anita Dunn joins fellow Marxist and Obama-handpicked FCC Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd, who said:

In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution – a democratic revolution.  To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela….The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled – worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government – worked to oust him. But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.”

Nothing wrong with a little Marxism and a little crusade to attack and destroy media critics.  Unless you have a functioning moral compass, anyway.

And we have to mentioned Van Jones, who departed (literally) in the night after his extreme radicalism was revealed.  Van Jones said:

[Van] Jones had planned to move to Washington, DC, and had already landed a job and an apartment there. But in jail, he said, “I met all these young radical people of color — I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of.’” Although he already had a plane ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco. “I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary.” In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. “I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th,” he said. “By August, I was a communist.”

If Barack Obama isn’t a communist, then why on earth does he keep intentionally surrounding himself with them?

It’s readily apparent that Obama has always sought out communist mentors.  In Dreams of My Father, Obama described his circle whom he intentionally surrounded himself with:

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 the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.

And before those Marxist professors, Obama was mentored in Hawaii by communist Frank Marshall Davis.  And after those Marxist professors, Obama chose to go to Jeremiah Wright’s black liberation theology (i.e. Marxist) church.

I bring that out lest anyone try to disassociate Anita Dunn, Mark Lloyd, Van Jones, and others from Barack Obama.  These people aren’t a bunch of individual anomalies; they are part of a very clear pattern of Marxism having invaded the VERY highest level of the White House.

You know, my own favorite political philosophers are George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and great political thinkers such as Cicero and Alexis de Tocqueville.  My list most certainly does not include Mao Tse-Tung, who was without question one of the worst monsters in human history.

Mao Tse-Tung, Anita Dunn’s favorite political philosopher, murdered 70 million of his own people during peacetime to secure and consolidate his power.

Annie Dillard underscored both the evil heart of Mao Tse-Tung and the inherent moral insanity of affirming both Chairman Mao and Mother Teresa in her article “The Wreck of Time” in Harper’s from January 1998:

Was it wisdom Mao Tse-Tong attained when – like Ted Bundy – the awakened to the long view?  “The atom bomb is nothing to be afraid of,” Mao told Nehru, “China has many people. . . . The deaths of ten or twenty million people is nothing to be afraid of.” A witness said Nehru showed shock. Later, speaking in Moscow, Mao displayed yet more generosity: he boasted that he was willing to lose 300 million people, half of China’s population. Does Mao’s reckoning shock me really? If sanctioning the death of strangers could save my daughter’s life, would I do it? Probably. How many others’ lives would I be willing to sacrifice? Three? Three hundred million?

An English journalist, observing the Sisters of Charity in Calcutta, reasoned: “Either life is always and in all circumstances sacred, or intrinsically of no account; it is inconceivable that it should be in some cases the one, and in some the other.”

Mao Tse-Tung was a fundamentally evil man.  And Anita Dunn – Barack Obama’s handpicked demagogue who is working on his behalf to undermine the free press that her “favorite political philosopher” Mao likewise destroyed in China – is a moral idiot.  She connects and embraces the world’s greatest taker of human life with the world’s greatest saver of human life.  And cannot comprehend the insanity of doing so.

One of the things that her “other” favorite political philosopher, Mother Teresa, said should make Anita Dunn a fierce opponent of abortion:

“But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child – a direct killing of the innocent child – murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?” — Mother Teresa

But I think we can all see which “favorite” political philosopher is more “favorite” for Anita Dunn.  But then, this political demagogue, this liberal witch-hunter, is morally incapable of seeing the fundamental irrationality of the Mother who fought for the lives of children, versus the Chairman who created a system that imposed forced abortion.

John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan both saw the truly graphic evil represented by communism.  How they must be turning over in their graves knowing that the White House has come to embrace everything they fought to protect this country from.

Obama’s Cloward-Piven Redistributionism Shaping The Future Collapse

August 28, 2009

There is a bizarre conspiracy afoot that most Americans are simply unwilling to comprehend, much less believe.

Obama and ‘Redistributive Change’
Forget the recession and the “uninsured.” Obama has bigger fish to fry.

By Victor Davis Hanson

The first seven months of the Obama administration seemingly make no sense. Why squander public approval by running up astronomical deficits in a time of pre-existing staggering national debt?

Why polarize opponents after promising bipartisan transcendence?

Why create vast new programs when the efficacy of big government is already seen as dubious?

But that is exactly the wrong way to look at these first seven months of Obamist policy-making.

Take increased federal spending and the growing government absorption of GDP.  Given the resiliency of the U.S. economy, it would have been easy to ride out the recession.  In that case we would still have had to deal with a burgeoning and unsustainable annual federal deficit that would have approached $1 trillion.

Instead, Obama may nearly double that amount of annual indebtedness with more federal stimuli and bailouts, newly envisioned cap-and-trade legislation, and a variety of fresh entitlements. Was that fiscally irresponsible? Yes, of course.

But I think the key was not so much the spending excess or new entitlements. The point instead was the consequence of the resulting deficits, which will require radically new taxation for generations. If on April 15 the federal and state governments, local entities, the Social Security system, and the new health-care programs can claim 70 percent of the income of the top 5 percent of taxpayers, then that is considered a public good — every bit as valuable as funding new programs, and one worth risking insolvency.

Individual compensation is now seen as arbitrary and, by extension, inherently unfair. A high income is now rationalized as having less to do with market-driven needs, acquired skills, a higher level of education, innate intelligence, inheritance, hard work, or accepting risk. Rather income is seen more as luck-driven, cruelly capricious, unfair — even immoral, in that some are rewarded arbitrarily on the basis of race, class, and gender advantages, others for their overweening greed and ambition, and still more for their quasi-criminality.

“Patriotic” federal healers must then step in to “spread the wealth.” Through redistributive tax rates, they can “treat” the illness that the private sector has caused. After all, there is no intrinsic reason why an auto fabricator makes $60 in hourly wages and benefits, while a young investment banker finagles $500.

Or, in the president’s own language, the government must equalize the circumstances of the “waitress” with those of the “lucky.” It is thus a fitting and proper role of the new federal government to rectify imbalances of compensation — at least for those outside the anointed Guardian class. In a 2001 interview Obama in fact outlined the desirable political circumstances that would lead government to enforce equality of results when he elaborated on what he called an “actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.”

Still, why would intelligent politicians try to ram through, in mere weeks, a thousand pages of health-care gibberish — its details outsourced to far-left elements in the Congress (and their staffers) — that few in the cabinet had ever read or even knew much about?

Once again, I don’t think health care per se was ever really the issue. When pressed, no one in the administration seemed to know whether illegal aliens were covered. Few cared why young people do not divert some of their entertainment expenditures to a modest investment in private catastrophic coverage.

Warnings that Canadians already have their health care rationed, wait in long lines, and are denied timely and critical procedures also did not seem to matter. And no attention was paid to statistics suggesting that, if we exclude homicides and auto accidents, Americans live as long on average as anyone in the industrial world, and have better chances of surviving longer with heart disease and cancer. That the average American did not wish to radically alter his existing plan, and that he understood that the uninsured really did have access to health care, albeit in a wasteful manner at the emergency room, was likewise of no concern.

The issue again was larger, and involved a vast reinterpretation of how America receives health care.  Whether more or fewer Americans would get better or worse access and cheaper or more expensive care, or whether the government can or cannot afford such new entitlements, oddly seemed largely secondary to the crux of the debate.

Instead, the notion that the state will assume control, in Canada-like fashion, and level the health-care playing field was the real concern. “They” (the few) will now have the same care as “we” (the many). Whether the result is worse or better for everyone involved is extraneous, since sameness is the overarching principle.

We can discern this same mandated egalitarianism beneath many of the administration’s recent policy initiatives. Obama is not a pragmatist, as he insisted, nor even a liberal, as charged.

Rather, he is a statist. The president believes that a select group of affluent, highly educated technocrats — cosmopolitan, noble-minded, and properly progressive — supported by a phalanx of whiz-kids fresh out of blue-chip universities with little or no experience in the marketplace, can direct our lives far better than we can ourselves. By “better” I do not mean in a fashion that, measured by disinterested criteria, makes us necessarily wealthier, happier, more productive, or freer.

Instead, “better” means “fairer,” or more “equal.” We may “make” different amounts of money, but we will end up with more or less similar net incomes. We may know friendly doctors, be aware of the latest procedures, and have the capital to buy blue-chip health insurance, but no matter. Now we will all alike queue up with our government-issued insurance cards to wait our turn at the ubiquitous corner clinic.

None of this equality-of-results thinking is new.

When radical leaders over the last 2,500 years have sought to enforce equality of results, their prescriptions were usually predictable: redistribution of property; cancellation of debts; incentives to bring out the vote and increase political participation among the poor; stigmatizing of the wealthy, whether through the extreme measure of ostracism or the more mundane forced liturgies; use of the court system to even the playing field by targeting the more prominent citizens; radical growth in government and government employment; the use of state employees as defenders of the egalitarian faith; bread-and-circus entitlements; inflation of the currency and greater national debt to lessen the power of accumulated capital; and radical sloganeering about reactionary enemies of the new state.

The modern versions of much of the above already seem to be guiding the Obama administration — evident each time we hear of another proposal to make it easier to renounce personal debt; federal action to curtail property or water rights; efforts to make voter registration and vote casting easier; radically higher taxes on the top 5 percent; takeover of private business; expansion of the federal government and an increase in government employees; or massive inflationary borrowing. The current class-warfare “them/us” rhetoric was predictable.

Usually such ideologies do not take hold in America, given its tradition of liberty, frontier self-reliance, and emphasis on personal freedom rather than mandated fraternity and egalitarianism. At times, however, the stars line up, when a national catastrophe, like war or depression, coincides with the appearance of an unusually gifted, highly polished, and eloquent populist. But the anointed one must be savvy enough to run first as a centrist in order later to govern as a statist.

Given the September 2008 financial meltdown, the unhappiness over the war, the ongoing recession, and Barack Obama’s postracial claims and singular hope-and-change rhetoric, we found ourselves in just such a situation. For one of the rare times in American history, statism could take hold, and the country could be pushed far to the left.

That goal is the touchstone that explains the seemingly inexplicable — and explains also why, when Obama is losing independents, conservative Democrats, and moderate Republicans, his anxious base nevertheless keeps pushing him to become even more partisan, more left-wing, angrier, and more in a hurry to rush things through. They understand the unpopularity of the agenda and the brief shelf life of the president’s charm. One term may be enough to establish lasting institutional change.

Obama and his supporters at times are quite candid about such a radical spread-the-wealth agenda, voiced best by Rahm Emanuel — “You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid” — or more casually by Obama himself — “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

So we move at breakneck speed in order not to miss this rare opportunity when the radical leadership of the Congress and the White House for a brief moment clinch the reins of power. By the time a shell-shocked public wakes up and realizes that the prescribed chemotherapy is far worse than the existing illness, it should be too late to revive the old-style American patient.

— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

The term, “Cloward-Piven strategy” resounds in Hanson’s article without having ever once been used:

In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when “the rest of society is afraid of them,” Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would “the rest of society” accept their demands.

An American Thinker article provides flesh to the concept:

The Strategy was first elucidated in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation magazine by a pair of radical socialist Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. David Horowitz summarizes it as:
The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Cloward and Piven were inspired by radical organizer [and Hillary Clinton mentor] Saul Alinsky:

“Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one. (Courtesy Discover the Networks.org)

Newsmax rounds out the picture:

Their strategy to create political, financial, and social chaos that would result in revolution blended Alinsky concepts with their more aggressive efforts at bringing about a change in U.S. government. To achieve their revolutionary change, Cloward and Piven sought to use a cadre of aggressive organizers assisted by friendly news media to force a re-distribution of the nation’s wealth.

In their Nation article, Cloward and Piven were specific about the kind of “crisis” they were trying to create:

By crisis, we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention.

No matter where the strategy is implemented, it shares the following features:

  1. The offensive organizes previously unorganized groups eligible for government benefits but not currently receiving all they can.
  2. The offensive seeks to identify new beneficiaries and/or create new benefits.
  3. The overarching aim is always to impose new stresses on target systems, with the ultimate goal of forcing their collapse.

Nobody wants to believe that a large and influential group of our leaders would want to create a catastrophe as a means of having an opportunity to impose their will upon an ensuing “super-government” that would necessarily have to arise from the ashes.  The concept strikes many as madness.

Only it’s happened too many times in just this century to label as “madness.”  It is, in fact, the goal of virtually every revolutionary movement.  You have to tear down the old in order to create the new.

Consider the fact that the leftist organizers of the 1960s – like Barack Obama’s friend and mentor William Ayers, who was instrumental in Obama’s early career and his run in politics – are very much still around and still profoundly shaping the leftist agenda.  Take Ayers’ Weather Underground co-founder Jeff Jones, whose Apollo Alliance wrote a big chunk of Obama’s stimulus package.  Take Tom Hayden (who endorsed Obama), leader of the leftist group Students for a Democratic Society.  He proclaimed in a landmark 1962 speech that the youth must wrest control of society from their elders, and that to that end universities had to be transformed into incubators of revolutionary “social action.”  And his calls to use any means necessary to achieve that “social action” – certainly including violence and force – colored and in fact defined the entire 60s leftist radicalism.  Hayden was one of the writers of the “Berkeley Liberation Program.”  Some highlights: “destroy the university, unless it serves the people”; “all oppressed people in jail are political prisoners and must be set free”; “create a soulful socialism”; “students must destroy the senile dictatorship of adult teachers.”  And his “community outreach” fomented horrific race riots.

These people are still dictating the agenda of the left today.  They were trying to fundamentally transform society then, and they are trying to fundamentally transform society today.  Only their tactics have changed; the goal remains the same.

You don’t think Barack Obama – who was in turn mentored by communist Frank Marshall Davis, by radical organizer Saul Alinsky, by terrorist William Ayers – (the link is to a CNN story demonstrating that Obama’s relationship to Ayers was MUCH deeper than Obama claimed) – doesn’t value these people and share their values?  Then, to put it very bluntly, you are a fool.  The words of our current president:

“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 the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.  We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets.  At night, in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy.  When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake, we were resisting bourgeois society’s stifling constraints.  We weren’t indifferent or careless or insecure.  We were alienated.”

But of course, Obama really wasn’t alienated, by his own statement.  He was a member of a community–a community of far-far-leftist radicals.

Also, of course “the more politically active black students” were the violent, racist, and criminal Black Panthers.

Obama was always about “change.”

You may not believe me now.  I understand that.  But hear this: it is my contention that things are going to get seriously bad in this country.  And that there are liberals, progressives, socialists (as Obama’s climate czar Carol Browner is), communists (as Obama’s ‘Green jobs czar’ Van Jones describes himself) – or whatever the hell these people want to call themselves – who are manipulating and riding the current times in order to take advantage of the future collapse.

Things didn’t have to get as bad as they’re going to get.  It certainly won’t be George Bush’s fault (all of Obama’s efforts to turn him into the current version of Emmanuel Goldstein to the contrary).  It is not George Bush’s fault that Barack Obama’s budget accumulated so far in 2009 exceeds all eight years of Bush’s combined deficits.  It’s not George Bush’s fault that we have seen historic and completely unsustainable levels of red ink under Barack Obama.  It’s not George Bush’s fault that Barack Obama is essentially truing to nationalize wide swaths of our economy, such as health care and energy.  It’s all on Obama.

Obama’s massive debt is creating serious worries about the future of the U.S. dollar.  We are forecasted to be paying a trillion dollars a year just in interest on the debt by 2019; and it will very likely be a lot more a lot sooner.

What’s going to happen then?

Well, let me tell you what the Cloward-Piven proponents believe will happen: they think the coming complete crash of our economic system will result in the complete takeover of the economy and the society by the state.  They think that as panicked and hungry people look around at the disaster big government created, they will have no choice but to turn to government for help.  They think that they will finally have the socialist utopia they always dreamed of but American independence and self-reliance would never allow.

If by some miracle in defiance of all the laws of economics Obama’s economic policy actually doesn’t kill our economy, Obama and Democrats will win big.  If, far more likely, Obama’s economic policy causes a crash of the entire system, liberals believe that Democrats will ultimately STILL win big.

You can call me crazy if you like.  But mark my words.

As you see things getting worse, and liberals using the complete and catastrophic failure of big government to justify even MORE and even BIGGER big government, what might seem crazy to you now will make a lot more sense.

Did William Ayers Write Obama’s Books For Him? Quite Possibly

October 15, 2008

An article by Jack Cashill from a World Net Daily Exclusive:

Obama didn’t write ‘Dreams from My Father’

The emergence of a previously unseen writing sample proves all but conclusively that Barack Obama did not in any meaningful way write “Dreams from My Father,” the book Time Magazine has called “the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician.”

The emergence of a second writing sample, this one by a legitimate author, provides convincing evidence as to who did.

In 1990, the University of Illinois at Springfield published a collection of essays called “After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois.” Obama contributed a chapter, titled: “Why Organize? Problems and Promise in the Inner City.”

The year 1990, by the way, was when Obama, the newly elected president of the Harvard Law Review, received a six-figure advance from Simon & Schuster to write what would become “Dreams from My Father.”

The publishers must not have read “Why Organize?” Although the essay covers many of the issues raised in “Dreams” and uses some of the memoir’s techniques, it does so without a hint of style, sophistication or promise.

Indeed, the essay is clunky, pedestrian and wonkish – a B- paper in a freshman comp class. The following two excerpts capture Obama’s range, or lack thereof:

Moreover, such approaches can and have become thinly veiled excuses for cutting back on social programs, which are anathema to a conservative agenda. But organizing the black community faces enormous problems as well … and the urban landscape is littered with the skeletons of previous efforts.

These cliché-choked sentences go beyond the merely unpromising to the fully ungrammatical. “Organizing” does not “face.” “Efforts” do not leave “skeletons.” “Agendas” do not have “anathemas.”

In “Why Organize?” Obama makes use of the fully recreated conversation, a technique used to somewhat better effect in “Dreams.” Here, his ungainly conjuring of black speech makes one cringe:

“I just cannot understand why a bright young man like you would go to college, get that degree and become a community organizer.” “Why’s that?”

“‘Cause the pay is low, the hours is long, and don’t nobody appreciate you.”

Obama asks us to believe that five years later, without any additional training, he was capable of writing passages like the following from “Dreams”:

Winter came and the city turned monochrome-black trees against gray sky above white earth. Night now fell in midafternoon, especially when the snowstorms rolled in, boundless prairie storms that set the sky close to the ground, the city lights reflected against the clouds.

To read “Why Organize?” in its entirety is to understand the fraud that is Obama, the literary genius. As the reader will see, one does not need forensic software to sense the limits of Obama’s skills.

Get “The Audacity of Deceit: Barack Obama’s War on American Values”

Farrakhan suggested he would keep a low profile in the campaign, despite his enthusiasm for Obama.

Allow me to reconstruct how Obama transformed himself in a few short years from an awkward amateur into what the New York Times has called “that rare politician who can write … and write movingly and genuinely about himself.”

There is an element of speculation in this reconstruction, but new evidence continues to narrow the gap between the speculative and the conclusive.

One clue comes from an unexpected source: Rashid Khalidi, the radical Arab-American friend of Obama’s and reputed ally of the Palestinian Liberation Organization.

In the acknowledgment section of his 2004 book, “Resurrecting Empire,” Khalidi pays tribute to his own literary muse, the man who has made “unrepentant” a household word, Bill Ayers.

Writes Khalidi, “Bill was particularly generous in letting me use his family’s dining room table to do some writing for the project.” Khalidi did not need the table. He had one of his own. He needed the help.

Khalidi had spent several years at Chicago University’s Center for International Studies. At a 2003 farewell dinner on the occasion of his departure from Chicago, Obama toasted him, thanking him and his wife for the many dinners they had shared as well as for his “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases.”

Chicago’s Hyde Park was home to a tight, influential radical community at whose center was the charismatic Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn. In this world, the Ayers’ terrorist rap sheet only heightened their reputation. Obama had to know.

The couple had given up revolution in 1980 for the long, slow march through the institutions. By 1994, if not earlier, Ayers saw a way to quicken that march.

I believe that after failing to finish his book on time, and after forfeiting his advance from Simon & Schuster, Obama brought his sprawling, messy, sophomoric manuscript to the famed dining room table of Bill Ayers and said, “Help.”

Click here to continue reading at wnd.com.

Cashill presents a compelling argument.  I had several graduate level courses in textual criticism, and understand the text critic’s capability to compare word choices, motifs, style, and themes to compare and contrast writers, and even recognize forgeries, plagiarism, and “ghost writers.”

When you consider that Barack Obama is clearly intelligent and charismatic, it really is no surprise that the extremely liberal intellectuals that Obama’s mother (who had a PhD in anthropology and was obviously a radical herself) knew would mentor him.

Names like Frank Marshall Davis (member of the Communist Party USA and under FBI surveillance for 19 years), Saul Alinsky (radical organizer and author of Rules for Radicals), Jeremiah Wright (adherent of Marxist black liberation theology with ‘God damn America’ fame), Michael Pfleger, PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi (who mourns the existence of the state of Israel) keep cropping up in Obama’s life.  William Ayers, former leader of the leftist domestic terrorist group the Weathermen/Weather Underground, which bombed over a dozen sites (including the Pentagon, the Capital, and New York City Police Headquarters) and killed seven people – along with his wife Bernadine Dohrn (whose Wikipedia article is very revealing about the dangerous mindset of radical intellectuals) -are just more names on the list.

Or not?  If William Ayers truly DID ghostwrite Dreams of My Father based on the mess Obama brought him, Ayers becomes more than merely an influence.  Obama would OWE this unrepentant terrorist bombing radical; Ayers would have not only sway, but even clout, over Barack Obama.  Given that Ayers welcomed Obama to the board of his radical education foundation, given that Obama’s first fundraiser was held in Ayers’ home, and given that Ayers in likely even wrote Obama’s inspiring books for him, well, you should be able to see the problem for yourself.

Personally, I can’t say whether Obama’s books were ghostwritten by William Ayers or not.  I acknowledge that I haven’t read Obama’s books (and frankly don’t have them on my reading list).  But I did read his “Why Organize” paper, and identify with Jack Cashill’s point: it certainly doesn’t strike one as the words of one who can wax eloquent; and neither does Obama himself when he’s speaking off his talking points without his teleprompter.

Jews And Americans Alike Need To Fear Obama Presidency

October 14, 2008

You often don’t hear the truth about a politician from his or her own lips.  Politicians know how to cautiously craft their speech; they know how to distort, misrepresent, and flat-out lie.  No, you often have to get the truth about a politician secondhand.

At the first World Policy Forum held in Evian, France (Barack Obama loves world policy forums and has chided Americans for not being able to speak French), Jesse Jackson had this prophetic word for his hearers:

PREPARE for a new America: That’s the message that the Rev. Jesse Jackson conveyed to participants in the first World Policy Forum, held at this French lakeside resort last week.

He promised “fundamental changes” in US foreign policy – saying America must “heal wounds” it has caused to other nations, revive its alliances and apologize for the “arrogance of the Bush administration.”

The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where “decades of putting Israel’s interests first” would end.

Jackson believes that, although “Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades” remain strong, they’ll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House.

“Obama is about change,” Jackson told me in a wide-ranging conversation. “And the change that Obama promises is not limited to what we do in America itself. It is a change of the way America looks at the world and its place in it.”

Jackson warns that he isn’t an Obama confidant or adviser, “just a supporter.” But he adds that Obama has been “a neighbor or, better still, a member of the family.” Jackson’s son has been a close friend of Obama for years, and Jackson’s daughter went to school with Obama’s wife Michelle.

“We helped him start his career,” says Jackson. “And then we were always there to help him move ahead. He is the continuation of our struggle for justice not only for the black people but also for all those who have been wronged.”

In other words, the guy who has known Obama for years, known his family, and helped him get his start in politics says, “Be afraid, Jew: Obama is going to end your world in order to build a better one.”

France loves Obama.  But Jews shouldn’t  And Israelies certainly shouldn’t.  You can’t trust him on his stand for Israel.  He’ll say whatever he needs to say, and you won’t know what he really believes until he gets in power.  To Jews he said, “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”  And then he turned right around and said to Arabs, “Well, obviously, it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations.”  You don’t know Barack Obama.  But Jesse Jackson sure knows him.

By the way, France willingly participated in helping the Nazis round up Jews to feed into their Holocaust death machine.  And it still has a great deal of Antisemitism to this day.

Last week I wrote an article titled, “Barack Obama Proclaimed As Messiah – The Beast Is Coming.”  I conclude in that article: “The United States isn’t mentioned in Bible prophecy.  Now we begin to see why: we wont’ matter because our economy will be in ruins.  And we certainly won’t be the kind of nation that will be willing to come to Israel’s aid against the beast when they need us most.”  Frankly, I didn’t realize that Barack Obama already had undeclared plans to undermine the Jewish state in order to advance his idea of a “new America” that will “fundamentally change its foreign policy” to “heal wounds” by cutting “Zionists” out of the picture.

Christians like myself view Jews as “God’s canary in the mine.”  How a nation treats the Jews demonstrates its moral condition.  As a nation blesses the Jews, God will bless that nation.  And as a nation curses the Jews, God will curse them (eg., Genesis 12:3).  But as I have already also written, Barack Obama would be President of God damn America.  So it doesn’t surprise me at all to learn from a key longtime Obama confidant that Barack Hussein Obama would pursue a policy that would damn America.

It was primarily American Jews – greatly assisted by American Christians who believed the Bible – who helped conceive and lay the groundwork for a Jewish state in the land that God gave to Abraham and his descendants as an eternal possession (Genesis 17:8).  The United States was the first nation to officially recognize the state of Israel.  And the United States has been a better friend of Israel and the Jew than any nation in the history of the world.  And the United States has been blessed as no other nation in the history of the world, I believe, as a direct result.

Barack Obama, the false messiah who would undermine this nation’s foundations and leave it a hollow shell by means of his disastrous policies, would sever that relationship of blessing and turn it unto divine cursing, according to a happy Jesse Jackson.

Let us not forget that Jeremiah Wright engaged in antisemitic rhetoric at Barack Obama’s church; and that Barack Obama’s Trinity United Church named vitriolic Antisemite Louis Farrakhan it’s Man of the Year; and that Barack Obama actually helped lead Louis Farrakhan’s Million Man March.  And then Louis Farrakhan in turn declares that Barack Obama is the messiah.

Campbell Brown wrote a commentary titled, “So what if Obama were a Muslim or an Arab?”  I wrote an article titled “Why Islamic Extremists Support Democrats And Obama” without mentioning either Obama’s race or religion.  With all due respects to Campbell Brown, if Barack Obama is elected President, we are going to very soon discover that worldviews matter.  And Frank Marshall Davis, Saul Alinsky, Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, William Ayers, Louis Farrakhan, ACORN, and yes, Jesse Jackson ought to tell us that Barack Hussein Obama has a very radical worldview, indeed.  He has simply been smart enough to conceal both his worldview and his agenda.

Barack Obama will bring monumental change, no question about it.  Given the fact that if he is elected, he will likely have such an overwhelming majority under Nancy Pelosi’s House of Representatives and Harry Reid’s Senate that Republicans won’t be able to do anything about anything, Obama would likely have more power than any President in our lifetimes.  There will be change like we have never seen.

God bless America, or God damn America: which one will we choose?

Barack Obama’s ACORN Registers Dallas Cowboys To Vote In Nevada

October 8, 2008

Barack Obama is a radical.  He came from a radical background.  He had a radical – in fact a communist – childhood mentor (Frank Marshall Davis).  He had radical adult mentors (Saul Alinsky, Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger).  He decided to spend 23 years in a radical “black liberation theology” (a synonym for race-based Marxism), black separatist, and anti-American church.

And he went to work for radical organization ACORN, which has been nailed to the wall for voter fraud in ten states so far in this campaign alone.  And these are battleground states in which history has proven that just a few votes could turn the election one way or another.

Barack Obama has learned to camouflage his radicalism behind deceptive rhetoric and glossy, meaningless slogans.  But ACORN – indicted for voter fraud in state after state, with their offices just raided by the FBI in Las Vegas – is still the same blatantly radical group it was when Barack Obama represented it.

The Associated Press story detailing the FBI raid today begins:

LAS VEGAS – Nevada authorities seized records Tuesday from a group they accused of submitting fraudulent voter-registration forms — including for the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys.

Tony Romo is not registered to vote in the state of Nevada, and anybody trying to pose as Terrell Owens won’t be able to cast a ballot on Nov. 4,” said Secretary of State Ross Miller, referring to star players on the pro football team.

State authorities raided the headquarters of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, a group that works to register low-income people.

ACORN organizations have registered at least 90,000 voters in Nevada.  And thousands are now known to be fraudulent.

A woman named Monica Ray was registered at least ten times.  A twelve year old was registered.

ACORN is trying to represent itself as the victim, like a store that is suffering the effects shoplifting.  But they’re AREN’T the victim.  They are the perpetrators.  ACORN is more like a mafia don who is trying to claim that he is helpless to control the crimes of all his gangsters.

Think of it this way: ACORN is doing for the Obama campaign with registration what the Obama campaign is doing itself with its fundraising.  You think “Monica Ray” being registered to vote ten times is bad?  How about the fact that the Obama campaign has accepted under-the-$200-limit donations at least 1,000 times from “Good Will“?  Or a “Pro, Doodad” who gave in 786 sepearate donations?  Obama isn’t disclosing his under-the-limit donations, like the McCain campaign is doing.  He is out touting the fact that his massive donations are coming from small doners; the REAL story is that large sums of illegal campaign contributions are being fraudulently broken down into small amounts to stay under the radar.

These people aren’t victims.   They are perps.

This is Barack Obama’s organization, engaged in a systematic effort to undermine the American Democratic process.  It is part in parcel of the infamous Chicago politics, in which dead people get to vote, and often more than once.

A couple of articles detailing Barack Obama’s relationship with this anti-Democratic organization:

Inside Obama’s Acorn

Obama’s Radical-Left Ties Broad And Deep

Obama’s Ties To ACORN More Substantial than first believe

Barack Obama registered some 125,000 voters as an ACORN organizer.  It is an open question how many of those voter names came out of the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys.

Obama Caught With Yet ANOTHER Radical Association

August 8, 2008

Obama keeps reaching back to his Chicago political past for his policy advisers, and pulling one despicable, vile, and even evil rabbit after another out of his hat.

The list of Barack Obama’s radical associations is long and it keeps getting longer. Some are now well-known, but many are not.

They need to be.

Oh, we know about Obama’s 23 years at Trinity United Church of Christ. And we know about Jeremiah Wright. These relationships alone were enough to prompt the leftist Rolling Stone Magazine to acknowledge that:

This is as openly radical a background as any significant American political figure has ever emerged from, as much Malcolm X as Martin Luther King Jr.

And of course, many have heard the name of Father Michael Pfleger and his hateful and race-hating ramblings (what do you call a white man who despises his own race? A liberal).

But many don’t realize that Barack Obama met the radical social activist Father Pfleger while Obama was carrying out his own radical social activism. They don’t realize that Barack Obama’s stint as a “community organizer” was at ACORN, about as radical an organization that one can find in America.

But you haven’t heard quite as much about James Meeks, the third of Obama’s three closest “spiritual advisor’s.” You can hear one of his “sermons” on Youtube.

We certainly could learn more about another of Barack Obama’s friends from Chicago, Penny Pritzker, who heads the Obama campaign’s National Finance Committee. We can look into her own financial background and learn that not only was she the president of Superior Bank – which massively failed; and not only did she literally personally buy her way out of jail by paying a $460 MILLION dollar “fine”; but that she was at the very epicenter of what would become known as “the subprime loan scandal” that would come to eat this nation’s financial system alive.

We could look at former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson, former head of Obama’s vice presidential selection committee until it was discovered that he had benefited from sweetheart loans from subprime king Countrywide.

The name Tony Rezko certainly ought to sound familiar.

The name William Ayers, terrorist bomber, Obama-co-lecturer, fellow board member, neighbor, and friend should certainly come to mind.

We could also look at Barack Obama’s youthful associations and see just how radical and troubling they are:

Barack Obama has been steeped in radical politics since the day he emerged from his atheist secular humanist grad student mother’s womb. The openly communist Frank Marshall Davis was his childhood mentor; Saul Alinsky and Gerald Kellman (it was through Kellman’s Woods Fund that Obama met leftist terrorist William Ayers) dominated his thinking in college. He chose the most radical church in the country; he chose to make Jeremiah Wright his “spiritual mentor”; he chose to immerse himself in hard-core ideological radicalism. Never before has this country considered such a radical leftist for its chief executive.

Barack Obama’s own wife Michelle should have a LOT more explaining to do than her “and for the first time in my adult life I’m proud of my country,” her, “America is a mean place in 2008” comments. If that’s all you know about her “work,” you have no IDEA. The following short video is guaranteed to give you some “Oh, My God!” moments, or I’ll refund your money:

Now we find another Obama association that exposes a whole other ugly can of worms.

Chicago lawyer Mazen Asbahi, who was appointed as the national coordinator for Muslim American affairs by the Obama campaign (if this link fails you will know that the Obama campaign is continuing to scrub its website) less than two weeks ago, stepped down Monday after an Internet newsletter wrote about his brief stint on the fund’s board – which also included a fundamentalist imam – prompting The Wall Street Journal to email inquiries. Asbahi attempted to make his brief time on a board the issue, when the real issues were his relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, and his 8-year long personal relationship with Hamas fundraiser Jamal Said.

Gee, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama. If you really want people to forget that you are the son of a Muslim father who served an incredibly brutal and corrupt Kenyan government; if you want them to forget that you attended a madrassa in Indonesia as a child and even practiced Islam; if you want them to forget that you campaigned in Kenya on behalf of your cousin, Raila Odinga, who relied upon chaos, corruption, and even violence in his campaign; numerous other troubling associations between yourself and radical Muslims; forget those photographs of you waling around in traditional Muslim clothes, well then maybe, just maybe, you shouldn’t hang around with Muslim radicals such as Mazen Asbahi and another radical pal of yours, the anti-Semite Rashid Khalidi.

It is frankly impossible for me to understand how Barack Obama managed to win the Democratic nomination. That so many Americans could care less about who their candidate really is – beyond the fact that he is the Democrat in the race – is simply amazing.