Community organizing explained
Posted: February 04, 2009
1:00 am Eastern
© 2009
Immediately after the Democratic National Convention in Colorado, the Boston Globe published a letter from L. David Alinsky. He boasted about how Barack Obama had made extremely effective use of his training in the methods of David's late father, the famous Chicago radical, Saul D. Alinsky.
David Alinsky gloated: "I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday."
What was Saul Alinsky's model that Barack Obama used so successfully to defeat the Clinton machine plus the Republican Party in a dramatic one-two punch never before seen in politics? What is known today as "the Alinsky ideology and Alinsky concepts of mass organization for power" are fully set forth in Alinsky's 1971 book, "Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals."
Alinsky's worldview was that mankind is divided into three parts: "the Haves, the Have-Nots and the Have-a-Little, Want Mores." His purpose was to teach the Have-Nots how to take power and money away from the Haves by creating mass organizations to seize power, and he frankly admitted that "this means revolution."
He wanted a radical change of America's social and economic structure, and he planned to achieve that through creating public discontent and moral confusion. Alinsky developed strategies to achieve power through mass organization, and organizing was his word for revolution.
He wanted to move the United States from capitalism to socialism, where the means of production would be owned by all the people (i.e., the government). A believer in economic determinism, he viewed unemployment, disease, crime and bigotry as byproducts of capitalism.
"Change" was Alinsky's favorite word, used on page after page. "I will argue," he wrote, "that man's hopes lie in the acceptance of the great law of change."
Alinsky used what he called "general concepts of change" to move us toward "a science of revolution." What he called "change" meant massive change in our socio-economic structure, and what he called "organizing" meant pursuing confrontational political tactics.
Alinsky taught the Have-Nots to "hate the establishment of the Haves" because they have "power, money, food, security and luxury." He claimed that "justice, morality, law and order are mere words used by the Haves to justify and secure their status quo."
Read the rest...
Showing posts with label Traitors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Traitors. Show all posts
Friday, February 6, 2009
Friday, October 10, 2008
ASTONISHING VIDEO EVIDENCE FOUND!!! the Clinton administration admitting their policy of "BANK AFFIRMATIVE ACTION".
Amazing, just amazing. This whole debacle was created by a succession of Democrats, and they now blame Republicans. Carter created it (CRA), Clinton loosened up requirements, Obama sued banks to get them to make very risky mortgages available to low income, high risk people. To make banks comply with Clinton's "Bank Affirmative Action" requirements. Barney Frank and the democrats blocked any efforts to reign in and oversee the looming crisis. But Hey, Blame Bush. These people should be in jail, not elected office!
Read more...
Read more...
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Archives prove Obama was a New Party member
H/T American Thinker
Thomas Lifson
Another piece in the puzzle of Barack Obama has been revealed, greatly strengthening the picture of a man groomed by an older generation of radical leftists for insertion into the American political process, trading on good looks, brains, educational pedigree, and the desire of the vast majority of the voting public to right the historical racial wrongs of the land.
The New Party was a radical left organization, established in 1992, to amalgamate far left groups and push the United States into socialism by forcing the Democratic Party to the left. It was an attempt to regroup the forces on the left in a new strategy to take power, burrowing from within. The party only lasted until 1998, when its strategy of "fusion" failed to withstand a Supreme Court ruling. But dissolving the party didn't stop the membership, including Barack Obama, from continuing to move the Democrats leftward with spectacular success.
Erick Erickson, editor of RedState, explained fusion in a Human Events article:
J. Brown of Politically Drunk on Power has dug up multiple documentary sources (with hyperlinks) proving that Barack Obama was a member of the New Party, despite alleged attempts to cover up his tracks by scrubbing evidence. He or she deserves tremendous praise for doing this detective work.
Obama's career bears many signs of being helped along by the radical left. At the critical moment when he entered electoral politics, he was part of a movement to take over an established political party and direct it to the task of building a socialist America.
Hat tip: Rocco DiPippo
Thomas Lifson
Another piece in the puzzle of Barack Obama has been revealed, greatly strengthening the picture of a man groomed by an older generation of radical leftists for insertion into the American political process, trading on good looks, brains, educational pedigree, and the desire of the vast majority of the voting public to right the historical racial wrongs of the land.
The New Party was a radical left organization, established in 1992, to amalgamate far left groups and push the United States into socialism by forcing the Democratic Party to the left. It was an attempt to regroup the forces on the left in a new strategy to take power, burrowing from within. The party only lasted until 1998, when its strategy of "fusion" failed to withstand a Supreme Court ruling. But dissolving the party didn't stop the membership, including Barack Obama, from continuing to move the Democrats leftward with spectacular success.
Erick Erickson, editor of RedState, explained fusion in a Human Events article:
Fusion is a pretty simple concept. A candidate could run as both a Democrat and a New Party member to signal the candidate was, in fact, a left-leaning candidate, or at least not a center-left DLC type candidate. If the candidate -- let's call him Barack Obama -- received only 500 votes in the Democratic Party against another candidate who received 1000 votes, Obama would clearly not be the nominee. But, if Obama also received 600 votes from the New Party, Obama's New Party votes and Democratic votes would be fused. He would be the Democratic nominee with 1100 votes.
The fusion idea set off a number of third parties, but the New Party was probably the most successful. A March 22, 1998 In These Times article by John Nichols showed just how successful. "After six years, the party has built what is arguably the most sophisticated left-leaning political operation the country has seen since the decline of the Farmer-Labor, Progressive and Non-Partisan League groupings of the early part of the century .... In 1996, it helped Chicago's Danny Davis, a New Party member, win a Democratic congressional primary, thereby assuring his election in the majority-black district .... The threat of losing New Party support, or of the New Party running its own candidates against conservative Democrats, would begin a process of forcing the political process to the left, [Joel] Rogers argued."
Fusion, fortunately for the country, died in 1997. William Rehnquist, writing for a 6-3 Supreme Court, found the concept was not a protected constitutional right. It was two years too late to stop Obama.
J. Brown of Politically Drunk on Power has dug up multiple documentary sources (with hyperlinks) proving that Barack Obama was a member of the New Party, despite alleged attempts to cover up his tracks by scrubbing evidence. He or she deserves tremendous praise for doing this detective work.
Obama's career bears many signs of being helped along by the radical left. At the critical moment when he entered electoral politics, he was part of a movement to take over an established political party and direct it to the task of building a socialist America.
Hat tip: Rocco DiPippo
Friday, October 3, 2008
Who's to blame for the Financial crisis?? Democrats, that's who!
Finally, the Republicans have found a spine and are pointing the finger at the low life scum who caused it. Democrats and their "Social Experiment" have caused untold pain and suffering (around the world) for their own self gratification. BASTARDS!!!
Monday, September 29, 2008
Who caused “the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression?”
From Pajamas Media
The Root Cause
* According to Senator Chris Dodd (D. CT) the “root cause” of the problem is “the housing foreclosure crisis.”
Not 100% accurate, perhaps–it’s really a credit crisis–but close enough for government work, especially from someone who has just happens to chair the Senate Banking Committee and who, completely coincidentally, has been such a conspicuous beneficiary of preferential mortgages and who, also coincidentally, leads the list of those who have received campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Guess who comes in 2nd and 3rd?)
* But what caused the housing crisis to which Senator Dodd alludes? The housing “bubble.”
* And what caused the housing bubble? “Sub-prime,” i.e., risky, mortgages; that is, mortgages made to people who, in the normal course of things would have to pay a premium in order to obtain a mortgage (if they could obtain one at all) because
a) they had bad or non-existent credit
b) their income was insufficient or
c) both.
Packaging the American Dream
A home of your own. It’s part of the American dream. Work hard, save up for a down payment, pay your bills on time and, presto, you, too, can buy a home.
For decades the government has done things to help Americans to realize the dream, e.g., graciously allowing citizens to keep some of their own money to help pay for the interest on a mortgage (the official term for this is a “tax deduction,” but I prefer my locution since it emphasizes the fact that it is YOUR MONEY we are talking about).
But what about people who do not work hard (if they work at all)? What about people who have not saved up for a down payment? What about people who do not pay their bills on time (if they pay them at all)? Why shouldn’t they get to live the American dream?
That was the question that led to
”The Community Reinvestment Act” (see here for more).
* The original Community Reinvestment Act was signed into law in 1977 by Jimmy Carter. Its purpose, in a nutshell, was to require banks to provide credit to “under-served populations,” i.e., those with poor credit.
The buzz word was “affordable mortgages,” e.g., mortgages with low teaser-rates, which required the borrower to put no money down, which required the borrower to pay only the interest for a set number of years, etc.
* In 1995, Bill Clinton’s administration made various changes to the CRA, increasing “access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities,” i.e., it provided for the securitization, i.e. public underwriting, of what everyone now calls “sub-prime mortgages.”
Bottom line? It forced banks to issue $1 trillion in sub-prime mortgages.
$1 trillion, i.e., a thousand billion dollars in sub-prime,i.e., risky, mortgages, in order to push this latest example of social engineering.
But wait: how did it force banks to do this? Easy. Introduce a federal requirement that banks make the loans or face penalties. As Howard Husock, writing in City Journal way back in 2000 observed: “Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighbourhood, income group, and race, to rate banks on performance. There would be no more A’s for effort. Only results—specific loans, specific levels of service—would count.” Way back in 1994, for example, Barack Obama sued Citibank on behalf of a client who charged that the bank “systematically denied mortgages to African-American applicants and others from minority neighbourhoods.”
* In 1997, Bear Stearns–O firm of blessed memory–was the first to get onto the sub-prime gravy train.
* Fannie Mae & Freddy Mac–were there near the beginning, too.
Anatomy of a bubble
Step 1. The intoxication: “My house is worth millions!” From 1995 - 2005, the number of sub-prime mortgages skyrocket. So did the house prices.
Step 2. The hangover: “Oh my God, my house isn’t selling. What went wrong?”
Why didn’t someone try to stop it?
Someone did: “The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago,” The New York Times, September 11, 2003.
But someone intervened to stymie the Bush administration. Who? The New York Times reports:
Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. . . . “These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
Why didn’t someone else ring the alarm?
Someone else did. In 2005, John McCain co-sponsored the “Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act,” which among other things provided for more oversight of Freddie & Fannie. The bill didn’t pass. Guess who blocked it?
The bill was reintroduced in 2007. But again, no luck. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had friends in the Senate:
* Chris Dodd, a recipient of “sweetheart” loans from a Freddie and Fannie backed company.
* The junior senator from Illinois, i.e., Barack Obama, who turned to Jim Johnson, former head (1991-1998) of Fannie Mae, to help advise him on whom to pick for the vice-presidential slot on his ticket. From 1985 to 1990, incidentally, Johnson was managing director of Lehman Brothers. Remember them?
* You might also want to check out one of Barack Obama’s other advisors: Franklin Raines, former CEO of Freddie Mac: see here , for example, or here , or here.
Towards the end of the video, we read this salutary observation: “Everyone deserves a home, not a house of cards.”
Who gave us the house of cards? Watch the whole thing here. And then pass it along to everyone you know.
The Root Cause
* According to Senator Chris Dodd (D. CT) the “root cause” of the problem is “the housing foreclosure crisis.”
Not 100% accurate, perhaps–it’s really a credit crisis–but close enough for government work, especially from someone who has just happens to chair the Senate Banking Committee and who, completely coincidentally, has been such a conspicuous beneficiary of preferential mortgages and who, also coincidentally, leads the list of those who have received campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Guess who comes in 2nd and 3rd?)
* But what caused the housing crisis to which Senator Dodd alludes? The housing “bubble.”
* And what caused the housing bubble? “Sub-prime,” i.e., risky, mortgages; that is, mortgages made to people who, in the normal course of things would have to pay a premium in order to obtain a mortgage (if they could obtain one at all) because
a) they had bad or non-existent credit
b) their income was insufficient or
c) both.
Packaging the American Dream
A home of your own. It’s part of the American dream. Work hard, save up for a down payment, pay your bills on time and, presto, you, too, can buy a home.
For decades the government has done things to help Americans to realize the dream, e.g., graciously allowing citizens to keep some of their own money to help pay for the interest on a mortgage (the official term for this is a “tax deduction,” but I prefer my locution since it emphasizes the fact that it is YOUR MONEY we are talking about).
But what about people who do not work hard (if they work at all)? What about people who have not saved up for a down payment? What about people who do not pay their bills on time (if they pay them at all)? Why shouldn’t they get to live the American dream?
That was the question that led to
”The Community Reinvestment Act” (see here for more).
* The original Community Reinvestment Act was signed into law in 1977 by Jimmy Carter. Its purpose, in a nutshell, was to require banks to provide credit to “under-served populations,” i.e., those with poor credit.
The buzz word was “affordable mortgages,” e.g., mortgages with low teaser-rates, which required the borrower to put no money down, which required the borrower to pay only the interest for a set number of years, etc.
* In 1995, Bill Clinton’s administration made various changes to the CRA, increasing “access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities,” i.e., it provided for the securitization, i.e. public underwriting, of what everyone now calls “sub-prime mortgages.”
Bottom line? It forced banks to issue $1 trillion in sub-prime mortgages.
$1 trillion, i.e., a thousand billion dollars in sub-prime,i.e., risky, mortgages, in order to push this latest example of social engineering.
But wait: how did it force banks to do this? Easy. Introduce a federal requirement that banks make the loans or face penalties. As Howard Husock, writing in City Journal way back in 2000 observed: “Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighbourhood, income group, and race, to rate banks on performance. There would be no more A’s for effort. Only results—specific loans, specific levels of service—would count.” Way back in 1994, for example, Barack Obama sued Citibank on behalf of a client who charged that the bank “systematically denied mortgages to African-American applicants and others from minority neighbourhoods.”
* In 1997, Bear Stearns–O firm of blessed memory–was the first to get onto the sub-prime gravy train.
* Fannie Mae & Freddy Mac–were there near the beginning, too.
Anatomy of a bubble
Step 1. The intoxication: “My house is worth millions!” From 1995 - 2005, the number of sub-prime mortgages skyrocket. So did the house prices.
Step 2. The hangover: “Oh my God, my house isn’t selling. What went wrong?”
Why didn’t someone try to stop it?
Someone did: “The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago,” The New York Times, September 11, 2003.
But someone intervened to stymie the Bush administration. Who? The New York Times reports:
Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. . . . “These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
Why didn’t someone else ring the alarm?
Someone else did. In 2005, John McCain co-sponsored the “Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act,” which among other things provided for more oversight of Freddie & Fannie. The bill didn’t pass. Guess who blocked it?
The bill was reintroduced in 2007. But again, no luck. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had friends in the Senate:
* Chris Dodd, a recipient of “sweetheart” loans from a Freddie and Fannie backed company.
* The junior senator from Illinois, i.e., Barack Obama, who turned to Jim Johnson, former head (1991-1998) of Fannie Mae, to help advise him on whom to pick for the vice-presidential slot on his ticket. From 1985 to 1990, incidentally, Johnson was managing director of Lehman Brothers. Remember them?
* You might also want to check out one of Barack Obama’s other advisors: Franklin Raines, former CEO of Freddie Mac: see here , for example, or here , or here.
Towards the end of the video, we read this salutary observation: “Everyone deserves a home, not a house of cards.”
Who gave us the house of cards? Watch the whole thing here. And then pass it along to everyone you know.
Phillips: Subversives For Obama
Another great observation from Melanie Phillips: Subversives For Obama.
Barack Obama appears to sit on a nexus between Marxist revolutionary activists, unrepentant former terrorists, Black Power racists, Chicago mobsters – oh, and a Saudi who is trying to buy up America. If you were to turn up at US immigration control with a background of such associates, it’s a fair bet they wouldn’t let you off the air-bridge. Yet this man may well become President of the US! If any other candidate had had merely a fleeting relationship with William Ayers, his candidacy would have been terminated before it was even articulated — let alone what we now know about Obama’s key role in Ayers’s CAC and its funding of radical groups; let alone the fact that Obama had been mentored during his formative years by a Communist Party plant; let alone his work for organizations modeled on the seditious philosophy of Saul Alinsky; let alone his two-decade membership of a Black Power church; let alone his relationship with fraudster Tony Rezko.
And yet despite all of this, virtually no-one in the mainstream media is asking any questions. Has there ever been a more staggering, surreal and scary race to the White House?
Barack Obama appears to sit on a nexus between Marxist revolutionary activists, unrepentant former terrorists, Black Power racists, Chicago mobsters – oh, and a Saudi who is trying to buy up America. If you were to turn up at US immigration control with a background of such associates, it’s a fair bet they wouldn’t let you off the air-bridge. Yet this man may well become President of the US! If any other candidate had had merely a fleeting relationship with William Ayers, his candidacy would have been terminated before it was even articulated — let alone what we now know about Obama’s key role in Ayers’s CAC and its funding of radical groups; let alone the fact that Obama had been mentored during his formative years by a Communist Party plant; let alone his work for organizations modeled on the seditious philosophy of Saul Alinsky; let alone his two-decade membership of a Black Power church; let alone his relationship with fraudster Tony Rezko.
And yet despite all of this, virtually no-one in the mainstream media is asking any questions. Has there ever been a more staggering, surreal and scary race to the White House?
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Debating Fitna
H/T Klein Verzet
Yesterday Dutch parliament debated Fitna (NL). They of course did not debate the fact that Al’Qaeda together with many other Muslims wanted to kill Geert Wilders for making the film. Neither they talked about how terror states like Iran joined the other Dutch elites in support of condemning the film. They did not even mention the fact that The Netherlands had never before seen so many foreign interventions in its internal affairs since WWII. Nor did anybody mention in the debate how strange a phenomenon it was that Muslim go riot for cartoons and movies but never against terrorism it self.
The initiative for this long-winded debate came from the Christian Democrats. They are the largest party in the current coalition government and have delivered the prime minister. It’s was damage control, their Prime Minister was under attack for declaring a crisis even before the film was released.
As expected the debate showed that Dutch political elites oppose the idea that Islam is in it self a totalitarian movement that should be opposed. Dutch elites think that facts as presented in a film like Fitna should always serve a higher purpose. To them, truth is not a lofty goal in itself. Truth is something utilitarian to them. Thus they rejected Fitna’s facts and just blamed Geert Wilders for not contributing to a peaceful resolution.
But even in their opposition to the movie, they reveal their fear of Islam. Leader of the ruling Christian Democrats (CDA) in parliament, van Geel, declared Fitna: “vicious, needlessly offensive, not helping in the fight against terrorism, nor the integration of Muslims [in Dutch society]”. To add not much later by saying to Wilders: “you don’t have any solutions. That’s the problem. You invoke forces that are uncontrollable.”
Uncontrollable forces? That’s an interesting line of argumentation. According to van Geel: making a film that shows the link between terror and Islam, is not factual, but creates it self an uncontrollable force? What kind of force might that be? Let me guess: an Islamic terrorist force?
It becomes even stranger if his Christian Democratic colleague, current Prime Minister Balkenende in the same debate criticizes Fitna by praising the film Obsession. Really!
Read the rest...
Yesterday Dutch parliament debated Fitna (NL). They of course did not debate the fact that Al’Qaeda together with many other Muslims wanted to kill Geert Wilders for making the film. Neither they talked about how terror states like Iran joined the other Dutch elites in support of condemning the film. They did not even mention the fact that The Netherlands had never before seen so many foreign interventions in its internal affairs since WWII. Nor did anybody mention in the debate how strange a phenomenon it was that Muslim go riot for cartoons and movies but never against terrorism it self.
The initiative for this long-winded debate came from the Christian Democrats. They are the largest party in the current coalition government and have delivered the prime minister. It’s was damage control, their Prime Minister was under attack for declaring a crisis even before the film was released.
As expected the debate showed that Dutch political elites oppose the idea that Islam is in it self a totalitarian movement that should be opposed. Dutch elites think that facts as presented in a film like Fitna should always serve a higher purpose. To them, truth is not a lofty goal in itself. Truth is something utilitarian to them. Thus they rejected Fitna’s facts and just blamed Geert Wilders for not contributing to a peaceful resolution.
But even in their opposition to the movie, they reveal their fear of Islam. Leader of the ruling Christian Democrats (CDA) in parliament, van Geel, declared Fitna: “vicious, needlessly offensive, not helping in the fight against terrorism, nor the integration of Muslims [in Dutch society]”. To add not much later by saying to Wilders: “you don’t have any solutions. That’s the problem. You invoke forces that are uncontrollable.”
Uncontrollable forces? That’s an interesting line of argumentation. According to van Geel: making a film that shows the link between terror and Islam, is not factual, but creates it self an uncontrollable force? What kind of force might that be? Let me guess: an Islamic terrorist force?
It becomes even stranger if his Christian Democratic colleague, current Prime Minister Balkenende in the same debate criticizes Fitna by praising the film Obsession. Really!
Read the rest...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
