Posted: Fri 26 Sep 2008 14:41 Post subject: Guess who recommended Obama to enter Harvard
ELECTION 2008
Guess who recommended Obama to enter Harvard Mystery man in senator's memoir now revealed as disciple of socialist agitator
Quote:
In a revelation tying Barack Obama even closer to radical community organizing, WND has learned that a renowned disciple of the late socialist agitator Saul "The Red" Alinksy wrote a letter of recommendation for Obama when he applied to Harvard Law School.
Obama approached Northwestern University professor John L. McKnight – a loyal student of Alinsky's radical tactics – to pen the Harvard letter in the late 1980s. McKnight serves on the boards of radically anti-American groups in Chicago, including one accused of thuggery.
Obama in his 2006 memoir alludes to McKnight – whom he describes as an "older man who had been active in the civil rights efforts in Chicago in the sixties" – but stops short of identifying him by name. He referred to him only as "my friend."
But McKnight, who enforced affirmative action for Attorney General Robert Kennedy, was far more than that to young Obama. He helped train him in the agitation tactics of Alinsky, who wrote the organizing manual, "Rules for Radicals," which he dedicated to mankind's "very first radical, Lucifer."
The Chicago-based Gamaliel Foundation lists McKnight as a board director. From1985 to 1988, Obama worked for a subsidiary of Gamaliel, where he cut his teeth as a community organizer on Chicago's South Side. McKnight and Gamaliel, which was founded on Alinsky's principles, provided training for the budding radical.
Before leaving for Harvard, Obama wrote an article published in a journal titled, "After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois," in which he praised McKnight and his organizing strategies. He also decried "institutional racism" and called for more "power" to put in place "a systematic approach to community organization."
While at Harvard, he found time to take advanced training courses at the Industrial Areas Foundation, a group founded by Alinsky and affiliated with Gamaliel. He also would return to Chicago to work as a consultant and trainer for Gamaliel.
Under the tutelage of McKnight and other hardcore students of Alinsky, Obama says he got the "best education I ever had, better than anything I got at Harvard Law School." He made the remark last year while campaigning in Iowa.
His mentor McKnight also sits on the board of a militant leftist group called the National People's Action, the professor's curriculum vita reveals. NPA employs the hardball street tactics of Alinskyite organizing.
NPA claims to be simply a coalition of neighborhood advocacy groups based in Chicago, but conservative analyst Michelle Malkin describes it as a "left-wing goon squad." She says NPA has been known to bus hundreds of angry protestors to the homes of business and government leaders to demand "justice" for inner-city blacks.
While preparing to intimidate the families of officials and trample over their private property, she says NPA picketers belt out the following battle cry:
Who's on your hit list, NPA?
Who's on your hit list for today?
Take no prisoner, take no names.
Kick 'em in the a-- when they play their games.
"NPA's militant tactics cross the bounds of decent political debate," Malkin wrote in 2004.
Obama, in his 1995 memoir, said he wanted to go to Harvard Law School to "learn power's currency in all its intricacy," with the goal of "making large-scale change" as a national politician.
Before writing his recommendation, McKnight, a former ACLU director, advised Obama not to "compromise" his principles.
While Obama says he's perhaps more tolerant of compromise than McKnight, he says his views haven't really changed from his days organizing on behalf of radical Alinsky groups like Gamaliel and ACORN in Chicago.
"My views are not so much more refined than they were when I labored in obscurity as a community organizer," he averred in his 2006 autobiography.
Socialist dream
Alinsky, the father of community organizing, dreamed of socialism one day replacing the "jungle" of American capitalism. He wrote that he hoped "for a future where the means of production will be owned by all of the people instead of just a comparative handful."
Alinsky dedicated the first edition of his book, "Rules for Radicals," to Satan: "Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer."
McKnight has advocated for another war on poverty, something Obama is proposing with his "Urban Prosperity" plan.
Related offers:
Get "The Audacity of Deceit," and learn about the looming hostile attack on Judeo-Christian values and freedoms Americans hold dear
Get Jerome Corsi's "The Obama Nation," autographed by the author, exclusively from WND's online store.
"NObama" magnetic bumper sticker
Whistleblower magazine's "THE SECRET LIFE OF BARACK OBAMA"
Get the book that launched the "None of the Above" political movement – personally signed by the author. It comes with a free "None of the Above" magnetized bumper sticker.
Help spread the word about the "None of the Above" campaign with extra copies of the magnetized bumper sticker.
Proudly display the hottest campaign button in the nation – "None of the Above." Buy them in bulk at phenomenal prices.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 394 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Fri 26 Sep 2008 15:47 Post subject:
I sent in my absentee ballot to Delaware already. If I thought the Socialist Worker's Party actually stood a chance, that candidate would have gotten my vote... but man, looks like I don't have to look far, Obama could do it for us!
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1434 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 26 Sep 2008 15:57 Post subject:
Richard Miller wrote:
I sent in my absentee ballot to Delaware already. If I thought the Socialist Worker's Party actually stood a chance, that candidate would have gotten my vote... but man, looks like I don't have to look far, Obama could do it for us!
Do you believe that socialism gives people the incentive to work hard so that they achieve more??? You don't think socialism makes people lazy??? Why work harder than the next person when everyone gets the samething?
You don't think there would be a massive problem if the government started to confiscate peoples holdings for the "common good"??? What right does the government have to do such a thing?
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 394 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Fri 26 Sep 2008 17:26 Post subject:
Communism engenders laziness, not socialism.
But let's talk about this: minimum wage was 1/3 less the buying power than it did forty years ago. Back then, CEO's made maybe 30 times that of the average worker, where now they make something like 400 times that of the average worker. What if we raised minimum wage to have the same buying power as it did 40 years ago? No, forget that - just raise it by a dollar. People get laid off. CEO has gotta keep that money in his pocket, right? Hell, what about when companies are slashing wages while top executives in the same company are getting RAISES? These people are taking food out of the mouths of children of working class parents, so they can add a new Bentley or two to their fleet of cars! Why is THAT not a crime? And let's not even get into the golden parachutes that made Hank McKinnel and Bob Nardelli famous.
And then, I'm not a big fan of inheritence or "old money" - or anything, for that matter, that engenders people having unfair advantages over others because of the family that they were born to. Is it not 100% IMMORAL that the opportunities available to you depend on that the family that you were born to? What we have here is an informal nobility system (I'd rather have a real system of nobility than our current situation - at least then, our intelligence wouldn't be insulted). If your parents are rich, you go to better schools, etc.
Here's a mere microcosm of my beliefs on that - this was an argument that my wife and I had. We have one daughter. She is 2 1/2 years old. My wife is talking about wanting to buy her a brand new car when she turns 16. Could we do it if we wanted to? Of course, but that's not the point. The point is this: there other sixteen year-olds out there, who are busting their asses - slaving over fryer at McDonalds, standing for hours at a time, scrubbing toilets and mopping up the piss of those who can't aim. These sixteen year-olds are doing this, just to barely be able to afford a piece of shit car that's older than them! Other than being "my" daughter, who the hell is she that she gets a brand new car for doing nothing, while others are doing demeaning work for broken down cars that are past their usefulness? I believe that what I described here, but in a much bigger scale, should be what it's like.
I sent in my absentee ballot to Delaware already. If I thought the Socialist Worker's Party actually stood a chance, that candidate would have gotten my vote... but man, looks like I don't have to look far, Obama could do it for us!
You support socialism, so your support of Obama is logical. My concern is that many of his supporters assume he's just like so many other Democrats, but he's not. He's currently our most left Senator - not your typical Democrat. People who think socialism is the way to go should vote for Obama. All others ought to pause and reflect on what they want for their family and our country.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 394 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Fri 26 Sep 2008 19:06 Post subject:
OTHER wrote:
You support socialism, so your support of Obama is logical. My concern is that many of his supporters assume he's just like so many other Democrats, but he's not. He's currently our most left Senator - not your typical Democrat. People who think socialism is the way to go should vote for Obama. All others ought to pause and reflect on what they want for their family and our country.
As if socialism would conflict? Through reading many of your posts, "democrat" and "socialist" may as well be interchangable terms!
I'm very realistic here - socialism is not "the American way," so we'll never see it. Even if Obama is socialist, therein lies the beauty of "separation of powers" for those who may be Democrat, but not socialist.
And then, I'm not a big fan of inheritence or "old money" - or anything, for that matter, that engenders people having unfair advantages over others because of the family that they were born to. Is it not 100% IMMORAL that the opportunities available to you depend on that the family that you were born to? What we have here is an informal nobility system (I'd rather have a real system of nobility than our current situation - at least then, our intelligence wouldn't be insulted). If your parents are rich, you go to better schools, etc.
No, it is not. It is life. Even the Bible ( ) says that one is to leave an inheritance to one's children and grandchildren. It rains on the just and the unjust.
We as Americans have more than over 90% of the rest of the world. You make the most of what you have been given (in life).
Here are some more examples:
Well, some people work hard all their lives to provide for their children, and save for their children's future. (I remember one case in which this elderly housekeeper saved her money and endowed a scholarship for needy Black kids. Again, her choice with her money.) Others choose not to work hard and spend all their money in the now on themselves and not leave anything. Why should the gov't have the right to come in and take their money they EARNED for their children? If grandpa EARNED that money, who are we to say how he spends it? If someone else doesn't save money for their children, why is it right to take from those did and give it to those who did not?
Woman A decides to lay down (not raped) and have 3 kids out of wedlock with 3 men. Woman A never marries and her kids grow up to be disadvantaged. She dies poor. Woman B decides to not have kids out of wedlock (abstained, birth control, abortion, etc). She also never marries, but works and saves her money for her nieces. What right does the gov't have to take this Woman's B money which she earned, and give it to Woman A's children or anyone else?
Kid 99 is born to a wealthy White family. He inherits his father's money and control of the family business at 21. He goes to college, gets a degree and marries Miss America. He dies and leaves his money to his wife, kids, and some to several charities. Kid 00 is born into a poor Black family. He works hard and goes to college on a scholarship, gets a degree, and marries a nice girl from church. He finds a job at Kid 99's company. Kid 00 raises his family, and leaves all his money to his wife and kids, none to charity. Question: Who left a bigger impact on the world? Kid 99 who provided jobs to others and money to charity, or Kid 00 who only helped his family?
Person 1 is born into a rich family. They get hooked on drugs, sex, and rock-n-roll. Person 1 dies of a drug overdose at age 25.
Person 2 is born into a middle class family. They work hard and get a good job, become a little league coach, and mentor youth. They die at age 85, among close friends and famly. They leave a modest sum to their family and a community group.
Person 3 is born poor, does prison time for a crime they committed, and is among the working class poor all their lives. They die at age 55 from kidney disease and leave no money to anyone.
Question: Which person left the world a better place by their existence?
We can run various scenarios all the day long. Life is just not fair and no human can make it fair. One can only try to be fair, but even our efforts to be fair, and will fail, as we cannot be fair to everyone at the same time. We can only try. That's why we have a God is heaven who will render fairly to everyone their true recompense for their life's work and actions. This is what I believe and trust in.
P.S. I agree with you that CEO pay is outragious and WRONG when other employees are laid off. Caps mst be set, but they still deserve to be paid HIGHER, than an employee with less responsibility.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 394 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Fri 26 Sep 2008 20:46 Post subject:
You're forgetting something - the Bible dictates YOUR sense of morality, not everyone's.
I'm aware that some people are going to be born to families that have more than others - there's nothing that can be done about that. HOWEVER, I'm not talking about material possessions or money; I'm talking about opportunities. If you're born to a rich family, you have a better likelihood of getting into and graduating from a prestigious university; while others who don't have that opportunity are lucky to get into a community college, let alone graduate from it. I'm all about equal opportunity - and I mean equal far beyond race, gender, religion, color, or creed. As I understand it, in France, college is free to EVERYONE. In other words, it doesn't matter if you grew up rich or poor. If you excelled academically, you're going to a more prestigious university - ability to pay doesn't apply. THAT'S equal opportunity.
In the end, no one should have to work harder for something than someone else because of the family that they were born to.
You support socialism, so your support of Obama is logical. My concern is that many of his supporters assume he's just like so many other Democrats, but he's not. He's currently our most left Senator - not your typical Democrat. People who think socialism is the way to go should vote for Obama. All others ought to pause and reflect on what they want for their family and our country.
As if socialism would conflict? Through reading many of your posts, "democrat" and "socialist" may as well be interchangable terms!
I'm very realistic here - socialism is not "the American way," so we'll never see it. Even if Obama is socialist, therein lies the beauty of "separation of powers" for those who may be Democrat, but not socialist.
It seems you have misunderstood "many" of my posts. I don't think all Democrats are socialists, but some are and apparently don't have the nerve to broadcast their true intent. Likewise, some fascists hide out in the Republican Party and skew people's view of it. You have probably also assumed that I've never voted for a Democrat. Between this site and mulatto.org, you must be up to like Assumption #13 about me.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 394 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Sat 27 Sep 2008 14:09 Post subject:
OTHER wrote:
You have probably also assumed that I've never voted for a Democrat. Between this site and mulatto.org, you must be up to like Assumption #13 about me.
Ah, and you don't have YOUR share of assumptions? I'm quoting you on one of yours right now - I KNOW you've voted Democrat before, because you said you were once a Democrat - you've said this many times. Maybe we should start keeping score?
I'd rather vote in a closet socialist than a closet fascist, and I'd rather vote in an overbearing atheist than an overbearing believer in God.
So if Obama is a socialist, he still has my vote.
A fascist gov't, and I don't use fascist as an invective to mean Republican or conservative, would have some of the same features of a socialist gov't. Both are forms of statism and both are hostile to limited gov't and free markets. So, casting your vote for a (true) closet fascist would lead to similar economic policies. The social policies of a fascist gov't would not be to your liking though.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 394 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Mon 29 Sep 2008 15:48 Post subject:
G-Man wrote:
A fascist gov't, and I don't use fascist as an invective to mean Republican or conservative, would have some of the same features of a socialist gov't. Both are forms of statism and both are hostile to limited gov't and free markets. So, casting your vote for a (true) closet fascist would lead to similar economic policies. The social policies of a fascist gov't would not be to your liking though.
Tell that to those accused of being socialist living in Franco's Spain.
A fascist gov't, and I don't use fascist as an invective to mean Republican or conservative, would have some of the same features of a socialist gov't. Both are forms of statism and both are hostile to limited gov't and free markets. So, casting your vote for a (true) closet fascist would lead to similar economic policies. The social policies of a fascist gov't would not be to your liking though.
Tell that to those accused of being socialist living in Franco's Spain.
Tell them what? That Franco's Spain brooked no criticism from sources beyond his control and stifled dissent like all authoritarian governments do? What does this have to do with economic policies? You might as well take out Franco's Spain and replace it with Castro's Cuba which is a socialist country. Many of the people who languish in Castro's political prisons are socialists, albeit ones who are social democrats who are hostile to the authoritarian nature of the gov't.
The fact remains that many far-right "fascist" gov'ts enact economic policies very similar to socialist ones. Both can also be authoritarian as well. Franco's Spain was hardly some kind of lezzaire faire economic system. The same can be said for fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.
Currently, the BNP in terms of economics is almost identical to the Labour Party. They deviate significantly from each other with respect to social views and the presence of foreigners and their cultures in Great Britain.
I could care less who wrote Obama's recommedation letter to Harvard. He's no communist. His political beliefs and votes put him in the same quadrant as McCain and pretty much every other politician on the national scene....the Right-Authoritarian quadrant.
And radical community organizing? Kids who took Freedom Rides and communists who went to rural communities to organize small farmers and coalminers were radical community organizers. MLK was branded a communist. So he is in great company as far as I am concerned.
We know the country is shifting left (again) when a popular Democrat is branded a communist. These are the same folks who thought MLK was destroying America. And you know what? He was. And I for one am thankful every day.
I'm left-libertarian in orientation so for me, Obama is centrist. Someone like Ralph Nader could probably never get elected in this country. To be the "most liberal" in U.S. Congress isn't really that liberal at all in the scheme of things.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
