These posts here are only for the subject above. If you disagree, please start a new post. This topic will not accept any other views.

Instructions: The next poster should quote the previous post, and give the next individual the next sequential number. So the next person would be 2.) Saul Alinsky, etc.

1.) David Berwick- President Obama’s nomination of Donald Berwick as the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
http://biggovernment.com/bdomenech/2010/05/13/how-donald-berwick-will-run-your-health-care/

He believes that wealth should be distributed from the rich to the poor for healthcare purposes. This is no different than government stealing from the richer and giving to the poorer. Citizens in a Constitutional Republic shuould not be and should not allow this form of thievery from their own government. The government wants to be seen as the benefactor of mankind. Redistribution of wealth is an unbiblical worldview. It is also a socialist one.

2.) Kenneth Feinberg
After reading this article, as to how 9/11 deceased victims' families were treated, the SOCIALIST STENCH can be smelled as far away as the terrorists' birthplaces. It's a simple give more to the rich than to the poor, although all the losses were truly the same. Factored into the families' compensation were the airline companies, and the landlords of various building and land in the area. He handled this debacle, and he is handling the BP oil spill compensation. He is also going to determine how much CEO's should make. Well what about professional athletes Mr. Feinberg? How can you justify a man that dribbles a ball, may own some companies, and makes $18 MIILION, and limit a corporate CEO to $500,000? You want to punish real entrepreneurship and let talented people make millions. Whose special interest are you looking out for? I am sure owners make substantial contributions to political campaigns, as well as make special appearances.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,198866,00.html

Just look up the dirt on this man. You know how much agent orange victims got paid?????????? $1200 a pop.

3 & 4.) Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven

"Developed in the mid-1960s by two Columbia University sociologists, Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, much of their strategy was drawn from Saul Alinsky, Chicago's notorious revolutionary Marxist community organizer. The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) succeeded the National Welfare Rights Organization in the execution of the Cloward-Piven grand tactics of using the poor as cannon fodder to tear down the capitalist system. It was low-income, mostly black and Hispanic people, who were used by ACORN guerrillas to take subprime toxic mortgages."

http://pub6.bravenet.com/forum/static/post.php?usernum=460887521&frmid=66&msgid=1065035&cp=1&reply=1065035"e=quote&mode=add

5.) Saul Alinsky
"Son sees father's handiwork in convention (Alinsky's son praises Obama)
The Boston Globe ^ | 31 August 2008 | L. David Alinsky

Posted on Sunday, October 05, 2008 10:41:37 AM by SE Mom

ALL THE elements were present: the individual stories told by real people of their situations and hardships, the packed-to-the rafters crowd, the crowd's chanting of key phrases and names, the action on the spot of texting and phoning to show instant support and commitment to jump into the political battle, the rallying selections of music, the setting of the agenda by the power people. The Democratic National Convention had all the elements of the perfectly organized event, Saul Alinsky style.

Barack Obama's training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness. It is an amazingly powerful format, and the method of my late father always works to get the message out and get the supporters on board. When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen. Obama learned his lesson well.

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."

L. DAVID ALINSKY Medfield


(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2097958/posts


Saul Alinsky
"Identified a set of very specific rules that ordinary citizens could follow, and tactics that ordinary citizens could employ, as a means of gaining public power

Created a blueprint for revolution under the banner of "social change"

Two of his most notable modern-day disciples are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.


Born to Russian-Jewish parents in Chicago in 1909, Saul Alinsky was a Communist/Marxist fellow-traveler who helped establish the dual political tactics of confrontation and infiltration that characterized the 1960s and have remained central to all subsequent revolutionary movements in the United States. He never joined the Communist Party but instead, as David Horowitz puts it, became an avatar of the post-modern left.

Though Alinsky is rightfully understood to have been a leftist, his legacy is more methodological than ideological. He identified a set of very specific rules that ordinary citizens could follow, and tactics that ordinary citizens could employ, as a means of gaining public power. His motto was, “The most effective means are whatever will achieve the desired results.”

This is why today, Democrats will lie, cheat, deceive, etc. without any apologies. They will change their views from one day to the other like it's nothing.

6.) Van Jones- Avowed Communist
Now don't think that just because this guy resigned that he is out of the loop. I am sure his views have not changed.

"Van Jones, 'Green Jobs Czar', a self-described 'communist'
LA Examiner ^ | July 17, 2009 | Kathy Shaidle

Posted on Friday, July 17, 2009 1:29:45 PM by Oldeconomybuyer

Van Jones is President Barack Obama's newly appointed "Green Jobs Czar"

Jones' official title is Special Advisor on Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation for the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

The 41-year-old Yale Law School graduate and civil rights lawyer is also the founder of California's Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, "a non-profit agency for justice, opportunities and peace."

Sounds idyllic, but Jones' past isn't so pastoral.

The Ella Baker Center was connected to STORM (Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement), a "multi-racial activist collective with Marxist influences" with which Jones was involved.

In 1992, Van Jones founded another STORM project, Bay Area PoliceWatch, a "hotline and lawyer-referral service for victims and survivors of police abuse." This is fitting, perhaps, since Jones was himself arrested and detained briefly during a protest after the Rodney King verdict that same year.

Jones told the East Bay Express in 2005:

I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th [1992], and then the verdicts came down on April 29th. By August, I was a communist. (...)

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.' 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.

Like a character out of The Big Chill, Van Jones seems to have evolved from radical activist to Establishment insider. Perhaps only a left-wing administration incapable of recognizing irony would put a self-described communist in charge of creating jobs.

Luckily for Van Jones, and Obama's many other "Czars" with dubious credentials and troubling backgrounds, his new job was not dependent upon making it through Congressional hearings."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2294894/posts

7.) Ron Bloom
"Former organizer, negotiator, and research specialist for the Service Employees International Union

Supports federal-government control of the American health-care system

Said that "the free market is nonsense"

Said, "We kind of agree with Mao, that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun”

Became head of Barack Obama's Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry in July 2009

Became Senior Counselor to the President for Manufacturing Policy in September 2009

At a 2008 “distressed investors” forum, Bloom 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.”

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2427

It's unfortunate that the voters, especially the black voters, did not realize what they were getting with Barack Obama. I hope they read this and figure it out.

In a sense, you could actually say that blacks disenfranchised themselves by voting for color, and ignored this man's character and AGENDA.

8.) Franklin Delano Roosevelt
9.) Herbert Hoover

These men started the Entiltement System. The next to expand it, with his so-called, war on poverty, which miserably failed then and now, should be included in this list. Socialists/Alnskyites could want nothing more than a welfare state to swell the welfare rolls and literally overwhelm the economy to create discontent. That's a Saul Alinsky tactic. The next step is to take the disgruntled and those already herded like sheep to the slaughter, and organize them. Out of this came the BLACK BLOCK vote forthe democrats. Yet, who suffers, not benefits the most from the war on poverty, BLACKS. Unwed mother have increased 10 TIMES in 40 years. Even though we have killed approximately 15,000,000 black babies via abortion, we still swell the welfare rolls as per our percentage of the population. Black comprise about 13% of the population, yet 39% are on welfare. Blacks make up 13% of the population, but abort at a rate of 36%. Obama is pro-choice and pro-socialist, and cares less about your skin color.

March 10, 2010

Obama's mentors included Hoover, as well as FDR

By Kevin Price

"Calvin Coolidge oversaw one of the greatest expansions in the history of the US economy. When Coolidge took office, he believed tax rates were too high. With top rates at over 70% following World War I and facing a protracted recession, Coolidge believed it was time to take serious actions. The combined top marginal normal and surtax rate fell from 73 percent to 58 percent in 1922, and then to 50 percent in 1923 (for incomes over $200,000). In 1924, the top tax rate fell to 46 percent (for incomes over $500,000). The top rate was just 25 percent (for incomes over $100,000) from 1925 to 1928, and then fell to 24 percent in 1929.

The reduction in tax rates fueled the productivity engine of the US during these years, leading to inflation rates below 2 percent, unemployment below four percent, and the number of people who made over $100,000 a year actually quadrupling over his years in office. In addition to leading to economic expansion, these policies led to a dramatic increase in tax revenue. I call it the "Wal-Mart Principle" of taxation. Charge as little as possible per item (or activity) and you will make more than any of your competitors in your profits. Low tax rates lead to much greater economic activity and a huge increase in revenue.

Many historians perceived Coolidge's successor, Herbert Hoover, as one who continued his predecessors limited government policies. Coolidge was actually quite critical of Hoover, stating "That man has given me nothing but advice, and all of it bad." Hoover actually pursued several policies that remind one of Barack Obama, not Calvin Coolidge.

In fact, Hoover turned the depression into a "Great" one through several, government interventionist, policies:


Supporting artificially high wages. When unemployment reaches approximately 25 percent, your objective should be eliminating the barriers between people and jobs. Wages are a huge barrier to employment The Hoover Administration pressured businesses to keep wages high and prices low. The Secretary of Labor at the time, James Davis said "There never has been a crisis such as we have had as the stock market crash that threw...millions out of employment that there wasn't a wholesale reduction in wages...If Hoover accomplishes nothing more in all of his service to the government, that one outstanding thing of his administration — no reduction in wages — will be a credit that will be forever remembered not by the working classes alone but by business men as well, because without money in the pay envelope business is the first to suffer" (The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal, by Robert P. Murphy, Ph.D.). What a legacy, backing a policy that forced widespread unemployment.


Undermining international trade. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 unleashed a chain of events that was seen first in the stock market crash of that year and crippled any efforts towards recovery for years to come. The tariff act put a huge cost on all goods coming into the United States. Investors on Wall Street knew that this would lead to retaliation and would greatly devalue the companies and the stock that represents them. This led to massive sock selling and lit the fuse to the depression. It took until the 1940s before the barriers finally began to fall and economy recover.


In addition, Hoover raised taxes to levels not seen since Coolidge took office (when the country was in another recession) and he implemented domestic programs that were precursors of the New Deal (including subsidies and loans similar to what we see today).

In the end, Hoover was a big government proponent who sounded similar to Barack Obama today. At the Republican National Convention of 1932, Herbert Hoover stated, when receiving his party's nomination that "We might have done nothing. That would have been utter ruin. Instead we met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic. We put it into action." I'm sure advocates of free markets at the time find themselves asking, "how's that change working for you?" The differences between FDR and Hoover were simply in the scope of their activities, not in their nature. They both believed in massive government and they both failed miserably, placing this country into a decade and a half of despair. Obama is taking the US on a similar course and on a fast track that would be the envy of Hoover or FDR. We need to go back to what works — less government and not more. We need to create a predictable economic environment that can only be created through less taxes and regulations. It is obvious that we need freedom and not government expansion.

© Kevin Price

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/price/100310

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16860

Before I mention who the tenth person is, I first read the article, and then decided to look up the Department of labor or some Labor/Union Czar appointee. In short, I know he's going to be a socialist if not in heart and admission, than by deed. Let's see if I am right.

10.) Hilda Solis
"Hilda Solis was a keynote speaker at the DSA national conference "21st Century Socialism" in Los Angeles in November 2005.

Saturday evening delegates recognized the contributions of DSA vice chair and Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson, Occidental College sociologist and longtime DSAer Peter Dreier and insurgent California Congress member Hilda Solis who in turn provided in-depth perspectives of the political scene.

In June 2008, the Socialist International Migrations Committee held a Migrations Reform, Integration, Rights forum in Los Angeles.

DSA was represented by National Director Frank Llewellyn plus Duane Campbell and Dolores Delgado Campbell of DSA's Anti Racism and Latino networks.

Hilda Solis was formally represented by Elena Henry, a caseworker from Solis' East Los Angeles Office.

In 2008 Hilda Solis served on Barack Obama's National Latino Advisory Council alongside DSA honorary chair and SEIU vice president Eliseo Medina.

The seven officials profiled above include some of the most powerful and influential people in America today.

Several have the power to profoundly influence the future prosperity and security of the world's most powerful nation. Some have access to highly secret information.

The MSM practically went through Sarah Palin's underwear drawers when she sought the US vice Presidency. Why does the media not give Obama appointees, even a cursory level of scrutiny?"
http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-times/article.php?articleid=5423

I was right. Fancy that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Obama's $50 Billion Union Infrastructure Boondoggle
By Michelle Malkin (Archive) · Wednesday, September 8, 2010

"President Obama calls his latest attempt to revive the economy a "Plan to Renew and Expand America's Roads, Railways and Runways." I'm calling it "The Mother of all Big Dig Boondoggles." Like the infamous "Big Dig" highway spending project in Boston, this latest White House infrastructure spending binge guarantees only two results: Taxpayers lose; unions win.

The plan would add at least $50 billion more to the nearly $230 billion already allocated in the original trillion-dollar stimulus law for infrastructure. Less than one-third of that infrastructure stimulus money has been spent, but the urgency to pile on has increased exponentially as the midterm elections approach and unemployment hovers near 10 percent. So, the president says he wants to "put people back to work" through a new "upfront investment" in surface transportation, airports and the air-traffic control system paid for by repealing tax incentives for the oil and gas industries -- followed by massive, unpaid-for expenditures on pie-in-the-sky high-speed rail, "environmental sustainability" and "livability," whatever that means.

Obama spoke emotionally at an AFL-CIO rally on Labor Day about unemployed construction workers. A "lot of those folks, they had lost their jobs in manufacturing and went into construction; now they've lost their jobs again," he said. "It doesn't do anybody any good when so many hardworking Americans have been idled for months, even years, at a time when there is so much of America that needs rebuilding."

But here's the rub: Not all workers are equal in Obama's eyes. And most of them will remain "idled" by the Democrats' own design. The key is E.O. 13502, a union-friendly executive order signed by Obama in his first weeks in office, which essentially forces contractors who bid on large-scale public construction projects worth $25 million or more to submit to union representation for its employees.

The blunt instrument used to give unions a leg up is the "project labor agreement (PLA)," which in theory sets reasonable pre-work terms and conditions -- but in practice, requires contractors to hand over exclusive bargaining control; to pay inflated, above-market wages and benefits; and to fork over dues money and pension funding to corrupt, cash-starved labor organizations. These anti-competitive agreements undermine a fair bidding process on projects that locked-out, nonunion laborers are funding with their own tax dollars. And these PLAs benefit the privileged few at the expense of the vast majority: In the construction industry, 85 percent of the workforce is nonunion by choice.

We don't need to theorize about how this shakedown works in the real world. Boston's notorious Big Dig was a union-only construction project thanks to a Massachusetts government-mandated PLA. The original $2.8 billion price tag for the project skyrocketed to $22 billion in state and federal taxpayer subsidies thanks in no small part to ballooning labor costs. In February, the Bay State's Beacon Hill Institute found that PLAs added 12 percent to 18 percent to school construction costs in Massachusetts and Connecticut. In Washington, D.C., the Department of Veterans Affairs commissioned an independent study showing that PLAs would increase hospital construction costs by as much as 9 percent in some markets.

In short, Obama's new Union Infrastructure Rescue Plan is a political favoritism scheme that raises the cost of doing business and bars tens of thousands of skilled, nonunion laborers who choose to run open shops from securing work. In the name of patching up America's highways and byways, Mr. Fix It would create another gaping fiscal sinkhole to appease his special interest donors. Recovery Summer turns to Union Payback Fall."

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://patriotpost.us/opinion/michelle-malkin/2010/09/08/obamas-50-billion-union-infrastructure-boondoggle/

I must break in real quick because the Democratic Socialist of America (DSA) has come up several times.

"Democratic Socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives." http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html

Has anyone ever heard of the Delphi Technique? In short, these people want you to think that it's the people who are helping to make the decisions, when it is the exact opposite. The government has already set its agenda, made all the plans, and then it presents it to you, the public, and makes you BELIEVE that you are the ones who actually made it happen. Why do they do this? So when anyone opposes the idea, you, the public, who has already been bamboozled, will label any dissenter as an idiot, unintellectual, hater, etc. WAKE-UP Citizens of America!

Now more on the DSA
"The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the largest socialist organization in the United States, and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International. DSA's members are building progressive movements for social change while establishing an openly socialist presence in American communities and politics.

At the root of our socialism is a profound commitment to democracy, as means and end. We are activists committed not only to extending political democracy but to demanding democratic empowerment in the economy, in gender relations, and in culture. Democracy is not simply one of our political values but our means of restructuring society. Our vision is of a society in which people have a real voice in the choices and relationships that affect the entirety of our lives. We call this vision democratic socialism — a vision of a more free, democratic and humane society.

In this web site you can find out about DSA, its politics, structure and program. DSA's political perspective is called Where We Stand. It says, in part,
We are socialists because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit, alienated labor, race and gender discrimination, environmental destruction, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo.

We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane international social order based both on democratic planning and market mechanisms to achieve equitable distribution of resources, meaningful work, a healthy environment, sustainable growth, gender and racial equality, and non-oppressive relationships.
DSA has a youth section, Young Democratic Socialists (YDS). Made up of students from colleges and high schools and young people in the work force, the Youth Section works on economic justice and democracy and prison justice projects. It is a member of the Interantional Union of Socialist Youth, an affiliate of the Socialist International. The Youth Section meets several times during the year. More information is available from YDS staff.

This web site also includes an extensive set of resources, including bibliographies, pamphlets and links to information on socialism and US politics in general.

Please join DSA as we work to help build a better and more just world for all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.dsausa.org/about/index.html

In the next post, I will break this down from a Biblical Worldview. I am no expert on the ins and outs of government deception, but I know FECAL MATERIAL when I read it.

11.) Bill Ayers- He is mentioned in this article, but Bil Ayers, to this day, is unapologetic for killing people during the Vietnam War Era. Obama is one of his asscoiates and understudies.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=78330

"Taken individually, you might brush aside Sen. Barack Obama's association with any single radical, but as you look at all of the people Obama met on the incestuous money trail, you find a pattern of close cohorts who can't be ignored. These are all radicals who work for "social justice" through the redistribution of the wealth.

Obama's plan to solve "global poverty," which would send nearly $1 trillion to the United Nations (a sum equal to the recent bailout) is wealth redistribution on a global scale. His tax program would increase the percentage of Americans who pay no federal income tax from 32 percent to 44 percent, and even give non-taxpayers gravy checks from the government. Nearly half of all Americans, for their entire lifetime, would never pay federal income tax.

That Obama is a product of the radical leftist Chicago machine is nothing new. Though we don't know if he is a "hard-core academic Marxist," which he was accused of being during his 2004 Senate campaign, we do know that he's supported by a socialist activist network. This network includes former members of the Students for a Democratic Society, from which the Weather Underground was born, Communist Party USA and the Democratic Socialists of America. This axis wants Obama to hold the reins of power in the White House. They have a socialist agenda for America – one that isn't far from Obama's own agenda. In fact, Obama has yet to point out how his agenda differs from theirs.

While Obama might condemn the terrorist acts that communist Bill Ayers committed when Obama was 8 years old, it doesn't explain Obama's continued association with Ayers when Ayers served both as his boss and fellow board member on so many foundations. Nor does it explain why Ayers recruited so many of his friends to help Obama – friends that are still associated with Obama to this day in his presidential campaign.

Since Obama ducks this issue, with the complicity of the national media, it's worth revisiting not only Bill Ayers, but the entire cast of leftist radicals that surround Obama through his association with Ayers.

Obama's cadre of radical leftists can be divided into three categories: "The Mentors," "The Radicals" and "The Enablers." "The Mentors" are people who helped shape Obama's worldview."
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78217

I plan to use the other mentors as I continue the chronicling of Obama's mentors and appointees. In that last sentence, notice, "Obama's WORLDVIEW".

Here they go,

12.) The mentors- Barack Obama Sr.:

"All of my life, I carried a single image of my father, one that I tried to take as my own," Obama wrote in "Dreams From My Father." What was that image? It was "the father of my dreams, the man in my mother's stories, full of high-blown ideals."

Obama adds, "It was into my father's image ... that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself."

Though Obama said little about what those "ideals" were, they crystallized in the form of a 1965 paper, written by the senior Obama and published in the East African Journal. In that paper, titled, "Problems Facing Our Socialism," the elder Obama advocated the communal ownership of land and even the forced confiscation of privately controlled land. He also called for the nationalization of "European" and "Asian" owned enterprises, and advocated handing over control of these operations to the "indigenous" black population. Further, Obama's father wanted to increase taxes on the rich, even up to the 100 percent level, arguing that "there is no limit on taxation if the benefits derived from public services by society measures up to the cost in taxation which they have to pay." Incidentally, this concept is not totally foreign to the younger Obama, whose plan to "spread the wealth around" by raising taxes conceptually mimics his fathers plan.


13.) Frank Marshall Davis:
As a teen, Obama's mother abandoned him in Hawaii so she could go to Indonesia to seek a Ph.D. At the age of 16, left on his own, Barack Obama developed a relationship with a non-family member – reputed Marxist Frank Marshall Davis. Davis, a former Chicago resident, was a member of the Communist Party USA and an apologist for the Soviet Union. The 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified him as a CPUSA member. What's more, anti-communist congressional committees, including the House Un-American Activities Committee, accused Davis of involvement in several communist-front organizations. Obama describes "Frank and his old Black Power dashiki self" as advising him before he left for Occidental College in 1979 at the age of 18. Passages from "Dreams From My Father" suggest that Frank Marshall Davis was something akin to a surrogate dad to Obama in those days. Obama's only contact when he moved to Chicago was Davis.


14.) Alice Palmer:
Obama's predecessor in the Illinois State Senate, Alice Palmer introduced Obama to Chicago's radical elite in the living room of Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn's home back in 1995 and endorsed him that year in front of a crowd of 200 supporters. Palmer was an active radical leftist in the decade before she picked Obama for her seat. The FBI notes that she served on the board of the U.S. Peace Council, a front organization and affiliate of the Soviet World Peace Council. Palmer attended the 27th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and came away favorably impressed by the Soviet system.


15.)Gregory Galluzzo:
A former Jesuit priest and executive director of the Gamaliel Foundation, Galluzzo was interview by New Republic's Ryan Lizza and showed him the training manual he uses with new organizers. Galluzzo told Lizza that many new trainees have an aversion to Saul Alinsky's gritty approach because they come to organizing as idealists rather than realists. Galluzzo, along with fellow trainer Mike Kruglik, schooled Obama in Alinsky tactics. The Developing Communities Project, Obama's first employer in Chicago, was part of the Gamaliel network of organizations.


16.) Mike Kruglik: Kruglik was a regional director for the Gamaliel Foundation. Like his boss, Greg Galluzzo, Kruglik also helped train Obama on Alinsky organizing methods. Kruglik was also involved in 2007 with indoctrinating Obama campaign volunteers on Alinsky methods.

17.) Rev. Jeremiah Wright: Rev. Wright was a close friend of the Obamas. He officiated their wedding, baptized their children, and Obama regularly touted his 20-year membership in Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ as proof of his devotion to Christianity – until remarks by Rev. Wright became an embarrassment to his campaign. A closer look at Obama's pastor and longtime church reveals that Trinity practices – and preaches – Black Liberation Theology, and Wright sees "his own form of Christianity as profoundly different from Christianity as typically practiced by most American whites and blacks." During one of his more memorable anti-American screeds, Rev. Wright said, "The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God **** America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people."

Trinity church gave between $5,000 and $10,000 to the Community Renewal Society, which was a pet project of Bill Ayers' father, Tom Ayers.


18.) John L. McKnight: John McKnight is a professor at Northwestern University and sits on the board of the Gamaliel Foundation. McKnight is yet another of the Gamaliel trainers who schooled Obama in Alinsky tactics and methods. In his memoir, Obama said he wanted to go to Harvard Law School with the goal of making large-scale change as a national politician, and McKnight was the individual who wrote him a letter of recommendation. Obama said that being tutored by McKnight, Galluzzo and Kruglik was "the best education I ever had, better than anything I got at Harvard Law School." (emphasis added)"
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78217


Although I plan to add more, I believe 18 people is enough, not even including his 2 Supreme Court Appointees.

19.) Carol Browner- Energy Czar
"Until last week, Carol M. Browner, President-elect Barack Obama's pick as global warming czar, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.

By Thursday, Mrs. Browner's name and biography had been removed from Socialist International's Web page, though a photo of her speaking June 30 to the group's congress in Greece was still available.

Socialist International, an umbrella group for many of the world's social democratic political parties such as Britain's Labor Party, says it supports socialism and is harshly critical of U.S. policies."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/12/obama-climate-czar-has-socialist-ties/

Please read the article in its entirety!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

20.) Dr. Steven Chu-Secretary of Energy

"The Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) was first chartered under George H. W. Bush’s administration. It was wisely disbanded by his son, President George W. Bush, thanks to his Energy Secretary, Samuel Bodman. But Steven Chu re-established the SEAB this past August, and soon announced: “We’re going to make people save money for themselves.”

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/4742-stealth-socialism-the-epa-takes-aim-at-home-appliances


This is the same attitutde that government takes toward Social Security. It's SOCIALISM. Read the remainder of the article.

A momentary sidebar. You must actually go to the links within the article to see it all. In this link, one will find more of what has been already said.

Information on his affiliation to the DSA, "The New Party", and his ties to a Marxist group that endorsed his Senate campaign.

http://www.bloggernews.net/118096#comment-1760764

A part of the socialist agenda must include the homosexual agenda. It plays a pivotal role in Socialists' desire to destroy the NORMAL family unit.

"Obama also named Amanda Simpson, the first openly transgender appointee, as a senior technical adviser in the Commerce Department.

White House spokesman Shin Inouye confirmed the record number, saying Obama has hired more gay officials than the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations combined. He said Obama "is proud that his appointments reflect the diversity of the American public."

"He is committed to appointing highly qualified individuals for each post," Inouye said. "We have made a record number of openly LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender) appointments and we are confident that this number will only continue to grow."

Dison's group lists 124 of the appointees on its website. He said the remainder are not listed because they are lower-level officials not formally announced by the White House.

"We learn about a lot of these through informal networks and then work to confirm that they are indeed appointed and that they are openly LGBT," Dison said.

One Obama nominee who met some opposition was Chai Feldblum, a Georgetown University law professor nominated to serve on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission."

"It's both significant and rather ordinary," said Michael Cole, a spokesman for the gay rights group Human Rights Campaign. "It's a simple affirmation of the American ideal that what matters is how you do your job and not who you are."

It does matter who you are. YOUR WORLDVIEW DETERMINES HOW YOU THINK, ACT, SPEAK, ETC. Some of these appointments have already been found to have very extreme views.

Obama's Gay Agenda

Now why would you appoint a homosexual to the EEOC? Obvious agenda here......... Are they being equally fair across the board?

Now Obama keeps complaining that it takes time to change the economy, but he sure does have plenty of time to push his other liberal agendas to a high success rate.

More about SAUL ALISNKY

The following document was written in 1972 for use in the training of teachers. If many recognize it as the facilitative process, the Delphi technique, to which they have been exposed, such is because they are one and the same. This process has been around for a long time, being perfected and fine-tuned, awaiting the time when it would be implemented extensively in the interests of transforming America.

Alinsky for Teacher Organizers

By

J. Michael Arisman

Midwest Training Consultant

National Education Association

Introduction

The Industrial Areas Foundation is a training institute for community organizers. The IAF was run by Saul Alinsky until his death in June of 1972. Edward Chambers is its Associate Director, and Richard Harmon is Director of Field Operations. In January of 1972, Alinsky, Chambers and Harmon conducted a training program for UniServ personnel in the State of Kentucky, and in February a training program for Illinois UniServ personnel. The material enclosed is drawn from those training programs in the "Principles of Organizing."

The reader will note that the text makes constant reference to Alinsky, but not to Chambers or Harmon. This is merely a convenience. Alinsky, Chambers and Harmon all contributed to the views which we identify here as Alinsky's. Their conceptualization of the task of organizing is identical in all substantial regard. This is why a combination of views can be described as Alinsky's. It should be noted, however, that selection of material for inclusion in the article, as well as phraseology, is the author's, and is not the responsibility of the IAF staff.

CONCEPT OF ORGANIZING

June 1972

Alinsky has a well defined concept of organizing. When he talks to teacher organizers, he talks community organizing. Alinsky believes that the teacher association's real power base is not in the teachers, but in the community. He does not see our task of organizing them as any different from those of his own community organizers.

Because he sees the teacher's power base outside the membership and in the community, Alinsky offers a straight line route to organization of that power base:

1. Forget the older teachers four or five years from retirement. They will fight organizing.

2. Find one or several local teacher leaders.

3. Get those teacher leaders to organize the community to put pressure on the superintendent or the school board to get things done for education. Develop a multi-issue base in getting to the community. Local taxes, for example, is an issue teachers could use to organize other community elements.

4. Organize the community by using the natural interest in the children to get into the homes. That is, send teachers into the homes. Once teachers show interest in kids by visiting homes, they develop a relationship with parents.

5. Once one or two teacher leaders begin to push and get near community wide success, the rest of the teachers will go along.

In other words, what Alinsky is looking at, is not the membership, but access teachers have to the community. He sees that as a powerful weapon with which to organize. He believes that if we were attempting to organize this power base, education could be translated into issues that people can get with. He would assert that if the teacher association is successful in organizing the community for education ends, it would have no problem getting or maintaining its membership. At the same time, the allies made by a multi-issue association will be valuable at contract time.

For reasons we will spell out in some detail later in this paper, there was a marked reluctance to accept this idea of community organizing. The UniServ Representative, like the Field Representative before him, sees himself as a problem solver. He solves problems for teachers which causes them to become members or to continue membership. They can agree with Alinsky that this might be a shortsighted view, but when do they have time to do the community organizing that Alinsky urges unless they spend all of their time doing that?

Alinsky refuses to accept that limitation. He asserts that you can't do organizing over the telephone, in jet planes, or in the role of a business agent. If you buy into Alinsky's concept of organizing — his concept of where the real power base is — you will have little problem beginning the task of organizing. If you can't buy into Alinsky's concept of who or how we should organize, there is still need to read further in order to understand why you will not be able to perform organizing tasks in the role of a business agent. It probably will also be helpful for your clients and your supervisors to understand.

A note of caution should be added. Alinsky says training is in the doing: that is, getting into action and analyzing later what did and what did not work. "Alinsky" is also in the doing. All the fantasies in the world built on reading Alinsky, or going to his training programs do not make an organizer. You become an organizer by organizing.

WHAT ARE THE ATTITUDES OF THOSE TO BE ORGANIZED

The education associations are beginning to learn most of the lessons that Alinsky has to teach in the area of people's motives and attitudes. For example, Alinsky's approach to organizing people is to appeal to their self interest. He does not believe people can be organized around altruistic motives such as the welfare of children or the good of education. It is self interest that makes people move. Alinsky believes we are mis-educated as to what makes people move. He believes that only if you involve people's self interests can you organize them for change.

Similarly, Alinsky does not believe that teachers are apathetic. Alinsky believes that teachers, like most other people, are simply resigned to being powerless. In other words, they don't think they can do anything about their situation. Also, Alinsky believes that the organizer can tap into the boredom and routine of the teaching profession by providing an active, exciting alternative in the association structure to this routine.

According to Alinsky, the organizer never has issues to begin with. People are resigned. The organizer has to touch the person's self interest to find the issues around which the person is willing to organize. This means the organizer must take some chances in the beginning.

In organizing, however, Alinsky has a cardinal rule: Never do for others what they can do for themselves. The principle here is simply that if you, the organizer, do it for them, you take away their freedom. You make them as powerless as the system now makes them. A corollary principle is that an organization must have activity to survive. You cannot do it for them, but neither can your organization exist if it is not engaged in activities which make it an ongoing, rather than an organization which exists on paper. People who belong to organizations want action, and the organization can no more survive in inactivity than it can if the organizer is doing everything for the members.

The complaint came back from UniServ trainees that teachers will not approve of some of the organizer's activities. The response from Alinsky was that when members get mad at the organizer it means the organization has no leaders. Real leaders can tell you before hand what their people want or will tolerate. Real leaders sell the tactics or strategy to their people and take the guff if there is any.

In any event, the organizer is to blame, not for the tactic or strategy that makes people mad, but for failing to develop real leaders.

What if teachers don't want power? Organize the ones who do.

WHO TO ORGANIZE

Alinsky's advice is quite simple — organize the leaders, not everybody, just those with a following. Don't treat all teachers as equals. The organizer's job is to organize and develop leaders. If you have 2200 members in your jurisdiction, the job is to find the 50 leaders among them.

The first questions, of course, is how do you know who the leaders are? Alinsky does not try to answer that. The assumption is that if you are trying to organize, your instinct will be to look for people who have already demonstrated some capacity for leadership — that is, those people who already have some kind of constituency, whether it is ten people or ten thousand people. The people with the constituencies, whether it be in a building, or in a department, or a subsection of the department, are the leaders. Alinsky says the job is to organize those people. What the organizer needs is local power units to act to get the organization acting. Those power units are those few leaders. Once they start moving in constructive ways, the patterns of activity will change in the organization and they will gather more followers about them.

Alinsky is not glib on this subject. The assumption here is that if you are taking his advice – that instead of trying to organize all one thousand members of a local association you are going to organize the three or four people who can move the others to action and you will have problems searching out those people who can do you the most good in terms of leading that group to action. This particular issue raised a number of questions in the minds of people dealing with already established associations. That is, how is a man dealing with fifteen associations going to be able to walk in and find out who the leaders are in those associations? Alinsky's response was genuine. He simply would not get hung up on that particular question. He would look for the people with the constituency and begin to train them to organize. If he ended up with the wrong people, he would find out about it as soon as the action started and then look for the right people. Initially, the organizer is probably going to look for leaders like himself. That can be defeating unless he is flexible enough to search for other types too, especially for potential leader types who begin emerging in the middle of the action.

The teacher association experience with negotiations suggests Alinsky is right. In most locals, a group of people got going on negotiations, and convinced other people to come along with them. Staffers who moved in initially to get the negotiations going simply found people with whom to begin and developed leaders as they emerged. This is all Alinsky is saying about any local association or any community.

Dick Harmon's work in Buffalo is illustrative. He went in to build a community organization that did not then exist and had no more leads on real leaders than the names of people who helped raise money to support the project. He got a handful of dimes and began making calls for appointments. After each meeting he made a 3 x 5 car indicating the person's self interest, relationships with existing institutions, relationships with other people and what type of "action" they had been in previously, i.e. civil rights demonstrations.

He gathered data and also began building a trust relationship. In three weeks he was no longer a stranger; he knew who his potential leaders were, and he understood the power networks operative in Buffalo.

In other words, in the building of a power base, a leader initially is more important than the number of people that you have behind him. Among others, Martin Luther King, Ho Chi Minh, and Fidel Castro, suggest the wisdom of this advice.

HOW TO TRAIN LEADERS

Alinsky realizes that the central problem is how you train these local leaders — these people you have identified as leaders — to amass and to use power. He says of people the organizer trains, what he says of the organizer's training: leaders are developed in action, not in training. Give the trainee the philosophy, send him into action, bring he back to see what he's done.

He offers this advice:

1. You cannot organize over the telephone, you must work with the leaders you are going to train on a face-to-face basis because the amount of training they will get will depend very much on the relationship of trust you establish with them. Once the trust level has been established with a few, other people with the same kinds of grievances turn up.

2. The real training does not take place with words, but only with actions, which means that in order to train leaders the organization must set enough brush fires to keep them active and to keep the action going.

3. Everything is in the action. The organizer must use his imagination to set his people into action in order to train them. (Many teachers have already had this experience with negotiations — they began to negotiate and teachers with real complaints against the system rallied around.)

4. In getting your people ready to deal with power people like the superintendent and the school board, the best method is to role play with them in order to cover the kinds of setbacks and the barriers they're likely to encounter when they are dealing with the power people.

5. After sending leaders in to the power people to express grievances, you must get hold of them as soon as they come out to keep them from getting off alone and scared about the future. Leaders may conclude they should never go back in again unless they are immediately reinforced.

What you can't train, but which is very much a part of the Alinsky method of organizing, is to seize the moment. If your job is to train leaders, Alinsky says, you must be lucky enough to have your people insulted or assaulted (verbally) by the other side. This helps to accomplish your training task. One can't count on the other side insulting your people, but the idea is that if you keep your people in action, if you are constantly assessing, constantly pushing, eventually the other side is going to help by insulting them.

Action is critical, especially with the white middle class. This group is not used to action. It will want to quit after the first time, which means the training of leadership stops.

How you develop the rage to change things in the middle class? Analyze your own life and see what it was that got you into organizing. There you might find a clue to what will turn the middle class on.

After an action, the organizer asks himself the following questions in order to keep himself going. He might train and reinforce leaders by getting them to ask the same questions of themselves and one another: Why did we win? What do we do next? What did I learn about myself?

ORGANIZING TACTICS

Alinsky has a very simple method for preparing your people tactically. He advises that you go into little battles you can win first, in order to build up your people's confidence. He advises that later you make alliances that get you bigger battles.

In fact, this is very much akin to what he talks about in the training of your people. His primary tactic is to get into action to stoke the brush fires, to get your organization alive, and keep it alive. Again he says everything is in the action — the organizer must use his imagination to get them into action. The worst thing the organizer can do in terms of tactics is to get together with his people and lay out a structured campaign because the structured campaign allows you to rationalize failure and to stop the action any time you run into a barrier. He is not saying here that you do not have a plan. He is saying that you would not reveal that to your people because the chief tactic you would use is the flexibility of changing directions or stride anytime you need to.

In the matter of tactics, Alinsky is very much for developing tactics that are so exciting your people want to get involved in them. His books on the subject of organizing suggests the kind of tactics he is talking about.

Certainly Alinsky would not recommend exchanges of letters or private discussions with the superintendent as a way of building the organization. Such meetings, or such correspondence might solve the problem, but they would not provide the kind of action that is exciting and what makes your people want to get involved with the organization to participate. Going to court is likewise a local anesthetic; it freezes the action and prevents exploitation of the issue.

You must also be able to seize upon the development of the other side's tactics. This corresponds to the idea of training people by making the other side insult or assault your people so that they can learn what the other side is really like. This is very much a tactic of Alinsky's. In fact, getting the superintendent to insult or to assault your people, he would regard as of higher value than ten weeks of formal training. The tactical essence, Alinsky says, is to figure out what reaction you can provoke that will best suit your needs.

In order to handle these kinds of tactics, the organizer must protect himself against getting trivialized and distracted by actions and tactics which don't further the ends of the organization. What the organizer wants to do is to keep one or two leaders fighting the big fights.

Generally, the Alinsky advice on tactics is guerilla war advice. To win, know the enemy, divide the enemy. Know who all the players are, conduct the action on several levels and personalize the conflict.

It is hard to deal with an enemy with whom you have a personal relationship. You should not let your people fraternize with enemy. Distance helps you to polarize the issue – to make it an us – them affair.

When you are starting with little issues, you can't afford too many losses. This means you must "fix" the outcome of these fights. Find out what the establishment will give you without a fight and then send your people in to take it from the establishment. If the superintendent tells you the teachers can have a lower class size send a delegation to the superintendent demanding the class size he has conceded. The superintendent will say, "but I already agreed to that." And the leaders say, "well, if that's true you won't mind putting it in writing." They can then say to the teachers, "he says he was giving it to us anyway, but we made him put it in writing." That's a victory in a fixed fight.

The organizer must not resolve issues even though he might be able to. His people gain experience and confidence from dealing successfully with issues.

TREATMENT OF ISSUES

The organizer organizes around issues, not around problems.

A problem might last three to four years. An issue lasts 3 to 14 days. The absence of due process in a school system's dismissal procedure is a problem. A respected teacher who has just been fired is an issue. An issue is near at hand, it is controversial, it has caused a reaction among your people. You organize around the firing – the issue – and the due process procedure will come. You solve problems by breaking them down to a series of issues. An issue is action.

What characterizes an issue then?

1. Immediacy – close at hand (something done by Congress is not immediate).

2. Specificity – something that's concrete, real, seeable (ideology is not an issue). What specifically do you want, when specifically do you want it?

3. Controversial – you can only mobilize around controversy – you can't move people on issues which all sides already agree on.

4. Winnable – self respect is based on winning, so an issue must be winnable. Organizations can't get involved in issues that aren't realizable.

5. Be on the right side – organize around small issues first, win consistently on these before you take on the large issues. When you're ready to take on the large issues find allies. Your record on small issues will convince your allies you are for real. If you're going to get the superintendent fired, win small child oriented battles against his administrators. Once your people see you winning and are together you can go to parents groups, church groups, community groups for their support in taking on the superintendent.

6. Be fixed – since you can't afford losing on small issues and still hold your people together you must not enter into any fights you are not sure of winning. (See Organizing Tactics for example.

Once you have an issue with these characteristics you "cut" it. "Cutting" an issue means: 1) polarizing it by creating an us–them situation in which your people believe they are 100% right, 2) personalizing it to a point where you are fighting a person rather than the system (the school board).

Alinsky does not believe teacher organizations can generate enough issues internally. As pointed out earlier he would advise them to become multi-issue people, moving beyond the teacher contract issue to community issues.

An example for teacher organizations of a good issue is local tax assessment. Using the interest on tax held in escrow is a way to get money for education. That makes those taxes held in escrow a community issue.

Banks get the extra interest or taxes you pay to them, which they in turn pay to the state. The banks get the interest from you and from holding your money twelve months or six months. Why not force the bank to give that accumulated interest to the community for education.

Alinsky believes you could train your leaders to go after under-assessment of tax rates. He believes you train your leaders to hit at the interest issue and who's holding on to the interest. Alinsky believes you could raise issues around property owned by the school board members in terms of how it is assessed. Alinsky would war – don't go after the properties of the little guys because you'll get a backlash. But you can go after the properties and assessment rates of the big boys, the steel