Change not approved by your (hopeless) Obamessiah, however.
Does Barack Hussein Obama share the value system to which most Americans adhere? It is imprudent to presume so. Yet, it is our very value system which discourages us from questioning the values of others. Voting for a President of the United States is a different situation. It is absolutely incumbent on Americans to understand the value system of Barack Hussein Obama in every dimension.
To understand Obama’s value system in detail, we must question everything about the man. His associations, alliances, and affiliations are material to this question. Far from seeking to establish guilt by association, we must be able to predict who Obama will rely on, appoint, and consult if elected.
Unfortunately, it is not a pretty picture.
You have too much food.
You have too much energy.
You have too many machines.
You have too much fuel.
That’s the reason the rest of the world hates you.
He can change it.
The computer program called “global warming” is the new Constitution of the United States; regardless of how cold it may get.
America wants change. And change is less food, less energy, fewer machines, and less fuel, to Obama.
When you live in a mud hut like Obama’s grandmother in Kenya, the change will be complete. Americans will finally be acceptable to the World, according to Michelle and Barack.
H/T: Global Shamming
. . . Pitching his message to Oregon’s environmentally-conscious voters, Obama called on the United States to “lead by example” on global warming, and develop new technologies at home which could be exported to developing countries.
“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,” Obama said.
“That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen,” he added. . . .
When Obama promises “change” he reflects his training in the Chicago radical leftist organization handed down by the notorious Saul Alinsky.
Source: The Obama File – Employment
For those unfamiliar with Saul Alinsky, his writings on radicalism and social change will chill the bones of not only conservatives, but more moderate liberals:
“Any revolutionary CHANGE must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward CHANGE among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and CHANGE the future.”
“This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families –- more than seventy million people -– whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971].”
And what word comes out of Obama’s mouth the most — why, CHANGE!
It sounds more and more like Obama is prescribing a dialectical leap, class struggle, and revolution for America, thinly disguised as “change.” Thus “uniting” us? Actually, uniting the “frustrated, defeated, lost, and futureless” is more the plan.
Even Tehran Times has interesting comments on Obama’s relationship to Saul Alinsky.
Hillary, Obama and the cult of Alinsky
By Richard Poe
Most Americans never heard of Saul Alinsky. Yet his shadow darkens our coming election. Democrat frontrunners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both worship at the altar of Alinskyism.
In a 1971 book called Rules for Radicals, Alinsky scolded the Sixties Left for scaring off potential converts in Middle America. True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within.
Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties.
In his native Chicago, Alinsky courted power wherever he found it. His alliance with prominent Catholic clerics, such as Bishop Bernard Sheil, gave him respectability. His friendship with crime bosses such as Frank Nitti — Al Capone’s second-in-command — gave Alinsky clout on the street.
In our book The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party, my co-author David Horowitz and I trace the rise of Alinsky’s political influence since the 1930s.
He excelled at wooing wealthy funders. Start-up money for his Industrial Areas Foundation — a training school for radical organizers — came from department-store mogul Marshall Field III, Sears Roebuck heiress Adele Rosenwald Levy, and Gardiner Howland Shaw, an assistant secretary of state for Franklin Roosevelt.
Alinsky once boasted, “I feel confident that I could persuade a millionaire on a Friday to subsidize a revolution for Saturday out of which he would make a huge profit on Sunday even though he was certain to be executed on Monday.”
One Alinsky benefactor was Wall Street investment banker Eugene Meyer, who served as Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1930 to 1933. Meyer and his wife Agnes co-owned The Washington Post. They used their newspaper to promote Alinsky.
Agnes Meyer personally wrote a six-part series in 1945, praising Alinsky’s work in Chicago slums. Her series, called “The Orderly Revolution”, made Alinsky famous. President Truman ordered 100 reprints of it.
During the Sixties, Alinsky wielded tremendous power behind the scenes.
When President Johnson launched his War on Poverty in 1964, Alinsky allies infiltrated the program, steering federal money into Alinsky projects.
In 1966, Senator Robert Kennedy allied himself with union leader Cesar Chavez, an Alinsky disciple. Chavez had worked ten years for Alinsky, beginning in 1952. Kennedy soon drifted into Alinsky’s circle.
After race riots shook Rochester, New York, Alinsky descended on the city and began pressuring Eastman-Kodak to hire more blacks. Kennedy supported Alinsky’s shakedown. The two men had an “understanding”, Alinsky later wrote.
Alinsky’s crowning achievement was his recruitment of a young high school student named Hillary Rodham. She met Alinsky through a radical church group. Hillary wrote an analysis of Alinsky’s methods for her senior thesis at Wellesley College. They remained friends until Alinsky’s death in 1972.
Alinsky tried to hire Hillary as a community organizer, but she chose instead to attend Yale Law School. Nonetheless, Alinsky’s network continued guiding Hillary’s career.
Fresh out of law school at age 26, Hillary received a prestigious appointment to the House Judiciary Committee’s Watergate investigative team in 1974. She got the job on the recommendation of Peter and Marian Wright Edelman.
The Edelmans have been trusted mentors of Hillary since 1969. New Republic editor Martin Peretz called Marian “Hillary’s closest sister and ideological soulmate”. Marian Wright Edelman also happens to be an Alinskyite, having served on the Board of Trustees of Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation.
Many leftists view Hillary as a sell-out because she claims to hold moderate views on some issues. However, Hillary is simply following Alinsky’s counsel to do and say whatever it takes to gain power.
Barack Obama is also an Alinskyite. Trained by Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation, Obama spent years teaching workshops on the Alinsky method. In 1985 he began a four-year stint as a community organizer in Chicago, working for an Alinskyite group called the Developing Communities Project. Later, he worked with ACORN and its offshoot Project Vote, both creations of the Alinsky network.
Camouflage is key to Alinsky-style organizing. While trying to build coalitions of black churches in Chicago, Obama caught flak for not attending church himself. He became an instant churchgoer.
That Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama share an Alinskyite background tells us two things. First, they are leftists, dedicated to overthrowing our Constitutional system. Second, they will go to any length to conceal their radicalism from the public.
That is the Alinsky method. And that is today’s Democratic Party.
H/T: Atlas Shrugs
Obama is very sensitive to Global Poverty; and this is proven amply by his Senate Bill S. 2433 which proposes to levy tax in the United States as determined by the United Nations. This tax will only cost Americans approximately $1 Trillion over the next few years; but you are rich, decadent capitalists, and you can easily afford it, recession or no.
Obama is so sensitive to Global Poverty, that he forgot his grandma, living in a mud hut in Kenya – as he relaxed in his largely donated (by accused grafter and Obama financier Antoin Rezko) mansion in Hyde Park.
I hope that Obama is never in charge of taking care of my grandmother; or your grandmother.
Article, including photo, lifted entirely and shamelessly from Bob McCarty
..Why is ‘Grandma Obama’ Still Living in a Hut?
December 29th, 2007 · 5 CommentsSpeaking before a crowd of would-be voters in Coralville, Iowa, yesterday, Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama said the following, according to ABC News Political Radar:
“It’s that experience, that understanding, not just of what world leaders I went and talked to in the ambassadors house I had tea with, but understanding the lives of the people like my grandmother who lives in a tiny hut in Africa.”
While some characterized it as a veiled shot at arch rival Hillary Clinton and her claims of presidential-level experience, I viewed it differently. Obama’s statement prompted me to wonder why “Grandma Obama” is still living in a tiny hut years after her nouveaux-riche grandson had attained the means via which he could have greatly improved her living situation.
Just a thought from Bob McCarty Writes.