The Blog of mhgintn

Here's a quick and simple study for why Obama will not reach the projected polling data.

Let's first assume 10 democrat voters/votes from the 2006 elections and 9 Republican voters/votes. The Democrats won the '06 election by about that margin.

Now, in that 10 votes for "D" candidates in '06 there were regular voters now being characterized as PUMAs (disgruntled Hillary Democrats). From the primaries of '08 we may say there are 5 PUMA voters. If 2 of those five are so pissed off at Obama's treatment of Hilalry that they will vote for McCain/Palin, that would be a conservative count. Let's see what that does to the election we're int he middle of.

The 9 "R" voters might filter down to 8 "R" votes, just for comparisons ... we can't factor the broken glass Republicans who will vote this time but didn't bother in '06 because they were mad at the "R" for out of control spending, so the "R" might actually be 10 starting this calculation, but we'll stay with the 8 just to see what happens.

The original 10 "D" have been cut to 8 due to the disgruntled and determined PUMAs, so the "D" votes are now 8. BUT, the "R" 8 now get 2 PUMA votes, so they move to 10! Obama loses the election but the loss cannot be predicted mathematically by polling because of the assumed "D" base of votes the pollsters use to start their calculations!

For discussion, assume that the ACORN fraud votes will cancel the broken glass voters showing up this time that didn't bother to vote in '06.

Smile, the Marxist isn't going to win this election, even with his army of cheating ACORNS.

The following is the most watched Youtube video of this campaign. This soldier knows of what he speaks ... and he knows what real sacrifice is all about. This soldier speaks to Senator Obama:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8

You can easily raise your power bills, if you think you're not paying enough. Just vote for Obama, because in his own words, he has plans to skyrocket electric bills:

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=e46U2Gnzpr

If you are in active service or have been connected to our courageous military, please listen to this Marine speak from his heart:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAb5lMeSIIs
 

Here's a revealing sketch of what Michelle and Barack think of you Hillary voters:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsUnw5RDYoA

Here is a link to encapsulated data for those who may still be undecided as to whom to vote for. I particularly recommend the comments from Thomas Sowell and Dr. Walter Williams near the end of the page:

http://freedomkeys.com/candidatecomparison.htm

Folks, this guy will be a major disaster for this nation. His 'civic religion' includes a worship of 'global warming' and he believes we Americans must be forced by hardship to agree with his worldview, his 'civic religion'.

Listen as Barack Obama tells us how he intends to drive the cost for energy through the roof, to force you to agree with him:

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=e46U2Gnzpr

I live at the edge of coal country. For weeks, the Obama campaign has been televising ads which claim McCain doesn't like the coal industry and would harm it by vetoing things like the open (exposed balloting measure designed to remove secret voting from workers where unions want to take oveer the work force.

This video/audio is proof that Obama not only lies about his true intentions, he has told West Coast leftist what they want to hear about 'carbon credits' and ending 'dirty coal' use ... it all gives off carbon when burned, he wants that stopped:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ

Give a look to the following Youtube. Barack Obama has plans for America, and they are looking astonishingly similar to those planned by the National Socialists of the thirties in pre-war Germany:

Click here to view: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwaAVJITx1Y</a>

Last night (Friday, 10/31) on the Hannity and Colmes FOX NEWS program, ex-CIA Director James Woolsey, when discussing the Rashid Khalidi issue, cited facts regarding Khalidi's role on an international polling organization. Colmes had tried to impugn John McCain for ‘sending money to Khalidi‘, a specious accusation at best.

Alan Colmes had raised this tenuous connection to Rashid Khalidi as an Obama campaign talking points effort to connect John McCain’s Senate committee appropriating money to Rashid Khalidi ... floating the well crafted lie that McCain would be just as culpable as Obama's praising Khalidi at a party in Khalidi's honor where anti-Israeli hate speech was spewed to warm reception.

We have been deceived by the Obama lie that the organization was a PLO organ. In fact, they are an international polling organization on whose board apparently Khalidi sat as merely a PLO representative. The Obama/Axelrod campaign wasn’t mistaken, not confused, they knew they were floating yet another Obama/Axelrod lie in a layer meant to bury the truth by spreading layers of lies upon it. [Alan Colmes was so deep into using DNC/Obama/Axelrod specious talking points that he didn’t even know enough truth to try and talk over what the ex-CIA director was saying! But he started to catch on toward the end of the Admiral’s short explanation, then drowned out the finish with the usual Colmes over-talking the guest.]

What does it say about a campaign that has to resort to so many deceptions and so many layers of lies in order to hide the truth about the candidate? ... And America is a hair’s breadth away from electing this deceitful candidate to be president? I have black friends who are embarrassed he is part blackman!

With the William Ayers issue, Axelrod layered several lies to cover the truth that Obama has close personal friendships lasting decades, with mosters who are domestic terrorist bombers. Axelrod started the layer of lies with the gross fabrication that Ayers’ kids and Obama's kids attend the same school, so Ayers and Obama may have run into each other at school functions! ... The Ayers kids must be really retarded since they are two decades older than Obama's little girls.

To try such a gross lie at the start of a vetting process indicates either the campaign manager (Axelrod) is ignorant of the facts or is so knowledgeable that he has devised a plan to layer on lies he hopes will obfuscate the truth. The media has purposely subverted the normal vetting process, to cover for this Marxist built from criminal enterprise clay.

Where the Obama campaign spreads layers of lies, digging by Internet sleuths has uncovered truth, despite the media’s hard work to hide facts damaging to their dirty socialist messiah.

With the ACORN issue, layers of lies were spread to cover the truth that Obama has long, close, and on-going ties to this criminal enterprise working to cheat the election process and blackmail/intimidate the mortgage industry. Obama has worked as a trainer for ACORN groupd directors. He got his strart in community organizing in a sub unit of ACORN. ACORN was founded by Wade Rathke, once a member in the Ayers Weather Underground terrorist group. The Obama campaign recently paid more than $800,000 to an ACORN front group, and Obama is connected to millions paid to ACORN in the past through foundations he has chaired and served on as funneler of funds.

With the birth certificate/citizenship issue Axelrod has layered lies to cover something we have yet to fully uncover, but it can’t be good because the deceit is so pernicious. Is Barack Obama even Constitutionally qualified to run for the office or even be a U.S. Senator? Is his claim to citizenship based on a counterfeit document? The Obama campaign tried to front a fraudulent certificate of live birth on their website. The counterfeit was so bad that the author had to admit he had fabricated the document when web sleuths exposed the fraud! And the counterfeit is compounded by an organization connected to one of Obama’s past foundations, The Annenberg Challenge. When questioned about his, the obama campaign has tried to tie Ronald Reagan to the layers of deceit just because Reagan was friends with Annenberg, decades ago! The only reason to hide a simple birth certification document is to hide truth from the American people being manipulated to vote for a fraud.

With the Rashid Khalidi issue we have more lies, and it isn’t difficult to see why the Obama goons are spreading layers of lies on that one! Obama expects millions of Jews to vote for him while he hides that he is close friends with a man highly placed in a PLO mob determined to annihilate Israel. The deceitful candidate is layering lies to hide his relationship to the enemies of Israel!

The Obama campaign knows exactly what they’re doing with the layers of lies Axelrod and company spread to hide the bare truth about this democrat candidate for president. Now that Tony Rezko is convicted not just indicted, Obama won’t even take questions regarding his relationship to Rezko in past Chicago area slumlord enterprises, or Rezko‘s connection to Obama‘s estate purchase, or Rezko‘s campaign funding for Obama in the past.

Axelrod has a history of lying to cover truth. He’s a skilled ‘Astroturf’ for past corporate deceit campaigns. With the stakes so high in this campaign, and the power so real to his future, Axelrod has proven he will tell any lie he needs to, to fool the people and manipulate the vote. This David Axelrod is the choice of Barack Obama, to run his campaign and deceive whomever, on whatever it takes, to achieve ultimate power in America.

A POIGNANT POEM:

Posted by freeper, Ford Fairlane, a few years back during an abortion discussion.

A PRAYER OF MARY

You didn't make it, Unborn Child, they wouldn't let you be.
To your bud of life they took a knife … it's the New Morality.

They didn't mean to hurt you, Love, you have to understand.
Forgive them what they did to you, their life was so well-planned.

They couldn't take you with them up the ladder of success,
Money, it meant more to them than a child from heaven-blessed.

Tell me, little Unborn Child, what did Creator say?
Did He wrap you in his love and wipe your tears away?

You hover on the edge of time. I see your faceless form.
You laugh whenever children play, Oh God, for you I mourn!

He sent His only precious Son to teach us all The Way.
Still, we kill the unborn ones, it happens every day!

You didn't make it, Unborn Child. They wouldn't let you be.
They just expunged a blob of cells…. It's the New Morality.

Two little brothers fought and bickered all day long. Every time their mother turned around, these boys were at each other, bickering. Came bedtime and the youngest was bathed and put to bed. As the older brother was getting his bath, his mother worked on his conscience, asking how he would feel if he went to bed without making up and forgiving his brother and in the night his brother died? The oldest boy thought about it while the bath continued, then when mother was toweling him off he responded: "Okay. All right, I'll forgive him ... But if he's alive in the morning ..."

That's the way most of us forgive. I'm so glad God 'remembers no more' our sin when we come to Him for forgiveness. He's had a lot to forget with me. ;^)

Asked by Pastor Rick Warren ‘when BABIES get human rights‘--that‘s Constitutional Rights--Obama switched the focus to conception issues. Why? Because he has a history of using summary removal of Constitutional rights from newborns as his means to protect abortion rights in Illinois.

Barack Obama is more than willing to cancel Constitutionally defined Human rights in order to protect what the Democrat Party has used as their empowerment scheme, for decades.

In the following clip from the Saddleback Church interview, Pastor Warren didn‘t ask about a fetus--the pre-born baby--or about issues of ‘when a conceptus becomes a human being‘, he asked when a baby--an already born, alive human entity--gets human rights: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRswgN-Wf6g&feature=related.

Notice how Barack Obama answers first that it is above his pay grade, trying to divert the focus to an issue which continues to confound debate. That’s sleight of hand, trickery, obfuscation. Why? … Because while he was in the Illinois legislature, Barack Obama didn’t consider it above his pay grade to cancel the Constitutional Rights of newborn, alive babies as his means to protect abortion ’rights’!

Pastor Warren asked Obama a question which would have exposed a darkness at the heart of the man, had Obama answered truthfully. So Barack Obama played bait and switch, deceived the audience, lied. He does this regularly, but the sycophantic leftist media never calls him on his lies.

Obama twisted the focus of Warren’s question, as a way to avoid exposing his Constitution-cancelling past performance. Killing born alive infants is okay in Barack Obama‘s twisted mind, so long as it protects abortion on demand! But he knows that would be a major turn-off for average Americans, so he lies.

On the other hand, Barack Obama made noises about being his brother’s keeper, and quoted scripture (from Matthew, which he may never have actually read for himself) regarding ‘doing to the least of these’. Had Barack Obama ever actually read the Gospel according to Matthew, he would know that Jesus considers children also as ‘the least of these‘.

Alive, born and separated from their mother‘s body children are the least among us. Obama had no problem with cancelling the rights of these alive children, as his means to protect the rites of abortion and thus empower his political capital among pro-choice Democrats.

Deceit is so deeply ingrained with Barack Obama, one is left pondering from whence comes such deception? How can a man claim to care about the least among us, yet purposely cancel the Constitutional Rights, the Human Rights of struggling-to-breathe newborn children?

If I’m not mistaken, abortion ‘rights’ are about killing the alive unborn. But Obama protected the killing of alive just born children completely separated from the mother’s body, under the guise of protecting abortion rights.

Are we to conclude that killing the newborn is an abortion right?

If that were the only issue, the task of comprehending what is this man would be more simple. But there is so much more, as the Obama army’s character assassination of persons like Joe the Plumber prove.

Actually, the loud and clear message is more sinister from the Obama goons: ‘Do not question what Obama does or says. If Barack uses murdering of newborns as a means to protect abortion rights, he must not be questioned for it.’ Any evil is allowed, so long as it serves to sustain abortion on demand, even if the issue is not abortion but the legalization of killing newborns, the legalization of infanticide!

Here's an eight minute, very brilliant presentation from a Christian brother. ... Family is gonna make Heaven such an interesting place, meeting all these family members you didn't get to meet while on Earth! Enjoy ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yvc0tYG_YpA

Barack Obama sought to cancel the Constitutional Human Rights of born alive infants as Obama's means to 'protect' Roe v Wade and empower his political capital.

As a Constitutional law professor, we may be certain he knew what he was working to do when he opposed the born alive infant protection legislations. The form of killing alive children--that Obama protected--is called induced labor abortion. It is a method of forcing premature birth then killing the struggling completely born infant by neglecting medical attention, so the struggling child eventually suffocates. That is infanticide/murder via purposed neglect. ...

Please watch the following and forward the net address to all on your e-mail lists. Time is growing very short for our values: http://68.178.170.193/index.php

Barack Obama sought to cancel the Constitutional Human Rights of born alive infants as Obama's means to 'protect' Roe v Wade and empower his political capital.

As a Constitutional law professor, we may be certain he knew what he was working to do when he opposed the born alive infant protection legislations. The form of killing alive children--that Obama protected--is called induced labor abortion. It is a method of forcing premature birth then killing the struggling completely born infant by neglecting medical attention, so the struggling child eventually suffocates. That is infanticide/murder via purposed neglect. ...

And America's media is protecting this kind of man so he may become our elected president? THAT is the fourth estate turning into the fifth column enemy of the people.

Please watch the following and forward the net address to all on your e-mail lists. Time is growing very short for our values: http://68.178.170.193/index.php
 

During a 2001 radio call in session, the following remarks were recorded of Barack Obama answering questions on the socialist/Marxist perspective he desires for the nation and how the Courts haven't been radical enough to meet his desires. The transcript is part of a Bill Whittle essay that is included:

Barack Obama, in 2001:
<P>
You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil-rights
movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded
was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would
now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and
order and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be okay, but the Supreme Court
never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more
basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.
<P>
And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize
the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the
essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the
Constitution — at least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted
it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative
liberties: [It] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal
government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or
the state government must do on your behalf.
<P>
And that hasn’t shifted, and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the
civil-rights movement was because the civil-rights movement became so
court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the
political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to
put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about
redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.
<P>
A caller then helpfully asks: “The gentleman made the point that the Warren
Court wasn’t terribly radical. My question is (with economic changes)… my
question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work, economically, and
is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to change place?”
<P>
Obama replies:
<P>
You know, I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive
change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way.
[snip] You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, you
know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially
is administrative and takes a lot of time. You know, the court is just not very
good at it, and politically, it’s just very hard to legitimize opinions from the
court in that regard.
<P>
So I think that, although you can craft theoretical justifications for it,
legally, you know, I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a
rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.”
<P>
THE FIRST CIRCLE OF SHAME 
There is nothing vague or ambiguous about this. Nothing.
<P>
From the top: “…The Supreme Court never entered into the issues of
redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and
economic justice in this society. And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think
people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.”
<P>
If the second highlighted phrase had been there without the first, Obama’s
defenders would have bent over backwards trying to spin the meaning of
“political and economic justice.” We all know what political and economic
justice means, because Barack Obama has already made it crystal clear a second
earlier: It means redistribution of wealth. Not the creation of wealth and
certainly not the creation of opportunity, but simply taking money from the
successful and hard-working and distributing it to those whom the government
decides “deserve” it.
<P>
This redistribution of wealth, he states, “essentially is administrative and
takes a lot of time.” It is an administrative task. Not suitable for the courts.
More suitable for the chief executive.
<P>
Now that’s just garden-variety socialism, which apparently is not a big deal
to may voters. So I would appeal to any American who claims to love the
Constitution and to revere the Founding Fathers… I will not only appeal to you,
I will beg you, as one American citizen to another, to consider this next
statement with as much care as you can possibly bring to bear: “And uh, to that
extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it
wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that
were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution — at least as it’s been
interpreted, and [the] Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that
generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [it] says what
the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you,
but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do
on your behalf.
<P>
The United States of America — five percent of the world’s population — leads
the world economically, militarily, scientifically, and culturally — and by a
spectacular margin. Any one of these achievements, taken alone, would be cause
for enormous pride. To dominate as we do in all four arenas has no historical
precedent. That we have achieved so much in so many areas is due — due entirely
— to the structure of our society as outlined in the Constitution of the United
States.
<P>
The entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit government. That
limitation of powers is what has unlocked in America the vast human potential
available in any population.
<P>
Barack Obama sees that limiting of government not as a lynchpin but rather as
a fatal flaw: “…One of the, I think, the tragedies of the Civil Rights
movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I
think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community
organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual
coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in
some ways we still suffer from that.”
<P>
There is no room for wiggle or misunderstanding here. This is not edited
copy. There is nothing out of context; for the entire thing is context — the
context of what Barack Obama believes. You and I do not have to guess at what he
believes or try to interpret what he believes. He says what he believes.
<P>
We have, in our storied history, elected Democrats and Republicans, liberals
and conservatives and moderates. We have fought, and will continue to fight,
pitched battles about how best to govern this nation. But we have never, ever in
our 232-year history, elected a president who so completely and openly opposed
the idea of limited government, the absolute cornerstone of makes the United
States of America unique and exceptional.
<P>
If this does not frighten you — regardless of your political affiliation —
then you deserve what this man will deliver with both houses of Congress, a
filibuster-proof Senate, and, to quote Senator Obama again, “a righteous wind at
our backs.”
<P>
That a man so clear in his understanding of the Constitution, and so
opposed to the basic tenets it provides against tyranny and the abuse of power,
can run for president of the United States is shameful enough.
<P>
We’re just getting started.
<P>
THE SECOND CIRCLE OF SHAME
Mercifully shorter than the first, and simply this: I happen to know the
person who found this audio. It is an individual person, with no more resources
than a desire to know everything that he or she can about who might be the next
president of the United States and the most powerful man in the world.
<P>
I know that this person does not have teams of highly paid professionals,
does not work out of a corner office in a skyscraper in New York, does not have
access to all of the subtle and hidden conduits of information … who possesses
no network television stations, owns no satellite time, does not receive
billions in advertising dollars, and has a staff of exactly one.
<P>
I do not blame Barack Obama for believing in wealth distribution. That’s his
right as an American. I do blame him for lying about what he believes. But his
entire life has been applying for the next job at the expense of the current
one. He’s at the end of the line now.
<P>
I do, however, blame the press for allowing an individual citizen to do the
work that they employ standing armies of so-called professionals for. I know
they are capable of this kind of investigative journalism: It only took them a
day or two to damage Sarah Palin with wild accusations about her baby’s
paternity and less time than that to destroy a man who happened to be playing
ball when the Messiah decided to roll up looking for a few more votes on the way
to the inevitable coronation.
<P>
We no longer have an independent, fair, investigative press. That is
abundantly clear to everyone — even the press. It is just another of the facts
that they refuse to report, because it does not suit them.
<P>
Remember this, America: The press did not break this story. A single citizen,
on the Internet did.
<P>
There is a special hell for you “journalists” out there, a hell made
specifically for you narcissists and elitists who think you have the right to
determine which information is passed on to the electorate and which is not.
<P>
That hell — your own personal hell — is a fiery lake of irrelevance, blinding
clouds of obscurity, and burning, everlasting scorn.
<P>
You’ve earned it.
<P>
THE THIRD CIRCLE OF SHAME
This discovery will hurt Obama much more than Joe the Plumber.
<P>
What will be left of my friend, and my friend’s family, I wonder, when the
press is finished with them?
<P>
— Bill Whittle lives in Los Angeles and is an on-air commentator for
www.pjtv.com. You can find him online at www.ejectejecteject.com.
 

The linked to video is actually audio captured from a 2001 radio interview with Barack Obama. If you listen to the exchanges and following the written quotes, Barack Obama is obviously discussing a topic for which he has spent a lot of time contemplating just how to bring about 'redistribution' of wealth and power. If he reaches the presidency, you will find out what that means because Barack Obama is a flatout Marxist. His achievement will be the realization of William Ayers' dreams for America.

Here's the video link:

<img src=http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck>

A STORY FROM A CUBAN FELLOW - THINK ABOUT THIS !!!!!!!!

Each year I get to celebrate Independence Day twice.
On June 30 I celebrate MY independence day and on July 4 I celebrate
America’s.

This year is special, because it marks the 40th anniversary
of my independence.

On June 30, 1968, I escaped Communist Cuba and a few months
later I was in the US to stay. That I happened to arrive in Richmond
on Thanksgiving Day is just part of the story, but I digress.

I’ve thought a lot about the anniversary this year. The election year
rhetoric has made me think a lot about Cuba and what transpired there.

In the late 1950’s most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, and they
were right. So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at
least receptive.

When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced
the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never
questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in.

When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and
education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring
justice and equality to all, everyone said ‘Praise the Lord.’ And
when the young leader said, ‘I will be for change and I’ll bring you
change,’ everyone yelled, ‘Viva Fidel! ‘

But nobody asked about the change, so:
*By the time the executioner’s guns went silent the people’s guns
had been taken away.
*By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and
oppressed.
*By the time everyone received their free education it was worth
nothing.
*By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because theye were
now working for him.
*By the time the change was finally implemented Cuba had been knocked
down a couple of notches to Third-World status.
*By the time the change was over more than a million people had taken
to boats, rafts, and inner tubes.

You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the
most fortunate Cubans. And now I’m back to the beginning of my
story.

Luckily, we would never in America fall for a young leader who
promised change without asking, ‘WHAT change?

How will you carry it out? What will it cost America?’

Would we?

Manuel Alvarez, Jr

The CSI episode (CBS show, Crime Scene Investigation) which aired Thursday evening, October 23, was, as is common, about a serial killer. The killer picked random victims, drugged them to unconsciousness, and killed them in restrained poses, so when rigor mortis sets in (stiffening of the muscles with oxygen deprivation and paralysis of muscle cells) these people are posed in what the killer perceives as ‘artful sculpting’.<p>

Toward the end of the episode, the CSI team discovers the killer has abducted a little boy whom he plans as the last in a series of ‘sculptings’. The frantic criminal investigators locate a warehouse where they believe the killings have taken place and rush to find the little boy. As the child is pulled free from the straps and restraints, unconscious, CPR is started when the boy is carried from the killing chamber.<p>

The audience is left in suspense, momentarily: will the team be too late to save this child; will CPR revive this child? <p>

I watched the end of that episode with tears in my old eyes, pleading in my mind for the little one to breathe. The tears were because I was thinking of how a viewing audience can be manipulated to cheer for that little boy to recover from the carbon monoxide and breathe, yet Barack Obama worked hard in the Illinois legislature to protect killing born alive infants —completely separated from the mother’s body— via forced suffocation of preemie babies left unattended to die alone. And it makes me cry that too many of my fellow Americans are going to vote for this ghoul from Illinois who used the suffocation murder of born alive children as a means to empower himself politically.

Since most of us at EP don't read regularly on UK websites, I thought the following might be educational, my EP friends.<p>

, 9th September 2008

Melanie Phillips

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2111913/posts

In her game-changing convention speech, Sarah Palin took a swipe at Obama for having been nothing more in his life than a ‘community organiser’.

This prompted the Obama campaign to issue a pained defence of community organisation as a way of promoting social change ‘from the bottom up’. The impression is that community organising is a worthy if woolly and ultimately ineffectual grassroots activity. This is to miss something of the greatest importance: that in the world of Barack Obama, community organisers are a key strategy in a different game altogether; and the name of that game is revolutionary Marxism.

The seditious role of the community organiser was developed by an extreme left intellectual called Saul Alinsky. He was a radical Chicago activist who, by the time he died in 1972, had had a profound influence on the highest levels of the Democratic party. Alinsky was a ‘transformational Marxist’ in the mould of Antonio Gramsci, who promoted the strategy of a ‘long march through the institutions’ by capturing the culture and turning it inside out as the most effective means of overturning western society. In similar vein, Alinsky condemned the New Left for alienating the general public by its demonstrations and outlandish appearance. The revolution had to be carried out through stealth and deception. Its proponents had to cultivate an image of centrism and pragmatism. A master of infiltration, Alinsky wooed Chicago mobsters and Wall Street financiers alike. And successive Democratic politicians fell under his spell.

His creed was set out in his book ‘Rules for Radicals’ – a book he dedicated to Lucifer, whom he called the ‘first radical’. It was Alinsky for whom ‘change’ was his mantra. And by ‘change’, he meant a Marxist revolution achieved by slow, incremental, Machiavellian means which turned society inside out. This had to be done through systematic deception, winning the trust of the naively idealistic middle class by using the language of morality to conceal an agenda designed to destroy it. And the way to do this, he said, was through ‘people’s organisations’.

Community organisers would mobilise direct action by the oppressed masses against their capitalist oppressors. In FrontPageMagazine.Com John Perazzo writes:

These People’s Organizations were to be composed largely of discontented individuals who believed that society was replete with injustices that prevented them from being able to live satisfying lives. Such organizations, Alinsky advised, should not be imported from the outside into a community, but rather should be staffed by locals who, with some guidance from trained radical organizers, could set their own agendas.

The installment of local leaders as the top-level officers of People’s Organizations helped give the organizations credibility and authenticity in the eyes of the community. This tactic closely paralleled the longtime Communist Party strategy of creating front organizations that ostensibly were led by non-communist fellow-travelers, but which were in fact controlled by Party members behind the scenes...

Alinsky viewed as supremely important the role of the organizer, or master manipulator, whose guidance was responsible for setting the agendas of the People’s Organization... Alinsky laid out a set of basic principles to guide the actions and decisions of radical organizers and the People’s Organizations they established. The organizer, he said, ‘must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.’[40] The organizer’s function, he added, was ‘to agitate to the point of conflict’[41] and ‘to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy.” ‘[42] ‘The word ‘enemy,’ said Alinsky, ‘is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people’;[43] i.e., to convince members of the community that he is so eager to advocate on their behalf, that he has willingly opened himself up to condemnation and derision.

Obama’s connection with Alinsky, whom he never met but whom he reportedly idolised, was through two bodies promoting the Alinsky model of community organisation, ACORN and the Gamaliel Foundation. John Perazzo again:

Obama was trained by the Alinsky-founded Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) in Chicago and worked for an affiliate of the Gamaliel Foundation, whose modus operandi for the creation of ‘a more just and democratic society’ is rooted firmly in the Alinsky method. As The Nation magazine puts it, ‘Obama worked in the organizing tradition of Saul Alinsky, who made Chicago the birthplace of modern community organizing...’ In fact, for several years Obama himself taught workshops on the Alinsky method.

But Obama brought a special slant to Alinsky’s radicalism.Far from being – as he has been painted – a ‘post-racial’ politician, Obama’s politics are all about promoting the cause of black people and achieving ‘reparations’ from white society (a perspective through which his whole welfare redistribution agenda is framed). Accordingly, he saw his three-year role as a community organiser in Chicago as mobilising black people for action against their white oppressors. Finding himself hampered in creating an activist network among black churches, he decided to join such a church to give himself more credibility. That’s why he joined the infamous black-power Trinity Church of Christ – a move, it seems, that had less to do with any spiritual quest than as a radical tactic for mobilising the black proletariat.

According to Stanley Kurtz in National Review (subscription required), as a trainer for Gamaliel and ACORN Obama used his influence to secure a major increase in funding for both groups. Kurtz writes of Gamaliel, one of the least known yet most influential national umbrella groups for church-based community organizers:

Gamaliel specializes in ideological stealth, and Obama, a master student of Gamaliel strategy, shows disturbing signs of being a sub rosa radical himself. Obama's legislative tactics, as well as his persistent professions of non-ideological pragmatism, appear to be inspired by his radical mentors' most sophisticated tactics. Not only has Obama studied, taught, and apparently absorbed stealth techniques from radical groups like Gamaliel and ACORN, but in his position as a board member of Chicago’s supposedly nonpartisan Woods Fund, he quietly funneled money to his radical allies -- at the very moment he most needed their support to boost his political career.

Kurtz also quotes Rutgers political scientist Heidi Swarts who, in her book Organizing Urban America: Secular and Faith-based Progressive Movements, lays out the strategy of stealth:

Swarts calls groups like ACORN and (especially) Gamaliel ‘invisible actors,’ hidden from public view because they often prefer to downplay their efforts, because they work locally, and because scholars and journalists pay greater attention to movements with national profiles (like the Sierra Club or the Christian Coalition). Congregation-based community organizations like Gamaliel, by contrast, are often invisible even at the local level. A newspaper might report on a demonstration led by a local minister or priest, for example, without noticing that the clergyman in question is part of the Gamaliel network. ‘Though often hidden from view,’ says Swarts, ‘leaders have intentionally and strategically organized these movements that appear to well up and erupt from below.’

Although Gamaliel and ACORN have significantly different tactics and styles, Swarts notes that their political goals and ideologies are broadly similar. Both groups press the state for economic redistribution. The tactics of Gamaliel and ACORN have been shaped in a ‘post-Alinsky’ era of welfare reform and conservative resurgence, posing a severe challenge to those who wish to expand the welfare state. The answer these activists have hit upon, says Swarts, is to work incrementally in urban areas, while deliberately downplaying the far-Left ideology that stands behind their carefully targeted campaigns.

To avoid seeming like radicals or ‘hippies left over from the sixties,’ Gamaliel organizers are careful to wear conventional clothing and conduct themselves with dignity, even formality. Since liberal social movements tend to come off as naïve and idealistic, Gamaliel organizers make a point of presenting their ideas as practical, pragmatic, and down-to-earth. When no one else is listening, Gamaliel organizers may rail at ‘racism,’ ‘sexism,’ and ‘oppressive corporate systems,’ but when speaking to their blue-collar followers, they describe their plans as ‘common sense solutions for working families.’

If anyone should doubt Obama’s debt to Saul Alinsky, they might ponder this encomium from no less an authority than Alinsky’s own son. In a letter to the Boston Globe, L. David Alinsky wrote of his father’s influence at the Democratic Convention:

All the elements were present: the individual stories told by real people of their situation 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.

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.

Obama’s questionable links to various radicals are now well-known: the black power racists Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Fr. Michael Pfleger, the former Weather Underground terrorism supporters Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn. On CNN’s Glenn Beck show a few days ago Jerome Corsi, author of Obama Nation, observed:

Obama began his career, his coming out party in 1995, and Ayers and Bernadine Dorn's home. And then for, you know, some 20 years, Obama has been working with Ayers, certainly since 1995, on a series of foundations: the Annenberg Foundation and the Woods Foundation. The boards of directors together, or in the Annenberg Foundation, Ayers created it, and Obama was on it. And together they spent the money of these foundations to implement their radical socialist agenda.

As EM Forster wrote in a somewhat different context, only connect.

When Hillary Clinton was fighting Obama for the Democratic candidacy, her camp implied that the party would be making a terrible mistake in selecting Obama because, unlike centrist Hillary, he was a left-winger. But Hillary is an even more fervent Alinsky acolyte. In their book The Shadow Party, David Horowitz and Glenn Poe recount how Hillary first met Alinsky through a left-wing church group to which she belonged in high school, and stayed close to him until his death. Indeed, so impressed was she with his beliefs that she wrote a 75-page salute to him in her senior thesis at Wellesley College in 1969, which contained excerpts of the not-yet published Rules for Radicals. She wrote:

If the ideals Alinsky espouses were actualized, the result would be social revolution. Ironically, this is not a disjunctive projection if considered in the tradition of Western democratic theory. In the first chapter it was pointed out that Alinsky is regarded by many as the proponent of a dangerous socio/political philosophy. As such, he has been feared -- just as Eugene Debs or Walt Whitman or Martin Luther King has been feared, because each embraced the most radical of political faiths -- democracy.

That’s not democracy as we know it, more a Marxist conception of people power. On FrontPage, Perazzo writes:

During her senior year, Hillary was offered a job by Alinsky but chose instead to enrol at Yale Law School. Alinsky’s teachings, however, would remain close to her heart throughout her adult life. According to a Washington Post report, ‘As first lady, Clinton occasionally lent her name to projects endorsed by the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), the Alinsky group that had offered her a job in 1968. She raised money and attended two events organized by the Washington Interfaith Network, an IAF affiliate.’

Alinsky was a radical straight out of the Gramsci playbook. In both America and Britain, Gramsci’s acolytes have been conducting a decades-long march through the institutions. In Britain, they have substantially achieved their aim of subverting western morality and changing the face of British society. No political party stands against this. In the US, they have made huge inroads but haven’t yet won. With Palin on one side and Obama on the other, it is now clear that this US presidential election has taken the culture war to the gates of the White House itself.

Revolution you can believe in Tuesday