Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Thoughts on The Certificate

I had previously written about David Horowitz's important Frontpagemag editorial concerning the birth certificate. Unlike most conservatives, I admire Saul Alinsky, and one of Alinsky's "rules for radicals" is that tactics that drag on too long become a drag. At the same time, variations on the birth certificate theme might be useful, but not everyone agrees. I solicited comments from some brilliant and insightful friends, and here they are:

Raquel Okyay writes:

The facts so far are "foggy", but what if the fog was lifted, and indeed Obama is shown not to be a natural born citizen, does he receive immunity from the constitution's requirement simply because he is a black man, and his election is historic? What you are proposing is to ignore facts and possibly permit a person to lie to the American people, and violate what is clearly enumerated in the U.S. Constitution (whether outdated or minor).

If you have an argument to change the Constitution to remove this requirement going forward, fine. But, for me changing the rules after the game is unfair and undemocratic. I do not think it is wrong for the electorate to question Obama's eligibility after the fact. Obama can simply produce the proper documentation and this controversy is over.

The very fact that the pissant media are completely ignoring this story is the most disturbing aspect and I think that in itself is a major point. And this is the essence of the argument -- liberty has to do with freedom from oppressive governments. When the government and their pissant media friends are hiding or confusing the truth, it is in fact, our liberty that is being ignored. True democracy only exists in truth of liberty!

Notwithstanding, David, you are still one of my favorite authors!

Cortes de Russy writes:

As Mitchell and I have discussed, I fall down on David's side of this argument for the primary reason that he states.

Where there are wrinkles to be ironed out in process, these can be readily managed through the tools at hand. Oklahoma's legislature, for example, has already proposed legislation that would require adequate proof of a candidate's legal and constitutional eligibility prior to a candidate being included on the ballot in that state. If only one state passes such a requirement, I believe, this issue will be put to bed forever.

Regarding the development of a political system and electorate that is more respectful of the original intent of the Framers regarding devolution of powers among the states, etc., the solution is not any "quick fixes" but rather a serious education effort that will convince and reinforce the principles which uphold individual liberty. For example, there was no discussion in the recent campaign regarding the appropriate role of government in the lives of its citizens. McCain had a perfect opening to ask the question when Joe the Plumber inadvertently prompted Obama's "spread the wealth" comment but he either missed it or he doesn't contemplate the question at any level.

Keeping this issue alive will only harden positions and make it all the more difficult to convince the majority of citizens that conservatives are not "kooks" but rather thoughtful and concerned actors on the American political stage.

David Horowtiz replies to Raquel:

What I am proposing is not to make further inquiries into the facts in this case. It's too late and the consequences of this debate are destructive to our nation and our constitution when we are fighting two wars and in the midst of the greatest financial crisis in our history. You say I am proposing to "possibly permit a person to lie to the American people." What president, legislator, political leader etc has not lied to the American people? This is a question that the 64 million Americans who voted for Obama will be asking if 5 unelected political appointees on the Supreme Court decide to disqualify him.

Second, when you say that "changing the rules after the game is unfair" you need to think about the fact that more than half the nation which still believes in Obama will be asking the same question.

Third, concerning your distress at the bias of the media. What else is new and why should its support for Obama on this minor issue be the point of your distress?

I apologize for speaking so bluntly -- and I do appreciate your graciousness in allowing me the latitude to be wrong -- but I really think this whole issue is an emotional one that boils down to conceding that we lost the election and now have to live with Obama as president. But I think the beginning of a conservative political revival lies precisely in accepting this fact.

Raquel adds:

Ok, David, I have tried to persuade you to the far side of the moon, and I have failed. :(

You are proposing that concerned citizens do not make further inquiries and I am proposing we inquire, inquire, and keep inquiring!

I concede to the fact that we lost the election, and whatever the outcome of this controversy, I agree that a new conservative revolution is in the workings. I have little doubt that Democrats will ultimately hang themselves, they don't need me and my silly questions.

A quick observation: both the mayor of Honolulu and the Chief Clerk (or whatever her title is) have stated that they have seen Obama's birth certificate and that it is valid. Unless they are criminals, that should suffice to settle the matter.

I, frankly, understand why the Obama people ignored this issue for, had they rushed to respond his interlocutors would have been encouraged to come up with other issues forcing him to respond further, etc. It would never have ended and would have done just what was desired: create an aura of doubt surrounding his candidacy.

I, too, am distressed at his victory but do not want to win by such means.

Phil Orenstein writes:

My comments are two words: cognitive dissonance. I've been avoiding this for the past week or so, but now I have to cough it up. When I first read David's 3 blogs arguing that the birth certificate issue was nonsense and conservatives should move on, and the hundreds of emotional responses that followed, I decided to put it on the back burner and not deal with it. To me and to those who had done their homework regarding the facts of the issue, we found it a straightforward issue of Obama's obfuscation and lying to the American people about his birth certificate as well as numerous other documents (college records, medical records, etc.) and by implication everything that he stands for including change, hope and transparency. Due to the legal hieroglyphics and intellectual gymnastics one had to go through to sort out the wheat from the chaff, even many conservatives just avoided it and admonished us to move on to the real issues. Mitch has done a yeoman's job in simplifying the issues. To put it simply, no document the Obama camp has so far revealed to the public is proof of his legitimate "natural born" status as required by the Constitution, including his COLB (Certification of Live Birth) which is not proof he was born in Hawaii. It is a stunning admission of guilt that Barack Obama would not, simply out of respect for the people he was elected to preside over, disclose the sealed "vault copy" of his birth certificate, which would have ended the debate for me, Mitch and others.

FrontPage is my computer's homepage, and I read David's blog every day. I respect him as my major intellectual hero, for having advanced the Academic Bill of Rights, taken the fight for our country's values and self defense directly into the schools with the IslamoFascism Awareness projects, wrote "the Party of Defeat", the only author I am aware of who unmasked the treasonous actions of the Democratic Party to sabotage our now victorious war in Iraq, and many more. To me David, having been on both sides of the political divide is a true visionary and great conservative voice for Americas future.

But when I read David's arguments for dropping the whole ball of wax, I was stunned...Or on the other hand am I missing something? Am I just obsessing over a silly issue that has no relevance to reality. If a terrorist struck on our soil tomorrow, would we still carry on over the vault copy? So I thought about David's main point that Obama had already won and that the continued frenzy of a fringe of us trying to point out the obvious truth to a majority of American's who don't do their homework and are seduced by ephemeral images, via the pissant media and academic indoctrination, is tantamount to banging our heads against the wall. So David's point, truth be dammed, is that we'll only be hurting ourselves by continuing along this road.

Now I am busy planning and promoting a great conservative event event in NY for Feb 2009 to rebrand the GOP as the true "Party of Lincoln." The key is to re-establish the image of our greatest leader, Lincoln in the American memory which has declined in the past few decades, since the guiding premise of teacher education is that members of minority communities are marginalized when national heroes are recognized. So Lincoln and our great heritage has been stripped from the curriculum. This is the travesty that is poisoning the Obama generation to be disconnected with our great past heritage and only find relevance is the messianic images Obama projects. Also, postmodernism has already made a mockery of everything sacred in the world including religion, our American heroes and the Constitution. So truth, history and facts to these majority of our fellow Americans schooled in progressive indoctrination, has little or no relevance. So in the end, while I agree with Mitch that Statism and lies have taken over both political parties, the addiction is so complete, that cold-turkey prescriptions for truth will be rejected by the body politic. Basically what I am saying is to move on. Obama will be haunted by the entire foul Chicago political machinery of Emanuel, Rezko and now Blagojevich following him into the White House to claim a piece of the filthy pie that Obama was groomed in. Let's put our heads together now and save our country!

David, I wrote this to get a load off my chest. However, I cannot in good conscience tell others to "move on" although I myself am too tied up to pursue the case further. I have to agree with my friends Raquel and Mitchell, that as long as their conscience compels them to pursue the truth, they should do so. Whether it gets to the justices or not, either the sealed vault copy shows he is natural born or not and the American people have a right to know. Take the Duke Lacrosse rape case. Now it's Blagojevich's and his connections to Emanuel and possibly both their resignations rather than staining Obama's record. So I applaud those who are still fighting since the same process of lies and cover-ups will continue for the next 4 years. Sorry, I can't honestly concede on this.

David Horowitz replies:

That last line is exactly right, and we need to be positioning ourselves to take maximum advantage of their mistakes...Well, the search for information is one thing, and I certainly am all for finding out the truth in these matters. The political act of seeking to void an election is quite another on a matter as de minimus as this, and that's what I object to...My point is not truth be damned, but with the election over there's no feasible way to establish the truth in a way that will persuade a majority of Americans, let alone a majority of the Obama voters that this is indeed the truth and Joe Biden should be president. Joe Biden???!!!! Are you sure you would want to go through with this even if you could which (I am convinced) you can't?

Vasos Panagiotopoulos writes:

David, I agree. As president of Columbia GOP 1982-83, Obama and I often debated at Ferris Booth Cafe, and I found him to be fair, decent and intelligent, even if he was persistently wrong and unable to stop talking. This issue makes conservatives look nasty and small. I think Dole, Giuliani and McCain are nasty and small and the big reason we were so badly defeated. Bush Jr, for all his failings, would have been an even match for Obama. Romney would have defeated him. Don't forget Bush was elected twice. McCain made the same mistake as Faso '06, Gore'08 and Nixon'60 and precisely the mistake Bush'88 avoided. Americans voted for Obama the decent chap, not the black, not the liberal. As a son of immigrants (and a grandson of illegals) and a Columbia alum (and a fellow student of Brzezinski) I am darned proud of Obama. I don't think it is a coincidence that those here in Queens who hate CPAC board member and national conservative icon Serf Maltese with a passion also hate Obama. They only betray their own nastiness and help Obama.

In 1996 my assemblyman, Jim Buckley's former driver, Doug Prescott, was defeated by a pretty young attorney who happened to be the niece of a powerful judge. No one took her seriously because she was a "little girl." So our older volunteers didn't work much. A week before elections, the campaign office was closed for lack of staff. (In fact when our state senator correctly sued the feds for the local cost of illegals, our district's influx of Italians saw this, in combination with Andy Beveridge's study of Italians being NYC's top illegals, as an assault on them and voted for the Italian-surname "little girl" as the senator was running unopposed.)

I kept arguing all along, if you make Obama to be Jimmy Carter (thanks to Brzezinski) you can defeat him. If you play the race card, we will be totally defeated. I know pleny of conseratives from Columbia wo helped Obama because they genuinely liked him as a person. I can tell you I have reason to believe some prominent former Reagan youth members also helped him because they found McCain and his Nixonian coterie to be a nasty, noxious piece of garbage. Because of these small minded people, we have given Richard Dailey and Zbigniew Brzezinski control of the White House and the world for at least then next two years, if not for two decades.

Mitchell Langbert replies:

Dear Cortes, Phil, Raquel, Vasos and of course David--Thanks so much for your thoughtful correspondence about David's blog. I hope you don't mind that I posted everyone's comments on my blog. David is likely right, although the law suits may be creating a useful tactical or psychological imbalance. The recent Blagojevich news seems to confirm my early conclusion that Obama is not a nice guy. I don't think the people he's associated himself with (Vasos, you're obviously the exception) have been nice people. Not just Wright and Pfleger but the likes of Blagojevich, Daley and the entire Chicago sludge machine. Since the media wasn't interested in asking questions, it's easy for him to look great. Also, the Republicans are in worse trouble than Vasos and Phil are saying. I don't think that today they have the necessary ideological grounding to win, and in order to gain it they would need to reject a large portion of their likely financial support. I think the country is in trouble and more than just tactical and strategic planning is necessary. The Republican Party has lost its vision. Phil's idea about the party of Lincoln sounds great, but where are Milton Friedman and Ludwig von Mises now that we really need them?

13 comments:

Phil Orenstein said...

Thanks for posting our comments Mitch. It was a good discussion which involved wrestling with difficult issues which is the basis of new insight. I am proud of you for the lead you took in your investigation and reporting on the gamut of the BC issue. You put the pissant media to shame for not doing their job. You should win the Pulitzer, not Paul Krugman. Just goes to show you what a topsy-turvey world we live in!

Phil Orenstein said...

Thanks for posting our comments Mitch. It was a good discussion which involved wrestling with difficult issues which is the basis of new insight. I am proud of you for the lead you took in your investigation and reporting on the gamut of the BC issue. You put the pissant media to shame for not doing their job. You should win the Pulitzer, not Paul Krugman. Just goes to show you what a topsy-turvey world we live in!

Ted said...

EASY WAY TO MAKE SURE OBAMA NEVER GETS INAUGURATED (READ CAREFULLY):–

Since the Supreme Court has now prevented itself from acknowledging the question of whether Barack H. Obama is or is not an Article II “natural born citizen” based on the Kenyan/British citizenship of Barack Obama’s father at the time of his birth (irrespective of whether Barack Obama is deemed a “citizen” born in Hawaii or otherwise) as a prerequisite to qualifying to serve as President of the United States under the Constitution — the Court having done so three times and counting, first before the Nov 4 general election and twice before the Dec 15 vote of the College of Electors — it would seem appropriate, if not necessary, for all Executive Branch departments and agencies to secure advance formal advice from the United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel as to how to respond to expected inquiries from federal employees who are pledged to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” as to whether they are governed by laws, regulations, orders and directives issued under Mr. Obama during such periods that said employees, by the weight of existing legal authority and prior to a decision by the Supreme Court, believe in good faith that Mr. Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen”.

Anonymous said...

The political act of seeking to void an election is quite another on a matter as de minimus as this, and that's what I object to...

A President elect who fails to uphold the Constitution before he is sworn in is de minimis in your mind?

It is too late because Obama's puppet masters paid his way out of showing a simple document all Americans have to show to go to school or get a drivers license is de minimis in your mind? The American people who voted for Obama think he was properly vetted. Very few feel it is not important that Obama be natural born. Once in awhile one pops up on the internet but you can never know if they are protecting their rights as immigrants or protecting Obama.

A usurper who may have terrorist ties and may be the fulfillment of 9/11 is de minimis? Ever emailed Loren Davis ministries who has worked with Kenyans for 20 years to see their take on Obama? Scary stuff.

If the American people were told the truth about Obama as they drove to work each day or sat down with coffee to read the newspaper, would he have stood a chance? If George Soros did not fund ACORN voter fraud, would Obama have won?

My point is not truth be damned, but with the election over there's no feasible way to establish the truth in a way that will persuade a majority of Americans, let alone a majority of the Obama voters that this is indeed the truth and Joe Biden should be president. Joe Biden???!!!! Are you sure you would want to go through with this even if you could which (I am convinced) you can't?

Then just pursue the document to be released but don't ask to overturn the election. Let the American people know who Obama is. Where he is from. Who his father and mother are. Where his allegiance truly is. A lot of people voted for Obama who want Free health care, lower or no taxes and the war ended. Once they figure out none of that is going to happen then the BC will become relevant. In fact Obama has been told there will be no policy changes so his hands are tied even if he wanted to end the war in Iraq.

I am sure I will do everything I can to get that document released. I won't give up because Obama has duped the American people and it sets a precedent. Now POTUS will be open to any immigrant and the Constitution requirement of Natural born will be thrown out. What scares me is the voter fraud and media control you wrote about in the Shadow party we may never have a chance to see a valid election again. This has been done in other countries and it could happen here.

And I don't care if as you say all politicians lie. I was taught two wrongs do not make a right and David is saying because they all lie, so what, let Obama off. You wrote about the media control takeover Shadow party and now you say it is nothing new? I guess I should return your book because I must have paid for worthless mass of papers and lies.

And I take great offense to you and anyone saying this a emotional issue and that is why we pursue the Constitution to be upheld. I knew from research that people were tired of Bush and we would have a democratic president. Regardless of the fact Democrats are the ones who take us to war, Bush had tired them out.

I was ready. I felt the greatest thing about Bill Clinton was he never did anything and the economy was okay until the end. I thought doing nothing was a good thing and maybe Hillary with Bill by her side would do the same. Then Obama came along and I thought aha, people like him. Okay, I will give this guy a chance. Let the truth come out and let the people know who they are dealing with. Or just stomp on the flag a little more. I am smart enough to know we have two political parties and the power changes every few terms. Do I like Obama? No, I find him scarier than hell. Would I stomp my feet and have him unseated because I don't like him? No. I value our political freedoms and I value my democratic friends regardless of the fact they are WRONG. hee!

And Mitchell, you later on your admiration of Saul Alinsky. Sheeeshhhh! You are in twubble!

Anonymous said...

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd420.htm

Many believe Obama will be implicated in the Gov. Blagojevich mess. Many believe Rezko has been singing, but not about Obama. Why?

April 28, 2008. Witness: 'Patrick Fitzgerald would be terminated'

"Tony Rezko associate Elie Maloof just testified that when he received a grand jury subpoena, Rezko told him not to talk to the feds. Why?

"The federal prosecutor will no longer be the same federal prosecutor," Maloof just testified that Rezko told him. What did Rezko mean prosecutor Chris Niewoehner asked? "That Patrick Fitzgerald would be terminated and Dennis Hastert will name his replacement. The investigation will be over."

"Maloof, who once helped run some of Rezko's fast-food businesses, said Rezko told him of Fitzgerald's replacement: "That they will order the prosecutor to stop the investigation. It is the first time jurors heard an accusation that Rezko worked behind the scenes to oust Fitzgerald."

The only thing one can say is that whole cabal out there in Chicago, including Obama, puts the mafia to shame. These people wallow in corruption like pigs. They lie, cheat and steal until they get caught. I've received a slew of emails from Americans who live in Illinois. They celebrated when Blago was arrested and are now praying the long arm of the law gets the rest of the crooks. If Obama is sworn into office, he will use the Department of Justice to "make it all go away."

Should impostor president, Obama, be sworn in January 20, 2008, it will be one of the darkest days for America. The U.S. Supreme Court has demonstrated they are too cowardly to take on the monumental decision of declaring Obama ineligible for the office of president. The political machines, RNC and DNC, have refused to address this valid issue. Most of the American people don't have a clue because the newspapers in this country are as corrupt as Congress. However, the millions of us who do know the truth will continue our efforts until the pressure becomes so great, Obama is removed from office. Not by impeachment, because he was never legally qualified as Edwin Vieira points out in his legal analysis.

As I said in a recent column: Any and all negative consequences will be the responsibility of Obama and him alone, because he is the one who has lied and cheated his way into the White House. Obama won't be the first mulatto president, he'll be the first who is driven from office in shame and/or he is indicted for crimes, i.e., wire fraud. Yes, I am aware that he will unlawfully appoint a new Attorney General, however, there are good people in the FBI who will not turn a blind eye to what's going on. Nixon was brought down by a cover up and so will Obama.

Of course, this brings even more legal headaches. I am not an attorney, so this is simply my opinion. Biden would not automatically become president. Because Obama knowingly and with criminal intent perpetrated a fraud upon the American people when he declared his candidacy, his selection of a VP candidate would be meaningless as it was an element of the fraud.

Anonymous said...

http://wnd.com/files/baro.pdf

Investigator casts doubt on Obama's birth residence
Neighbor believes family didn't live at address in newspaper announcement

Baro is the in-house senior investigator for Elite Legal Services, LLC, in Royal Palm Beach, Fla.

Arakaki told Baro's investigators she had no recollection of Obama being born or of the family living next door having a black child born to a white mother.

Baro sent a team of investigators to Honolulu to explore records regarding current residents of Kalanianaole Highway and to track down residents back to 1961.

Baro's investigators were unable to locate any current or past resident of Kalanianaole Highway who could recall Obama or his family living at the address listed in the Sunday Advertiser announcement.

Baro also sent investigators to the newspaper offices to examine files, but the Advertiser could not confirm who actually placed the ad.

According to Baro's affidavit, Beatrice Arakaki affirmed she was a neighbor of the address listed. She has lived at her current residence of 6075 Kalanianaole Highway from before 1961 to the present.

Moreover, Arakaki said she believed that when Obama lived with the Dunhams, his grandparents, the family address was in Waikiki, not on Kalanianaole Highway.

Baro was able to determine the previous owners of the residence at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway – the alleged address of Obama's parents when he was born – were Orland S. and Thelma S. (Young) Lefforge, both of whom are deceased.

Barry Truthgun said...

Phil you still are stuck on debunked bull.

"his COLB (Certification of Live Birth) which is not proof he was born in Hawaii."

It is proof by the law. Now you can hate the law but that doesn't make it cease to exist. That's why Horowitz was saying to drop it.

Mitchell Langbert said...

Anonymous writes:

"And Mitchell, you later on your admiration of Saul Alinsky. Sheeeshhhh! You are in twubble!"

Dear Anonymous:

Have you read either of Alinsky's books, "Rules for Radicals" and "Reveille for Radicals" and/or Hurwitz's biography "Let them Call Me Rebel". Also, I recommend my own article "PC and the Fast Food Method of Teaching" that appeared in Academic Questions in 2004:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/kmttq9pqgllk7vnt/

My question for you is this. If you think I'm in trouble for liking Alinsky, but you have never read anything by or anything substantive (Hurwitz's biography) about him, are you just a "conservative" version of the politically correct academic who objected to my using Alinsky's book (just as you do) because he was not sufficiently PC? Are you offering a conservative version of PC?

Moreover, I would ask you, why would the famous conservative Thomist and Roman Catholic theologian Jacques Maritain, who worked at the Institute of Advanced Studies in Princeton, have been a close friend and admirer of Alinsky? Do you respect the talk radio version or Maritain's version, and why? Might it be intellectual laziness?

And if you are passing judgment without knowledge, do you offer just another another McDonaldized version?

From my article:

>Perhaps the chair was concerned that I had been insufficiently responsive, insufficiently therapeutic, and not customer targeted. Remember, not a single racist word was uttered by anyone in the class. The sole issue was a single word in Alinsky’s book. But, like other elaborate ideologies, political correctness is easily misinterpreted and transmuted, and the dictates of managerial expediency make misinterpretation a certainty. Administrators' needs for power and their overriding concerns with maximizing endowments and tuition revenues guarantee that subtle arguments about speech codes will be easily forgotten.
The chair responded to a student's misguided complaint by restricting my teaching and creating a rule that could not have possibly reflected an underlying concern for racist speech. Ultimately, and perhaps unconsciously, her response was a market-driven one. She believes that certain target markets are under-exploited; she received a complaint from a member of that target market; and she called on me to help resolve the marketing and quality problem. Sadly, such a pattern tends to replicate itself. As administrators institute control in the name of political correctness, the McDonaldization of higher education proceeds apace. Courses will be standardized and speech codes implemented. The McDonaldized institutions arising from the patterns that political correctness has instigated will remain in place long after the race issue has been forgotten. They will serve pecuniary purposes.




From my article:

Anonymous said...

First, let me answer your questions.

Have you read either of Alinsky's books, "Rules for Radicals" and "Reveille for Radicals" and/or Hurwitz's biography "Let them Call Me Rebel".

No, I have not. You tell me what you like and admire about Alinsky?

I just read this online about the Alinsky book. Not being in your class and only hearing you admire and like Alinsky makes me think everything he did was okay with you. If so then we will agree to disagree. Not a problem.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/kmttq9pqgllk7vnt/


My question for you is this. If you think I'm in trouble for liking Alinsky, but you have never read anything by or anything substantive
(Hurwitz's biography) about him, are you just a "conservative" version of the politically correct academic who objected to my using Alinsky's book (just as you do) because he was not sufficiently PC? Are you offering a conservative version of PC?


Who said I was a conservative? You assumed I am because I do not vote democratic? I do not object to you using Alinsky or being in total admiration of him. My comment was in jest. I have read enough of Alinsky's comments to know he is not someone I would admire. His Rules For Radicals is thought to be the MO for Obama's own tactics and you can see how Obama employs those tactics for his socialist NEW Deal. Rahm Emanuel: “Never let a serious crisis go to waste”.

I see Obama play the radical rules to gain his position and I don't think abusing a society for a means to a end in Alinsky's own admission is something I could ever admire. Alinsky's radical organzing style was almost revenge for his own poverty that he seemed to want t continue.

ALINSKY: Once you get fat and comfortable and reach the top, you want to stay there. You're imprisoned by your own so-called freedoms. I've seen too many lean and hungry labor leaders of the Thirties grow fat-bellied and fat-headed. So I turned down the job and devoted myself to full-time activity in the radical movement.

Obama wants FDR style NEW Deal, Alinsky says FDR saved us from ourselves. I believe FDR took us further into depression.

ALINSKY: A lot closer than some people think. It was really Roosevelt's reforms that saved the system from itself and averted total catastrophe. You've got to remember, it wasn't only people's money that went down the drain in 1929; it was also their whole traditional system of values.

Alinsky organized with communists. He says they are great people.


I am not allowed to know whether I like him or not because I have not read the books you listed even if his responses in interviews are against anything I believe in?

Moreover, I would ask you, why would the famous conservative Thomist and Roman Catholic theologian Jacques Maritain, who worked at the Institute of Advanced Studies in Princeton, have been a close friend and admirer of Alinsky?

From what I have read Alinsky is the great manipulator. I am sure he could make anyone a pseudo friend.

But please tell me what they liked about him?

http://www.progress.org/2003/alinsky2.htm

ALINSKY: I'd call them absurd rather than juvenile. But isn't much of life kind of a theater of the absurd? As far as being frivolous is concerned, I say if a tactic works, it's not frivolous.

PLAYBOY: In any case, you never held your fart-in. So what finally broke Kodak's resistance?

ALINSKY: Simple self-interest -- the knowledge that the price of continuing to fight us was greater than reaching a compromise.


This last paragraph above is a tactic often used by Jesse Jackson. No, I do not admire this.

Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins -- or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer.

Alinksy's response to "Does the end justify the means?" was "The means-and-end moralists, or non-doers, always wind up on their ends without any means"

Wealth redistribution. The haves and the have nots. Fairness. Social equality. I am a person who believes you teach a man to fish and he eats for life. You do not distribute other peoples wealth because what you do is create a lazy society. And I don't think you have to move in make people raw to help them. Dishonesty in order for change to me is worthless. The valid arguments become corrupt after lies and dishonesty are found out.

F**t ins and sh*t ins were Alinsky's way of intimidating to get his way. This was his organizing? His thesis was on the mob so he infiltrated and acted like one of them. And he enjoys it all?

I see Alinsky in the same way I see Obama. Using certain groups of people to get whatever goals they want to achieve. How do you think it makes those people feel when they get all raw and stirred up as Alinsky says? And how much of his radical organizing has done anything for the betterment of society today? Or really how much of it is still being used in foul ways in Chicago?

I will tell you how I feel, I feel horrible for African Americans for all the racism and bogotry stirred up by Obama's campaign tactics during this election. It was a Alinksy tactic. No doubt about it. Just as you say Diogenes cannot discuss without insult, that is a Alinsky tactic.
The fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.

Mitchell Langbert said...

Dear Anonymous: All politicians use Alinsky's tactics, from Jefferson and Hamilton to McCain and Obama. If you have a bee in your bonnet about Alinsky, a similar book written 2,500 years ago with a nearly identical theme is Sun Tzu, Art of War.

Personally, I try to avoid offering critiques of writers whose works I've only read in review. The effort it takes to read the original work is better spent than offering emotional opinion based on hearsay.

Barry Truthgun said...

A kook pasted:
"Baro also sent investigators to the newspaper offices to examine files, but the Advertiser could not confirm who actually placed the ad."

The Advertiser and Star-Bulletin previously confirmed policy at that time was to directly publish vital statistics info in Sunday editions. Piss poor investigation unless you really didn't want to find the truth.

Anonymous said...

A kook pasted:The Advertiser and Star-Bulletin previously confirmed policy at that time was to directly publish vital statistics info in Sunday editions. Piss poor investigation unless you really didn't want to find the truth.


"Baro also sent investigators to the newspaper offices to examine files, but the Advertiser could not confirm who actually placed the ad."


So your problem is with the newspaper who did not know the policy you just stated? You read this policy online where?

If there was a record sent to vital statistics, which hospital was Obama born in?

Or are you saying you know he wasn't born in a hospital and his mother just walked in and registered for a late birth certificate and then it was sent to vital statistics?

Can you show some links or verify what you are posting for everyone to know what you know to be the truth?

Anonymous said...

Ted, You lost me. Can you explain in blonde terms?