Barack Obama's Controversial Pastor Puts Church (and possibly Barack) In Hot Water (1 Viewer)

As stated earlier, I do think the messages and techniques used by Rev. Wright to rile the masses fits with the teaching if Saul Alinsky, and both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were "students" of Alinsky.

Alinsky was the subject of Hillary Rodham's senior honors thesis at Wellesley College, "There Is Only The Fight...": An Analysis of the Alinsky Model. Rodham commented on Alinsky's "charm," but noted that “one of the primary problems of the Alinsky model is that the removal of Alinsky dramatically alters its composition." Later, in her 2003 biography, "Living History" Clinton notes that although she agreed with some of his ideas, "particularly the value of empowering people to help themselves" they had a fundamental disagreement: "He believed could change the system only from the outside. I didn't." ........

Alinsky also had a significant influence on Barack Obama, who is a United States Senator and candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. Obama particularly used Alinsky's techniques while participating in Chicago community organizations in the 1980s.
I think that's interesting because it somewhat reflects the messages and the means that both candidates have focused on - Clinton working to change the system from within / Obama rising on a tide of "outsiders".

Here's a little more and an excerpt from an article posted awhile back re Alinsky's methods and Obama's history:

Obama's Alinsky Lessons

Barack Obama had just graduated from Columbia and was looking for a job. Some white leftists were looking for someone who could recruit in a black neighborhood in the south side of Chicago.

Obama answered a help-wanted ad for a position as a community organizer for the Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC) in Chicago. Obama was 24 years old, unmarried, very accustomed to a vagabond existence, and according to his memoir, searching for a genuine African-American community.

Both the CCRC and the DCP were built on the Alinsky model of community agitation, wherein paid organizers learned how to "rub raw the sores of discontent," in Alinsky's words.

One of Obama's early mentors in the Alinsky method was Mike Kruglik, who had this to say to an Ryan Lizza of The New Republic, about Obama:

"He was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not living up to their own standards. As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better."

The agitator's job, according to Alinsky, is first to bring folks to the "realization" that they are indeed miserable, that their misery is the fault of unresponsive governments or greedy corporations, then help them to bond together to demand what they deserve, and to make such an almighty stink that the dastardly governments and corporations will see imminent "self-interest" in granting whatever it is that will cause the harassment to cease.

In these methods, euphemistically labeled "community organizing," Obama had a four-year education, which he often says was the best education he ever got anywhere.

Is it any wonder, then, that Obama's Alinsky Jujitsu is making mincemeat of the woman who merely interviewed Alinsky, wrote about him, and spent the next 30 years in corporate law and in the lap of taxpayer-funded luxury in government mansions?

Obama Not Starry-Eyed Like His Followers

Alinsky considered himself a realist above all, the ultimate pragmatist. As a confirmed atheist, Alinsky believed that the here and now is all there is, and therefore had no qualms about assorted versions of morality in the pursuit of worldly power. He didn't coddle his radical acolytes or encourage their bourgeois distinctions between good and evil when it came to transferring power from the Haves to the Have Nots. Alinsky saw the already formed church communities as being the perfect springboards for agitation and creating bonds for demanding goods and services.

When Obama first undertook his agitating work in Chicago's South Side poor neighborhoods, he was un-churched. Yet his office was in a Church and most of the folks he needed to agitate and organize were Church people -- pastors and congregants -- who took their churches and their church-going very seriously. So, this became a problem for the young agnostic, who had been exposed to very little religion in his life. Again and again, he was asked by pastors and church ladies, "Where do you go to Church, young man?" It was a question he dodged for a while, but finally he relented and joined a church.

Not just any church, but a huge black nationalist church with a pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who unabashedly preaches a "black" gospel. Rolling Stone Magazine ran with a story on Obama and his church, entitled, "Destiny's Child," which included this excerpt from one of Rev. Wright's sermons:.....

Food for thought. It could help explain the 20 year church connection.
 
I think Obama is more of an opportunist than anything, and his association with Rev. Wright's church fits with Alinsky teachings.

I was going to write about that and thought about an article I read here on SR.com from American Thinker, which is also where there article posted above comes from. I'll get to that later because I do think it's relevant to Obama, his association with his church and the techniques he employs.

Good, go read some of the American Thinker articles from back when they thought Hillary was going to win the nomination and what they 'thought' about her, too. And while you are at it you can give us a run-down on the Hillary articles from Wash post's fact checker website.

Seriously, I've never seen such glass house stone-throwing. Obama isn't stealing anything from Hillary. She didn't earn anything, isn't owed anything, isn't going to be cast out of DC forever if she doesn't win. You really need to come to grips with the widely accepted theory that the Clintons in the WH are going to cost the Democratic Party the House and the Senate. The 2008 down ballot races will be disasterously affected even if she's just the nominee. At some point, the stuff we believe in as Democrats HAS to take precedence over the ravenous political ambition of the Clintons. Her supporters need to wake up and quit playing right into the hands of the Republicans imo.
 
OK, please refrain from further comparisons to the followers of a given religion to people who commit sexual crimes against children.

I've removed the offensive references and ask that everyone please be a bit more sensitive to the other posters on this board and their belief systems.

Thank you for your cooperation.
 
If anyone is displeased with my decision, please, PM me or the Moderator or Administrator of your choice.
 
Good, go read some of the American Thinker articles from back when they thought Hillary was going to win the nomination and what they 'thought' about her, too. And while you are at it you can give us a run-down on the Hillary articles from Wash post's fact checker website.

Seriously, I've never seen such glass house stone-throwing. Obama isn't stealing anything from Hillary. She didn't earn anything, isn't owed anything, isn't going to be cast out of DC forever if she doesn't win. You really need to come to grips with the widely accepted theory that the Clintons in the WH are going to cost the Democratic Party the House and the Senate. The 2008 down ballot races will be disasterously affected even if she's just the nominee. At some point, the stuff we believe in as Democrats HAS to take precedence over the ravenous political ambition of the Clintons. Her supporters need to wake up and quit playing right into the hands of the Republicans imo.

Geez Dude, seriously CHILL OUT!!

Look, I understand that you are passionate about your candidate, and that's all fine and good. I understand that you have invested a lot of time working in his campaign. That's fine too. I'm glad to see you involved and excited. Rock on. But, this snide and overzealous defense of your candidate has breached the line for civil discussion often. How about taking a deep breath and toning it down a notch?

Now, back to your post. You're making way too much out of my posting the article. I haven't made the claims you assumed so you'll understand if I just ignore them? The article was posted for the reasons stated - food for thought - to weigh Obama's background in Alinsky's community organizing tactics with the fact that he has stuck with a minister that uses the same tactics to united his congregation. Really. That's it. I don't think it is necessary to remind everyone that they are free do their own research and free to use judgment and common sense in weighing the credibility, content and source of everything they read. I hope they will.
 
Geez Dude, seriously CHILL OUT!!

Look, I understand that you are passionate about your candidate, and that's all fine and good. I understand that you have invested a lot of time working in his campaign. That's fine too. I'm glad to see you involved and excited. Rock on. But, this snide and overzealous defense of your candidate has breached the line for civil discussion often. How about taking a deep breath and toning it down a notch?

Whoa there nellie, I'm not passionate about Obama. I'm passionate about it not being Hillary - because I'm passionate about the party. Major difference. If it was between Hillary and a tube of toothpaste, I'd be volunteering my time for the toothpaste if it had won the Iowa and South Carolina primaries. My job, what I do for a living, is helping people win local races in Dallas county and a few counties to the north and south of Dallas county. The Clintons make my job very difficult. Here, it's like trying to play poker with 3 cards while my Republican counterparts get 5. I haven't forgotten what happened nationally between 1994 and 2004 and I haven't forgotten why it happened, either.

Now, back to your post. You're making way too much out of my posting the article. I haven't made the claims you assumed so you'll understand if I just ignore them?

I understand. The candidates, in my eyes, are not that different when it comes to what they advocate as far as plans and agendas. Unfortunately, I don't think it will ultimately matter since the split in the party is irreconcilable imo. Democrats who want Hillary to be President will go vote 3rd party or stay home if Obama is the nominee and Democrats who want Obama to be President are going to stay home or vote for McCain if Hillary is the nominee. At least enough of them in both cases to swing the election to the other side pretty easily. That's the tragedy to me, in the year when 8 years of a complete dunderhead are coming to a close and a year where his party nominates a candidate with a lot of negatives to succeed him; they will still win.

The question for me is, what about the down ballot races? Are people more likely to vote for House and Senate Democrats if Hillary is the Democratic choice for President or if Obama is the choice? Obama is less polarizing. People, even Republicans, consider him more likely than her to do the right thing when nobody's looking. It's better for the Democrats running on the undercards for him to be the nominee.

Do I think Obama will be the next President? My audacity of hope isn't that audacious.
 
gavinj

at one time i thought he was going to be the next president. i thought hillary had no chance to win the election.. now i dont know.. where its gonna go...
 
:moderation-on:

Keep it civil in here. If you cannot discuss the subject matter without insults and attacks on other posters, then step away from the computer.

Good debate is encouraged here. Sniping & racist allegations (on either side) when referring to fellow site members is not acceptable here. See the TOS.

Please - raise the level of discourse.
 
Oops for Obama:

[FONT=arial,helvetica] Obama's Church: Cauldron of Division[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica]Jim Davis[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica]Thursday, Aug. 9, 2007
[/FONT]​
......
Wright's strong sentiments were echoed in the Sunday morning service attended by NewsMax.

Wright laced into America's establishment, blaming the "white arrogance" of America's Caucasian majority for the woes of the world, especially the oppression suffered by blacks. To underscore the point he refers to the country as the "United States of White America." Many in the congregation, including Obama, nodded in apparent agreement as these statements were made.

The sermon also addressed the Iraq war, a frequent area of Wright's fulminations.

"Young African-American men," Wright thundered, were "dying for nothing." The "illegal war," he shouted, was "based on Bush's lies" and is being "fought for oil money."

In a sermon filled with profanity, Wright also blamed the war on "Bush administration bulls--t."

Those are the types of statements that have led to MSNBC's Tucker Carlson describing Wright as "a full-blown hater.".......

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/8/8/194812.shtml


Obama Attended Hate America Sermon


Sunday, March 16, 2008 7:14 PM

By: Ronald Kessler

Contrary to Senator Barack Obama’s claim that he never heard his pastor Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. preach hatred of America, Obama was in the pews last July 22 when the minister blamed the “white arrogance” of America’s Caucasian majority for the world’s suffering, especially the oppression of blacks.

Senator Obama has sought to separate himself from his pastor’s incendiary remarks, issuing a statement Friday rejecting them as “inflammatory and appalling” but failing to renounce Wright himself for his venomous and paranoid denunciations of America.

In his press release, Obama claimed, “The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity [United Church of Christ] or heard him utter in private conversation.”.......

http://newsmax.com/kessler/Obama_hate_America_sermon/2008/03/16/80870.html
 
Yep...I was correct.

Not being an Obama supporter means you're a racist.
Not being a Clinton supporter means you're a sexist.
Not being a McCain supporter means you're a "communiss" (nod to Shawn...and Mr. Reilly).
 
The standard of proof would have to be an unedited smooth camera sweep from Rev Wright making an inflammatory remark, to an Obama standing and cheering. He nods his head at every utterance, which implies listening, not agreement. That would be his explanation, I guarantee that.

No "reputable" news organization will run with a Newsmax story. As with the National Enquirer, which alone pursued the dissolving Charles-Diana marriage while others tut-tutted with displeasure, others have to carry the ball.

Apart from the usual outlets of Republican fealty, this story has been effectively tapped down by the Obama campaign. He picked up more superdelegates this weekend even in the teeth of controversy. His path is protected through November.

Voting for him is an act of atonement. Even some women writing in the current Newsweek on the greater import of Clinton's candidacy allowed that perhaps it was Obama's time to claim his reward as a symbolic vessel of accumulated national guilt. Sentimentality trumps rationality in the post-racial post-political world of Oprah. We are all culpable.
 

The delicious irony here is that a Hillary supporter is relying on a well-known right-wing, Republican news source for information--and passing it off as the gospel.

Yep...I was correct.

Not being an Obama supporter means you're a racist.
Not being a Clinton supporter means you're a sexist.
Not being a McCain supporter means you're a "communiss" (nod to Shawn...and Mr. Reilly).

I think it about sums it up, and why McCain stands more of a chance to win this fall if the Democrats continue to bludgeon one another.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom