March 5, 2012

Andrew Breitbart, posthumously, vets Barack Obama.

Part I:
In 1998, a small Chicago theater company staged a play titled The Love Song of Saul Alinsky, dedicated to the life and politics of the radical community organizer whose methods Obama had practiced and taught on Chicago’s South Side.

Obama was not only in the audience, but also took the stage after one performance, participating in a panel discussion that was advertised in the poster for the play....

This is who Barack Obama was. This was before Barack Obama ran for Congress in 2000...

This was also the period just before Barack Obama served with Bill Ayers, from 1999 through 2002 on the board of the Woods Foundation. They gave capital to support the Midwest Academy, a leftist training institute steeped in the doctrines of — you guessed it! — Saul Alinsky, and whose alumni now dominate the Obama administration and its top political allies inside and out of Congress...

62 comments:

Chase said...

Democrats and liberals live their lives unconstrained by truth whenever it gets in the way of their objectives.

That is the point of Alinsky.

That is the method of Barack Obamaa

syd B. said...

I know the guy was a Communist/Marxist scumbag, but what a great name: Studs Terkel.

Here's my take. As new and dastardly details became known of Obama over the past 3 years, I fully believed that there would be an uprising over the fact that a communist was running the country. However, this hasn't happend and although his blind faith support has certainly diminished, there remains strong support for a man who has lied, hoodwinked and befuddled his followers. Now, my analysis of this leads me to believe one of two things. Either 50% of this country is incredibly uninformed or just weak of mind, or (and I'm leaning this way)there's a lot more Communist/Marxists amongst us than we thought. Either way, Democracy and the stability of the county can either take a large step forward in Nov/12 or recieve an Obama kick in the testies.

rcommal said...

This should surprise no one.

Anonymous said...

That case-hardened preoccupation with Alinsky is one of the main reasons I never paid much attention to Breitbart.

X said...

why do they keep spelling communist organizer wrong?

prairie wind said...

As new and dastardly details became known of Obama over the past 3 years, I fully believed that there would be an uprising over the fact that a communist was running the country. However, this hasn't happend and although his blind faith support has certainly diminished, there remains strong support for a man who has lied, hoodwinked and befuddled his followers.

Me, too. And now, with the Republican candidates willing to chase down any rabbit trail brought to their attention (birth control...really?), I fear that what should have been an easy campaign for the presidency will be lost altogether.

Mark O said...

The only thing real about Obama is his hate.

Unknown said...

"Here's my take. As new and dastardly details became known of Obama over the past 3 years,...

These details aren't new. They were known; people didn't care.

Make of that what you will.

F said...

PZ:

I think to appreciate Breitbart's "case-hardened preoccupation with Alinsky" you have to carry the criticism one step further: Alinsky's policies would change America forever in ways many of us would never comprehend right now. I've lived in several Marxist-Leninist countries, and they were poor, intolerant hell-holes. I do not want this for America, so I find myself agreeing with Breitbart's preoccupation with Obama's policies.

Robert Cook said...

syd B., how do you know Studs Terkel was a Communist or Marxist, or, more particularly, how do you nkow he was scumbag?

More pertinent, given that Obama is not in the least a communist, and--to judge by his actions in office--barely even left of center, (if at all), why would you assume there would or should be any uprisings?

prairie wind said...

These details aren't new.

Absolutely. Those of us who paid attention knew this. Those who didn't, though, have seen it amply displayed over the last three years.

Anonymous said...

Alinsky was not a Communist, he was not even a Marxist. But I guess that doesn't really matter to any of you as far as you are concerned anyone to the left of Olympia Snowe is a socialist and communist (and you suspect her too).

YoungHegelian said...

The fall of the Soviet Union was not just a boon to the Right, it was a great boon to the Western Left, too.

Now the Left no longer had the moral albatross of the Soviet state around their neck. No longer was the Left asked "Just whose side are you on?" not only by non-commies, but even more insistently by the Soviets, who hated "social fascist" fence-sitters. No longer was the Western Left being constantly criticized from the Left by a superpower backed faction.

And the post-Marxist left thrived like never before. To the point where everyone in academia or in media or in the Democratic Party now has major exposure to left-wing ideas that would get you shunned in the Democratic Party of 1972.

Zell Miller was right. The Democratic Party of even my youth (not to mention his) is long gone.

Anonymous said...

syd B., how do you know Studs Terkel was a Communist or Marxist, or, more particularly, how do you nkow he was scumbag?

Robert, by definition, anyone who is concerned about the plight of the poor, the working classes and minorities is by definition a "communist scumbag".

Haven't you learned anything from reading this blog?

YoungHegelian said...

Freder,

So Alinsky wasn't a communist? You're probably right in that.

But, will you say Alinksy wasn't a Marxist?

Not all Marxists are Commies, I realize, but, still, to so blithely skim over the Marxist nature of Alinsky's thought because he wasn't a member of the CPUSA borders on a lie by omission.

Tom Spaulding said...

Any party that can run a candidate for Vice President, then kick him OUT OF THE PARTY a couple of years later, with no change of postion on his part, has been hijacked.

Joe Leiberman's career as a Democrat died for your sins, Saul Alinsky.

Robert Cook said...

Actually, it's surprising there aren't uprisings over Obama's aid to the already wealthy of this country, the 1% of the 1%, while betraying his promise to the rest of America for "Hope" and "Change."

There is no hope, and the only change is that the President is now a black man named Barack Obama where previously it was a white man named George W. Bush. Otherwise, there is no change. The same illegal wars abroad, the same war crimes and mass murder, and the same favoritism extended toward the financial elites of this country.

The true Obama was apparent before the election, for those who wanted to look through the veil of "hope" and see what was actually there. I didn't vote for him because of that.

Anonymous said...

To the point where everyone in academia or in media or in the Democratic Party now has major exposure to left-wing ideas that would get you shunned in the Democratic Party of 1972.

Yeah, gone is the Democratic Party that would nominate George McGovern as their presidential candidate. Hell, the Nixon administration was more liberal than the current one (remember, Nixon founded the EPA).

MayBee said...

One reason I thought it all deserves much more attention is his prior activities show just how poorly he performed at just about everything.

YoungHegelian said...

@Freder,

Robert, by definition, anyone who is concerned about the plight of the poor, the working classes and minorities is by definition a "communist scumbag".

Go fuck yourself, you and your self righteousness!

"Concern for the working man" indeed! Where was the American Left when Left-wing regimes murdered 100 million working men & women around the world in the 20th century? Generally supporting those regimes doing the murdering or at least keeping silent.

Don;'t think for a moment that the righties on Althouse aren't well aware of that sordid history.

Anonymous said...

then kick him OUT OF THE PARTY a couple of years later, with no change of postion on his part, has been hijacked.

You have a faulty memory. Lieberman lost his primary and in a fit of spite decided to run as an independent because he was a spoiled brat.

Robert Cook said...

"Robert, by definition, anyone who is concerned about the plight of the poor, the working classes and minorities is by definition a 'communist scumbag'.

"Haven't you learned anything from reading this blog?"


Oh yes, Freder, I know. My questions were in the nature of rhetorical questions, as I'm sure syd B. does not really "know" what he says he knows, and I'm sure his "knowledge" derives entirely, as you point out, from suppositions syd B. has made from Terkel's long career of reporting from the point of view of (and in sympathy to) the working classes, the poor, and minorites.

John henry said...

Cookie,

The way we know that Studs Terkel was a communist is because he himself said he was a communist. He also called himself a socialist.

So it is not a matter of interpreting what he wrote to see if he was a communist. It is not a matter of someone else saying he was a communist.

It is a label he himself chose to describe his politics.

Now "scumbag", I don't think he ever called himself that. That is a judgement of him. Right or wrong.

Terkel was still a pretty interesting guy. I've read a couple of his books and listed to several podcast interview with him. I did not agree with much but he was still interesting.

John Henry

Doc Holliday's Hat said...

I see several comments noting that these details were known to people who were looking. That's the problem and that's exactly what Breitbart set out to remedy. A liberal mainstream media isn't this vast conspiracy trying to keep Obama in power. Instead it is a multitude of individual reporters, editors, producers etc. who let their own views dominate what and how they report. Right wing media tends to do this as well, in fact all people do it, but the problem is the broad spectrum that the MSM has. When you're only slightly interested in politics, mostly wanting to be left alone by the government, and working a full-time job with kids, chances are the nightly news or a single newspaper will be your source of political information. Brietbart was just trying to show that the current media has abrogated its duty to be the first line defense against political corruption when it comes to liberal politicians. His point wasn't that the people are stupid to believe this BS, his point was that most people just don't know and the only way to get them to realize there might be bias is to consistently, and loudly, point it out.

Anonymous said...

Alinsky's policies would change America forever in ways many of us would never comprehend right now.

Well, sure. But that's why there has never been the slightest chance of their being enacted in this country, and why it's a waste of time to pay attention to them.

edutcher said...

The material was out there four years ago. All you had to do was read or view (like the vid of GodZero wanting $8 a gallon gas) it.

syd B. said...

Either 50% of this country is incredibly uninformed or just weak of mind

It took you this long to figure it out? This is why they've been teaching PC and self-esteem in the schools the last 40 years instead of history and literature.

But I do think a revolution's coming - from the kids who've spent their whole lives living under PC and Zero Tolerance, no less.

Freder Frederson said...

Robert, by definition, anyone who is concerned about the plight of the poor, the working classes and minorities is by definition a "communist scumbag".

Funny how the people concerned about the plight of the poor, the working classes and minorities always end up making their lives worse instead of better.

X said...

and now we get the predictable Robert Cook No True Communist speech. Yes Cookie, we know commies don't live up to their own ideals, and end up feathering their own nests. That doesn't make them not-commies. That makes them typical commies.

Tom Spaulding said...

Freder: Add the word "effectively" if you truly can't read with comprehension.

You want me to believe that the DNC could not make the case for Joe Lieberman in the primary had they wanted to? His pro-war vote cost him party support because defeating W was the justified end, and the means were cutting their VP candidate loose. The Party picked Lamont, the People picked Lieberman.

rhhardin said...

It's tedious to me.

Obama is a moron in the present and that ought to be story one everywhere.

Jacques Cuze said...

He was on a panel discussion of a play alongside Pulitzer Prize Winner Studs Terkel, and no one knows what Obama said?

That's pretty weak tea.

Come on, up your game.

bagoh20 said...

If you think Obama was not a communist or Alinsky was not, or that communism and Marxism are not the same, then fine. You should have no problem with all the facts getting shown.

The fact that some small group of people know them is not the same as having them vetted where everyone who is the least bit interested in voting is exposed to the truth unbleached.

The fact is that even when these facts were exposed earlier they were denied or called lies or crazy right wing propaganda.

The Marxist left has the bloodiest hands in the history of mankind, yet association even with violent people in that world is not treated as anything as objectionable as, for example, being on the board of a company who was involved in slavery 200 years ago. Or speaking at a right wing anti-abortion organization.

There is no moral justification for hiding any candidate's association with communist organizations considering how dangerous that ideology has PROVED to be to humanity. If you don't care about that, you are simply despicable.

Robert Cook said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert Cook said...

Ecchs said:

"and now we get the predictable Robert Cook No True Communist speech. Yes Cookie, we know commies don't live up to their own ideals, and end up feathering their own nests. That doesn't make them not-commies. That makes them typical commies."

No, not "Not a True Communist." Simply, not a communist.

What words or actions by Obama indicate he was ever a communist, and more particularly, that he is now a communist?

(Deleted and Re-posted to fix typo.)

bagoh20 said...

"Obama is a moron in the present and that ought to be story one everywhere."

His history proves that. Without looking there, his mistakes are still Bush's fault or bad luck to many. When you see that he has always failed at leadership, and has always been foolish ideologically, it all makes sense.

MayBee said...

His history proves that. Without looking there, his mistakes are still Bush's fault or bad luck to many. When you see that he has always failed at leadership, and has always been foolish ideologically, it all makes sense.

Perfectly said.

garage mahal said...

Is this the big revelation that Obama's Ninjas killed Breitbart over?

Robert Cook said...

John said:

"Cookie,

"The way we know that Studs Terkel was a communist is because he himself said he was a communist. He also called himself a socialist.

"So it is not a matter of interpreting what he wrote to see if he was a communist. It is not a matter of someone else saying he was a communist.

"It is a label he himself chose to describe his politics."


That may very well be, although I don't know that it is...but if it is so, don't you think the FBI could have found his admission of this? According to this story from the Huffington Post, (see link below), they kept a file on Terkel for decades, labeled him a "suspected" communist, but never said outright that he was. Apparently, they couldn't find Terkel's own declaration of this, eh?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/16/studs-terkel-fbi-file_n_360069.html

Brian Brown said...

So in other words, Breitbart in death is more effective than the MSM as it consists today.

Brian Brown said...

who is concerned about the plight of the poor, the working classes and minorities is by definition a "communist scumbag".



Yes, because you're so "concerned" about these people you want to take the money I earn by force of the government to demonstrate your "concern"


You're an idiot.

cubanbob said...

RC Obama is pretty big on income redistribution and punishing the sucessfull which isn't a capitalist notion.
A turd by any other name is still a turd.

Bill said...

To the folks who think this is thin gruel, you haven't been paying attention to Breitbart's best tactic: the drip, drip, drip, where each drip goads the left into the reaction he knows they will give, and is then followed by the next, bigger, drip.

To syd and the rest who despair of Obama winning again despite his past, his intentions, and his track record: I agree.

Even given the Republican field, if Obama wins (or even if he loses narrowly) I think we have to accept that we have a significantly different and more polarized country than we did a generation ago.

Joe said...

Didn't Breitbart promise devastating video of Obama? Did he order these to be released in his will? If so, could his estate be subject to a slander and/or libel lawsuit?

Uncle Pinky said...

Kind of interesting that no one remembers what he said but recall him as "brilliant".

There seems to be some specific aphasia around this president and an unsupported impression of intellectual prowess.

Why?

Bruce Hayden said...

I hate to agree with Cooke, but I don't think that Obama is really a communist. Clearly a socialist though.

The problem is that communism is just one type of socialism. National socialism is another. Ditto for the of socialism that has been so prevalent in Europe since the end of WWII.

For one thing, communists claim that they want power only so long as required until a more perfect man is created, who will willingly put the country before him and his. And, then, the authoritarian regime will wither away. Obama and his ilk have no interest in ever giving up their elitist rule.

I think that one thing that distinguishes socialists, like Obama, Putin, et al. from the rest of us is that sympathy for the under classes is a means to an end, with the end being power over as much of the country and economy as possible. Obama's problem here is that he just can't be subtle enough about it, with him spending his Presidency playing golf and his wife jetting around to world to stay at world class resorts and the like, hanging around the 1% of the 1%, on the public's dime.

David said...

Was there video?

Because if there was no video, basically it did not happen.

David said...

The debate over whether Obama is a communist or a socialist is absurd. The question is whether he is an effective leader. His primary accomplishment--Obamacare--is an incipient disaster. He has shirked the other great responsibility, which is a coherent plan to deal with the deficit.

I do see in the news today that he "has Israel's back."
I get real nervous when Obama starts doing manlyspeak. It means an election is coming up.

syd B. said...

Valerie Jarrett’s late father-in-law Vernnon Jarrett, was a key member of the South Chicago communist Party. He worked for a far left rag called The Defender, which was heavily influenced by the Communist Party USA and included on its roster well known Chicago Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis.

On April 9th, 1998, at Chicago’s South Shore Cultural Center, Vernon Jarrett hosted a Paul Robeson Citywide Centennial Celebration event, with his old comrade and Party sympathizer Margaret Burroughs and former Party members Studs Terkel and old friend Oscar Brown.

Six degrees of Separation?

Gideon7 said...

"He says, 'These petitions, your name is on all of them: anti-poll tax, anti-lynching, friendship with the Soviet Union.. don't you know the communists were behind them?' And he said, 'Look, you can get out of this pretty easy. All you got to do is say the communists duped you. You were dumb. You didn't mean it.'

'I said, "But I did mean it!"'

- Studs Terkel

roesch/voltaire said...

Freder, I think this quote from Alinsky shows how the right has hyped a false meme." A final word on our system. The democratic ideal springs from the ideas of liberty, equality, majority rule through free elections, protection of the rights of minorities, and freedom to subscribe to multiple loyalties in matters of religion, economics, and politics rather than to a total loyalty to the state. The spirit of democracy is the idea of importance and worth in the individual, and faith in the kind of world where the individual can achieve as much of his potential as possible."
Alinsky is disliked because often he was affective in getting the average folks to understand just what their self-interests were and then to organize around those interests.

Robert Cook said...

Gideon 7 said:

"He says, 'These petitions, your name is on all of them: anti-poll tax, anti-lynching, friendship with the Soviet Union.. don't you know the communists were behind them?' And he said, 'Look, you can get out of this pretty easy. All you got to do is say the communists duped you. You were dumb. You didn't mean it.'

'I said, "But I did mean it!"'

- Studs Terkel"


So, that Terkel signed petitions opposing poll taxes and lynching, and supporting friendship with the Soviet Union, (i.e., diplomatic relations, as Nixon opened up with Red China), and later affirming that he signed them willfully, proves Terkel was a communist?

n.n said...

The Cold War waged against left-wing (i.e. totalitarian) interests never ended. Those interests merely repackaged their philosophy to offer greater emotional appeal to an "enlightened" audience.

Robert Cook said...

"The debate over whether Obama is a communist or a socialist is absurd. The question is whether he is an effective leader."

Yes, such discussions are absurd and are fomented by fanatic idiots. Obama is not an effective leader if we assume the American people at large are his constituency. But it is a mistake to think we are. Obama's constituents are the same as were those who were Bush's constituents...the financial elites and institutions, Wall Street. He is an effective leader in furthering their interests.

X said...

community organizer, socialist, marxist, communist. I get it. They are all different in the same sense that shiite, sunni, and wahabbists are not the same. "stop lumping us together. we're so different!"

PatCA said...

If the voters didn't care about his association with Rev. Wright, will they care about this stuff?

Knowing his style, tho, Brietbart might have video of Baraka at that panel and his successors will dribble them out, after the left makes fools of themselves minimizing it.

Drip, drip, let's hope people listen this time.

Rusty said...

Alinsky is disliked because often he was affective in getting the average folks to understand just what their self-interests were and then to organize around those interests.


Which more often as not cost the taxpayers.
Neither Alinsky or you know what is in anybody elses self interest is, but your own.

shiloh said...

Althouse is trying to raise Breitbart from the dead. "We" wish her well ...

Known Unknown said...

"in getting the average folks to understand just what their self-interests were"


Those dumb average folks.

chickelit said...

David said...
Was there video?

Because if there was no video, basically it did not happen.


This is just the poster for the upcoming movie.

Paul said...

Communist, socialist, whatever. The key is that he is a Marxist in essence. And that essence is person A making person B do something for person C.

Of course person A needs power to accomplish this, the more the better, and that why the path of the left always leads to totalitarianism and the crushing of liberty with its attendant impoverishment of the citizenry.

The Crack Emcee said...

All of this is old news. I put a lot of it on my blog before Obama got elected. Like NewAge, few care about the danger - it makes them feel cool to elect a communist. They're fools and assholes.

The brainwashing is complete, and our enemies are within,...

Robert Cook said...

"Communist, socialist, whatever. The key is that he is a Marxist in essence."

The key is that you have no evidence to support your assertion.

I have no respect for Obama...he's a mass murdering war criminal as far as I'm concerned, and he's presiding over (although he did not originate) an American police state. But it does one no good to imagine the evil that someone is doing as being something other than what he is actually doing.

And it's just stupid, besides.

Robert Cook said...

I meant to say Obama is presiding over the rapid expansion and consolidation of an American police state.