Reason #20:  Mr. Obama Really Is A Community Organizer

Categories: Narcissism, socialism/Marxism, economic incompetence, racial strife.

In writing about Mr. Obama over the last three+ years, I’ve occasionally referred to Mr. Obama’s stint as a “community organizer” in Chicago.  But, what, exactly is a community organizer and what do they—you know—do?  Even Barack Obama hasn’t a clue.  In Dreams From My Father he wrote: 

When classmates in college asked me just what it was that a community organizer did, I couldn’t answer them directly.  Instead, I’d pronounce on the need for change.  Change in the White House, where Reagan and his minions were carrying on their dirty deeds.  Change in the Congress, compliant and corrupt.  Change in the mood of the country, manic and self-absorbed.  Change won’t come from the top, I would say.  Change will come from a mobilized grass roots.

Sound familiar?  That’s essentially Obama’s 2008 election playbook, and the way he has actually behaved in office.  The obvious exception is his claim to be the first post-racial president, The One, the messianic uber-being that would bring everyone together and heal not only America, but the world.  Unfortunately, that’s precisely the opposite of what a community organizer actually does.  Byron York, summed up his prophetic 2008 article (linked above):

Has any of that brought about the change Obama spoke of back in 1985? Not in any large sense. But if Obama doesn’t have much to show for his years as an organizer, it’s fair to say that many of the people he touched revere him deeply. Remember what Loretta Augustine-Herron said: Obama had such a powerful presence that he made her believe he could do the job, even though there was little in his résumé to suggest he could. Does that sound familiar to anyone who has watched the Obama campaign? When hope is the product, Obama can sell it with the best of them.

When he left for law school, Obama wondered what he had accomplished as an organizer. He certainly had some achievements, but he did not — perhaps could not — concede that there might be something wrong with his approach to Chicago’s problems. Instead of questioning his own premises, he concluded that he simply needed more power to get the job done. So he made plans to run for political office. And in each successive office, he has concluded that he did not have enough power to get the job done, so now he is running for the most powerful office in the land.

And what if he gets it? He’ll be the biggest, strongest organizer in the world. He’ll dazzle the country with his message of hope and possibility. But we shouldn’t expect much to actually get done.

And so it has been with Mr. Obama as president.  In his three years as a Chicago community organizer (1985-88), as York’s article documents, Mr. Obama managed to accomplish only two minor things.  In a very real sense, he has done the same as president: the stimulus and Obamacare.  The stimulus is widely recognized as a disaster.  Rather than stimulating the economy in any real, measurable way, Mr. Obama rewarded political cronies in the finest Chicago pay-to-play style, in the process throwing billions down a wide variety of left-wing toilets.  And as the Supreme Court decides the fate of Obamacare and polls indicate as much as ¾ of the population want it repealed, we learn that virtually everything Mr. Obama said to force it down our collective throats was a lie.  The fact that Obamacare alone will bankrupt the nation is merely icing on the Marxist cake.

Let’s not forget the root causes of our current economic difficulties.  Much is due to fraudulently unfunded entitlement programs, most of which are the fault of the Left, with no small amount of Republican collusion and support over the years.  But one of the most recent examples of the destruction Mr. Obama’s kind of socialism wreaks is the housing bubble.

it has certainly been underreported in the lamestream media, but the housing bubble is a classic creation of Mr. Obama’s socialist/Marxist thinking.  Community organizers exist to maintain racial division, to find, demonize and exploit “enemies of the people,” and to demand wealth transfers to those they support.  In these endeavors, Democrats are usually willing participants.  And in this particular debacle, ACORN and the Democrat party were heavily involved.

A community organizer searches for an issue that they can exploit, and home ownership is an easy and emotionally charged issue.  “Every American should have their own home,” became the mantra.  America is the wealthiest nation in the world, and if minorities and other favored victim groups are underrepresented in the ranks of home owners, it must be due to prejudice.  Actually, it was due to mathematics.  There are very good reasons–apart from conscious economic choices–why many Americans aren’t homeowners.  Banks tend to be concerned only with one color: green.

Many minorities—and not a few white bread folk, weren’t being given mortgages because they simply didn’t make enough money.  Banks that loan money to people they know will not be able to pay back that money don’t stay in business long.  But banks can foreclose and resell homes!  True, until the numbers of foreclosures due to bad loan decisions become too great and the entire market is depressed to the point that everyone—banks included—is underwater.  Foreclosing on a home worth only a fraction of the original loan value with no prospect of selling it is the inevitable. destructive result.

Who was responsible for this?  As Mr. Obama stated, it began with community organizers and their Alinskyite tactics and worked upward from there.  Sit-ins at local banks, protests on the lawns of bank officers and owners, the eventual enlistment of sympathetic congressmen and senators, pressure applied by federal bank regulators, even legislation, and before long, banks were granting huge numbers of mortgages to people they knew would never pay them back.  And they were right, yet they had no choice but to continue to make them, with entirely predictable results.  And did Mr. Obama, riding that wave of discontent into the White House fix this problem?  No. He doubled down on that bad bet, just one example of his Marxist economic orthodoxy.

But what is community organizing about and what does it tell us about Mr. Obama?  The one essential text of the community organizer is Saul Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals.”  Few men in American history have been more clearly Marxist in belief and practice, and few have been more influential in turning out Marxist followers, among them, Mr. Obama.

It is important to understand that Marxism and its slightly less murderous stepchild, socialism, are inherently opposed to capitalism and representative democracy.  Where democracy and capitalism exist, socialism and Marxism cannot.  The difference is that democracy will abide opposing viewpoints.  Socialism and Marxism cannot and will not, therefore all dedicated socialists and Marxists must work for the destruction of America and its governmental and economic systems.  America must be “transformed” into a socialist worker’s paradise.  They are simply incompatible and can never be reconciled.  It is indeed true that Mr. Obama has denied being a socialist or Marxist, however it’s worthwhile to understand that under the principles of what has come to be called “stealth socialism,” socialists are loath to admit their true political beliefs until that glorious day when they achieve complete control over a given people.

In his indispensible book, Radical in Chief: Barack Obama and The Untold Story of American Socialism, Stankey Kurtz proves conclusively that Mr. Obama is—at the very least—a socialist.  And in a new National Review article, Kurtz provides irrefutable evidence that Mr. Obama was a member of The New Party, which was essentially the socialist/Marxist political arm of ACORN, the radical, criminal organization that is now reorganized under a variety of new names.  Mr. Obama and his handlers strenuously denied that Mr. Obama had ever been a member of The New Party or had any affiliation with ACORN.  Now ACORN’s own records prove otherwise:

On the evening of January 11, 1996, while Mitt Romney was in the final years of his run as the head of Bain Capital, Barack Obama formally joined the New Party, which was deeply hostile to the mainstream of the Democratic party and even to American capitalism. In 2008, candidate Obama deceived the American public about his potentially damaging tie to this third party. The issue remains as fresh as today’s headlines, as Romney argues that Obama is trying to move the United States toward European-style social democracy, which was precisely the New Party’s goal.

In late October 2008, when I wrote here at National Review Online that Obama had been a member of the New Party, his campaign sharply denied it, calling my claim a “crackpot smear.” Fight the Smears, an official Obama-campaign website, staunchly maintained that ‘Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party.’ I rebutted this, but the debate was never taken up by the mainstream press.

Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party. He also signed a ‘contract’ promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.

Minutes of the meeting on January 11, 1996, of the New Party’s Chicago chapter read as follows:

Consistent with this, a roster of the Chicago chapter of the New Party from early 1997 lists Obama as a member, with January 11, 1996, indicated as the date he joined.

Knowing that Obama disguised his New Party membership helps make sense of his questionable handling of the 2008 controversy over his ties to ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). During his third debate with John McCain, Obama said that the ‘only’ involvement he’d had with ACORN was to represent the group in a lawsuit seeking to compel Illinois to implement the National Voter Registration Act, or motor-voter law. The records of Illinois ACORN and its associated union clearly contradict that assertion, as I show in my political biography of the president, Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism.

Kurtz expounds on this issue and the way in which Mr. Obama and his supporters lied about Mr. Obama’s past and present affiliations and beliefs in order to win the presidency.  Kurtz ended his article with this:

In the meantime, let us see whether a press that let candidate Obama off the hook in 2008 — and that in 2012 is obsessed with the president’s youthful love letters  — will now refuse to report that President Obama once joined a leftist third party, and that he hid that truth from the American people in order to win the presidency.

This is likely a rhetorical question.  While some in the media have at least tentatively begun to question Mr. Obama’s divinity, it remains highly unlikely that the media will, in any significant way, abandon The One they helped to create and elevate.

It’s not hard to see that the racial divisiveness, the class envy, the socialist economics and the Marxist ruthlessness that mark the efforts of community organizers have followed Mr. Obama into the White House.  However, now he can tell people what he actually does.  It is all he knows.  It is what he is.  And all of it has been to America’s detriment.  And we elected him.