KOMMONSENTSJANE – What Obama Did As A Community Organizer.

10/28/2024

Obama’s thoughts:

The solution, Obama felt, was to find a way to political power of his own.

“He was constantly thinking about his path to significance and power,” Mike Kruglik told me. “He said, ‘I need to go there [Harvard Law School] to find out more about power. How do powerful people think? What kind of networks do they have? How do they connect to each other?'”

In a few months, Obama was gone. He had been an organizer for three years. When he returned to Chicago after law school, he did some voter-registration work and then joined a civil-rights practice. In 1996, he ran for the state senate. Eight years later, he was elected to the U.S. Senate, and within a year after that he was exploring a run for president.

Hillary’s letter;

Saul Alinsky offered me the chance to work with him when I graduated from college, and he was disappointed that I decided instead to go to law school,” she wrote. “[He] said I would be wasting my time, but my decision was an expression of my belief that the system could be changed from within.”

(How interesting – THE SYSTEM COULD BE CHANGED FROM WITHIN? Isn’t that what she and Obama are trying to do with Kamala Harris’ candidacy?)

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-obama-did-as-a-community-organizer/

ttps://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-obama-did-as-a-community-organizer/

Opinion

What Obama Did As A Community Organizer

September 8, 2008 / 3:16 PM EDT / National Review Online

EDITOR’S NOTE: At last week’s Republican convention in St. Paul, vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin, under fire from Democrats who belittled her experience as a small-town mayor, struck back at Barack Obama, questioning whether his experience as a community organizer is a qualification for the presidency. “I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer,” Palin said, “except that you have actual responsibilities.” Palin’s remarks set off a controversy over Obama and community organizing, forcing Obama himself to defend his experience. But it also raised a more basic question: Just what did Obama do as an organizer in Chicago in the 1980s? A few months ago, NR’s Byron York traveled to Chicago to explore Obama’s experience there. He wrote this report for the June 30 issue of National Review:

Barack Obama often cites his time as a community organizer here in Chicago as one of the experiences that qualify him to hold the nation’s highest office. “I can bring this country together,” he said in a debate last February. “I have a track record, starting from the days I moved to Chicago as a community organizer.”

When Obama says such things, the reaction among many observers is: Huh?

Audiences understand when he mentions his years as an Illinois state legislator, or his brief tenure in the U.S. Senate. But a community organizer? What’s that?

Even Obama didn’t know when he first gave it a try back in 1985. “When classmates in college asked me just what it was that a community organizer did, I couldn’t answer them directly,” Obama wrote in his memoir, Dreams from My Father. “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.”

Read More

https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.674.1_en.html#goog_1899888797

https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.674.1_en.html#goog_1899888798

https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.674.1_en.html#goog_1899888799

If you substitute “Bush” for “Reagan,” you have a fairly accurate description of Obama’s 2008 campaign. That’s not a coincidence; it suggests that something about community organizing was central to Obama’s world view back then, and has remained central to his development as the politician he is today. What was it?

I counted myself among those who didn’t have a good idea of what a community organizer does. So I came here to learn more about Obama’s time in the job, from 1985 to 1988. What did he do? What did he accomplish? And what in his experience here stands as a qualification to be president of the United States?

THE RADICAL’S RULES
Perhaps the simplest way to describe community organizing is to say it is the practice of identifying a specific aggrieved population, say unemployed steelworkers, or itinerant fruit-pickers, or residents of a particularly bad neighborhood, and agitating them until they become so upset about their condition that they take collective action to put pressure on local, state, or federal officials to fix the problem, often by giving the affected group money. Organizers like to call that “direct action.”

Community organizing is most identified with the left-wing Chicago activist Saul Alinsky (1909-72), who pretty much defined the profession. In his classic book, Rules for Radicals, Alinsky wrote that a successful organizer should be “an abrasive agent to rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; to fan latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expressions.” Once such hostilities were “whipped up to a fighting pitch,” Alinsky continued, the organizer steered his group toward confrontation, in the form of picketing, demonstrating, and general hell-raising. At first, the organizer tackled small stuff, like demanding the repair of streetlights in a city park; later, when the group gained confidence, the organizer could take on bigger targets. But at all times, the organizer’s goal was not to lead his people anywhere, but to encourage them to take action on their own behalf.

https://1017ac62541bc5b0e56502f78b171a5d.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-40/html/container.html

Alinsky started in the 1930s with workers in the Chicago stockyards. Many years later, when Obama arrived here, he came from a different perspective.

“Barack had been very inspired by the civil-rights movement,” Jerry Kellman, the organizer who hired Obama, told me recently. “I felt that he wanted to work in the civil-rights movement, but he was ten years too late, and this was the closest he could find to it at the time.” Obama, in his memoir, put it more simply when he said he went to Chicago to “organize black folks.”

Kellman, a New Yorker who had gotten into organizing in the 1960s, was trying to help laid-off factory workers on the far South Side of Chicago. He led a group, the Calumet Community Religious Conference, that had been created by several local Catholic churches. The Calumet region – basically the farthest southern reaches of Chicago plus the suburbs in northern Indiana – was an industrial area that had been hard hit by the closings of Wisconsin Steel and other industries. Kellman and the churches hoped to get some of those jobs back.

But there was a problem in the Chicago part of the equation. The area involved, around the Altgeld Gardens housing project and the neighborhood of Roseland, was nearly 100 percent black. Kellman was white, as were others who worked for CCRC. “The people didn’t open up to him like they would to somebody who was black and really understood what was going on in their lives,” Yvonne Lloyd, one of the key “leaders” – that is, local residents who worked closely with Obama – told me. “Black people are very leery when you come into their community and they don’t know you.” Lloyd and another leader, Loretta Augustine-Herron, insisted that Kellman hire a black organizer for a new spinoff from CCRC to be called the Developing Communities Project, which would focus solely on the Chicago part of the area.

So Kellman set out to find a black organizer. He ran an ad in some trade publications, and Obama responded. But at first Kellman wasn’t sure Obama was right for the job. “My wife was Japanese-American,” Kellman recalled. “I showed her the résumé, with the background in Hawaii. The name’s Obama, so I asked, ‘Could this be Japanese?’ She said, ‘Sure, it could be.'” It was only when Kellman talked to Obama on the phone, and Obama “expressed interest in something African-American culturally,” that a relieved Kellman offered Obama the job.

But Kellman had to sell Obama to the leaders. “Jerry introduces Barack, and Barack is so young, it’s like, ‘Oh my God,'” Loretta Augustine-Herron remembered. Obama was obviously smart, and he wanted to be an organizer, but he was, in fact, quite young (24) and he didn’t actually know much about the job. Despite those drawbacks, he seemed to work some sort of magic on the leaders. “He had a sensitivity I have never seen in anybody else to this day,” Augustine-Herron told me. “He understood.” The women were sold. “He didn’t have experience,” Augustine-Herron said. “But he had a sensitivity that allowed us to believe that he could do the job.” So Obama it was.

WHAT’S YOUR SELF-INTEREST?
New to Chicago, Obama set about conducting dozens of one-on-ones, that is, individual interviews with South Side residents in which he tried to discover which issues were most important to them. “You have to understand a person’s self-interest – that’s Alinsky’s terminology,” Mike Kruglik, an organizer who worked with Kellman and Obama, told me. “What’s happened to that person in his or her life? Where are they going? Why are they going there? What are they really passionate about?”

After the initial interviewing, Obama went to work on a number of projects.

The long-term goal was to retrain workers in order to restore manufacturing jobs in the area; Kellman took Obama by the rusted-out, closed-down Wisconsin Steel plant for a firsthand look. But the whole thing was a bit of a pipe dream, as the leaders soon discovered. “The idea was to interview these people and look at education, transferable skills, so that we could refer them to other industries,” Loretta Augustine-Herron told me as we drove by the site of the old factory, now completely torn down. “Well, they had no transferable skills. I remember interviewing one man who ran a steel-straightening machine. It straightened steel bars or something. I said, well, what did you do? And he told me he pushed a button, and the rods came in, and he pushed a button and it straightened them, and he pushed a button and it sent them somewhere else. That’s all he did. And he made big bucks doing it.”

That, of course, was one of the reasons the steel mill closed. And it became clear that neither Obama nor Kellman nor anyone else was going to change the direction of the steel industry and its unions in the United States. Somewhere along the line, everyone realized that those jobs wouldn’t be coming back.

So Obama looked for new opportunities. One thing he spent a lot of time on was creating a network of contacts beyond the white Catholic priests who originally sponsored the Developing Communities Project. “Many of the parishes were in predominantly African-American communities, and I think all of the priests were non-African-American,” Rev. Alvin Love, head of the Lilydale First Baptist Church on 113th Street, told me. “Barack came to me and wanted to try to connect with the whole community.”

Trying to construct a wide-ranging alliance of churches, Obama succeeded with Love and a few other ministers, but he was hampered by the fact that he didn’t go to church himself. “I said, ‘If you go to a pastor, and you ask him to come get involved in a community effort, and you say you have a group of churches, and that pastor asks you what church you belong to, and you say none – then it’s hard to get that pastor on board,'” Love recalled telling Obama. “He said, ‘I know, I understand, I’m working on it.’ He said, ‘I believe, I’m just waiting for the right spot, the right place, the right time.'” Love wasn’t the only minister to bring that up with Obama, and before long Obama, drawn to the preaching of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, joined Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street – where he would stay until political pressure created by Wright’s anti-American outbursts, combined with the anti-white message from another Obama friend, South Side priest Michael Pfleger, led him to resign his church membership.

Obama got the ministers involved in several projects, without great success. There was a push to get more city money for South Side parks after the Justice Department told the Chicago Park District it had to spend more on minority neighborhoods. There were plans for after-school programs, and job retraining for adults. But if you ask Obama’s fellow organizers what his most significant accomplishments were, they point to two ventures: the expansion of a city summer-job program for South Side teenagers and the removal of asbestos from one of the area’s oldest housing projects. Those, they say, were his biggest victories.

‘WE JUST FOUND OURSELVES AN ISSUE’
If you start in Chicago’s downtown Loop area, and drive south on the Bishop Ford Expressway, you’ll come to the 130th Street Exit amid an almost surreal landscape. To the left, there is the massive Continental Grain elevator complex, looming like a cluster of skyscrapers, with a rusting tanker moored nearby in the Calumet River. Not far away are a number of rotting, shut-down businesses. Farther south, there is the Waste Management CID Landfill, a vast, and growing, mountain of garbage. And to the right, there is the Calumet Water Reclamation Plant, better known as the sludge plant, treating sewage from all around the region. And in the middle of it all is Altgeld Gardens, a sprawling brick low-rise housing project built in the 1940s in what is probably the least people-friendly location one could ever imagine.

Loretta Augustine-Herron lived here for a while in the 1960s, and one day in May she took me around in her pickup truck. In those days, she said, there was an awful smell coming across 130th Street from the sludge plant. “Sometimes when the wind blew the wrong way, you could not take a deep breath,” she said. “It was horrible.” And isolated, too: Then, as now, there were no stores, or restaurants, or much of anything in easy walking distance of Altgeld. You can’t take a train, because there are none around. And you can forget about a taxi. The best way to get around is the bus, which makes regular runs through the complex. Still, the sense of isolation is considerable.

Near the back of the Altgeld complex is a tightly locked gymnasium and a low, brown-brick building closed in by a chain-link fence, topped in places with barbed wire. It is Our Lady of the Gardens church, where Augustine-Herron and Yvonne Lloyd met, and where they got to know Barack Obama. And it was here that much of his career as an activist was set.

A staple priority of organizers like Obama was the summer-jobs program. In the 1980s the jobs were administered by the Mayor’s Office of Employment and Training, or MET, but the nearest MET office to Altgeld was a long way away – beyond 95th Street – and located in what some felt was enemy territory. “Our children, in order to get those summer-job programs, had to go over to the East Side – Vrdolyak’s territory,” Yvonne Lloyd told me, referring to Edward “Fast Eddie” Vrdolyak, the Chicago alderman who was the champion of white ethnics and a sworn enemy of Harold Washington, the black mayor whose presence had inspired blacks across the city, including Obama.

“So, if you’re living in Altgeld, you don’t have the bus fare to go way over there, and they were out of their element, and they ended up not getting the jobs.” Why not demand a job center in their neighborhood? In Dreams from My Father, Obama describes visiting MET headquarters and looking at a brochure listing the locations of all branch offices. There was nothing south of 95th Street. “This is it,” he said. “We just found ourselves an issue.”

Obama then choreographed a drive to demand a new MET office. (The point, remember, was not for him to make the demands but for the leaders to do it for themselves.) They set up a meeting with MET officials, and then Obama drilled the leaders on what they should say. He took them around Roseland looking for a possible site for the new office. They found a shut-down department store at Michigan Avenue and 110th Street, and located the building’s owners. “He did all the legwork for us and brought it back to us,” Lloyd told me, “and we went downtown to the offices of the store and negotiated.” In a climactic meeting at Our Lady of the Gardens – Obama had, once again, carefully rehearsed the leaders on what they should say – MET officials agreed to open the new office. Obama had an accomplishment to point to.

“Our kids were able to go there, sign up, and get their summer jobs,” Lloyd told me. “It was fantastic to me, I just felt like – oh, it meant so much to us.” They were thrilled beyond words when Harold Washington himself came to the ribbon-cutting for the new office.

BATTLE OVER ASBESTOS
The other Obama accomplishment most people mention is the asbestos cleanup at Altgeld. One day someone – it’s not clear who – noticed that some rather specialized work seemed to be going on at the management office in the center of the complex. “A young lady came to us and said they’ve got white suits on and they’re doing something in the office,” Yvonne Lloyd told me. “We asked them what they were doing and they said, ‘We’re renovating.’ That didn’t sound right. Why would they be wearing all this gear if they were just renovating?” It turned out the workers were removing asbestos from the building.

In Obama’s telling, the problem was discovered when a young woman noticed a small-print notice in the classified section of a newspaper, soliciting bids for asbestos cleanup at Altgeld. However it began, it didn’t take the residents long to guess that if asbestos was in the office, it might be in their apartments, too. That discovery led to Obama’s greatest hit as an organizer.

Obama recruited the young woman to pay a visit to the Chicago Housing Authority official who worked at the management office. Obama went too, hoping the official would deny that there was any asbestos in the apartments. “A cover-up would generate as much publicity as the asbestos, I had told myself,” Obama wrote in Dreams from My Father. “Publicity would make my job easier.” And sure enough, the CHA official denied it all.

Obama followed up – had the residents follow up, of course – with letters to top CHA officials. Finally, the group sent a message to the agency’s executive director, warning they would show up at his office to demand action. They got in touch with local TV stations, and everyone came to cover the asbestos showdown.

As it turned out, there was no showdown. CHA officials accommodated the protesters, promising to begin testing the Altgeld apartments for asbestos that very day. They also promised to attend a meeting at Our Lady of the Gardens to listen to everyone’s concerns. A few weeks later, the director of CHA himself came to the church’s gymnasium, where Obama’s group was prepared to present a demand for timely repairs. Perhaps 300 people came, along with the TV crews. Things veered toward fiasco when the young woman Obama had chosen to question the CHA director wouldn’t give up the microphone so the director could answer. A semi-comic tug-of-war ensued, with the director finally bolting the meeting, followed by an increasingly angry crowd.

It was a fiasco, and racial conspiracy theories quickly spread among the residents. “The whole thing was put together by Vrdolyak,” Obama quotes one man saying. “You saw that white man egging the folks on. They just trying to make Harold look bad.” Obama was deflated; at the very least, the big show was a setback to his effort. It was precisely the sort of scene he had wanted to avoid. “He said, ‘Don’t get confrontational, don’t raise your voice, don’t scream and holler,'” Yvonne Lloyd told me. “He said, ‘You’ll get more the other way.'” (Jerry Kellman told me that Obama was not “a straight Alinsky organizer,” and his advice to Lloyd at Altgeld suggests that he generally preferred to avoid overt confrontation.)

The organizers ended up winning anyway, although the cleanup wasn’t finished until years later. But something had changed for Obama during the asbestos fight, and he began to consider leaving Chicago for law school. As he looked back, he believed that, on one hand, he had trained some good people; Loretta Augustine-Herron, for example, told me he inspired her to go to college, which led her to a satisfying career. But on the other hand, Obama seemed to realize that it was very, very hard to get anything done. “He didn’t see organizing making any significant changes in things,” Jerry Kellman recalled.

The solution, Obama felt, was to find a way to political power of his own.

“He was constantly thinking about his path to significance and power,” Mike Kruglik told me. “He said, ‘I need to go there [Harvard Law School] to find out more about power. How do powerful people think? What kind of networks do they have? How do they connect to each other?'”

In a few months, Obama was gone. He had been an organizer for three years. When he returned to Chicago after law school, he did some voter-registration work and then joined a civil-rights practice. In 1996, he ran for the state senate. Eight years later, he was elected to the U.S. Senate, and within a year after that he was exploring a run for president.

THE ORGANIZER
We look to formative experiences to help us understand presidential candidates. Visit an aircraft carrier in wartime and you’ll learn something about John McCain. Pilots fly off the deck, and sometimes they come back, and sometimes they don’t. One day, McCain didn’t, and began the time as a prisoner of war that both revealed his character and launched his political career. No matter what he has done since, the U.S. Navy is the culture that made McCain, with his heavy emphasis on duty, honor, and country.

Community organizing is just as essential in understanding Obama. But what does it say about him?

The first thing is that he has a talent for, well, organizing. Everyone who worked with Obama says he was good at the job. And he has used the techniques he learned in Chicago to organize his own presidential campaign, going so far as to enlist Mike Kruglik to help start a “Camp Obama” program to instill organizing principles into Obama supporters. The result is a campaign that even Obama’s opponents admit is a very impressive operation.

But Obama’s time in Chicago also revealed the conventionality of his approach to the underlying problems of the South Side. Is the area crippled by a culture of dysfunction? Demand summer jobs. Push for an after-school program. Convince the city to spend more on this or that. It was the same old stuff; Obama could think outside the box on ways to organize people, but not on what he was organizing them for.

Certainly no one should live in an apartment contaminated by asbestos, but Obama did not seem to question, or at least question very strongly, the notion that the people he wanted to organize should be living in Altgeld at all. The place was, after all, one of the nation’s capitals of dysfunction. “Every ten years I would work on the census,” Yvonne Lloyd told me. “I always had Altgeld. When you look at those forms from the census, you had three or four generations in one apartment – the grandmother, the mother, the daughter, and then her baby. It was supposed to be a stepping stone, but you’ve got people that are never going to leave.”

No doubt Obama would agree that that is a bad thing, but when a real attempt to break through that culture of dysfunction – the landmark 1996 welfare-reform bill, now widely accepted as one of the most successful domestic-policy initiatives in a generation – came up, Obama vowed to use all the resources at his disposal to undo it. “I made sure our new welfare system didn’t punish people by kicking them off the rolls,” he said in 1999. Two years earlier, he had declared: “We want to make sure that there is health care, child care, job training, and transportation vouchers – everything that is needed to ensure that those who need it will have support.” Obama applied his considerable organizational skills to perpetuating the old, failed way of doing things.

Obama’s professional colleagues, people like Jerry Kellman, believe his lasting accomplishment was to build an organization, the Developing Communities Project, that survived his departure. Today, DCP still exists, run out of a small Methodist church building on 95th Street, working on after-school programs, drug prevention, and voter registration. It has become, much more than it was when Obama was there, a grant-getting institution; according to tax records, about three-quarters of its funding comes from government grants, with the rest from liberal foundations like the Woods Fund, on whose board Obama sat from 1993 to 2002.

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.

By Byron York
Reprinted with permission from National Review Online

****

kommonsentsjane

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

KOMMONSENTSJANE – Trump Mocks Hillary Clinton After She Makes Wild “Hitler” Claim.

10/28/2024

Hillary will say anything to put her name on the screen to stay relevant. She has plowed her field of hate/division with the Obama’s and can’t seem to get the drift even with all of her indiscretions that whatever she is selling the American people aren’t buying it.

Billary has had her day in the sun; but, the rainbow isn’t going to show up.

We all know that Billary/Obama traded their Constitution/Bill of Rights many years ago and replaced them with Saul Alinsky’s Marxism. She lost the election to Trump – and now is still trying to make people think that Trump is the Marxist – not her and Obama.

****

Obama’s thoughts:

The solution, Obama felt, was to find a way to political power of his own.

“He was constantly thinking about his path to significance and power,” Mike Kruglik told me. “He said, ‘I need to go there [Harvard Law School] to find out more about power. How do powerful people think? What kind of networks do they have? How do they connect to each other?'”

In a few months, Obama was gone. He had been an organizer for three years. When he returned to Chicago after law school, he did some voter-registration work and then joined a civil-rights practice. In 1996, he ran for the state senate. Eight years later, he was elected to the U.S. Senate, and within a year after that he was exploring a run for president.

Hillary’s letter;

Saul Alinsky offered me the chance to work with him when I graduated from college, and he was disappointed that I decided instead to go to law school,” she wrote. “[He] said I would be wasting my time, but my decision was an expression of my belief that the system could be changed from within.”

(How interesting – THE SYSTEM COULD BE CHANGED FROM WITHIN? Isn’t that what she and Obama are trying to do with Kamala Harris’ candidacy?)

The Hillary Letters

Hillary Clinton, Saul Alinsky correspondence revealed

Lee Balterman / The LIFE Picture Collection / Getty Images

Alana Goodman

September 21, 2014

NOTE: READ THE HILLARY CLINTON-SAUL ALINSKY LETTERS HERE.FreeBeaconBob Menendez’s Lawyers Say Senator Hoarded Cash, Gold Because of ‘Intergenerational Trauma’Read more

Previously unpublished correspondence between Hillary Clinton and the late left-wing organizer Saul Alinsky reveals new details about her relationship with the controversial Chicago activist and shed light on her early ideological development.

Clinton met with Alinsky several times in 1968 while writing a Wellesley college thesis about his theory of community organizing.

Clinton’s relationship with Alinsky, and her support for his philosophy, continued for several years after she entered Yale law school in 1969, two letters obtained by the Washington Free Beacon show.

The letters obtained by the Free Beacon are part of the archives for the Industrial Areas Foundation, a training center for community organizers founded by Alinsky, which are housed at the University of Texas at Austin.

The letters also suggest that Alinsky, who died in 1972, had a deeper influence on Clinton’s early political views than previously known.

A 23-year-old Hillary Clinton was living in Berkeley, California, in the summer of 1971. She was interning at the left-wing law firm Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, known for its radical politics and a client roster that included Black Panthers and other militants.

On July 8, 1971, Clinton reached out to Alinsky, then 62, in a letter sent via airmail, paid for with stamps featuring Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and marked “Personal.”

“Dear Saul,” she began. “When is that new book [Rules for Radicals] coming out—or has it come and I somehow missed the fulfillment of Revelation?”

“I have just had my one-thousandth conversation about Reveille [for Radicals] and need some new material to throw at people,” she added, a reference to Alinsky’s 1946 book on his theories of community organizing.

Clinton devoted just one paragraph in her memoir Living History to Alinsky, writing that she rejected a job offer from him in 1969 in favor of going to law school. She wrote that she wanted to follow a more conventional path.

However, in the 1971 letter, Clinton assured Alinsky that she had “survived law school, slightly bruised, with my belief in and zest for organizing intact.”

“The more I’ve seen of places like Yale Law School and the people who haunt them, the more convinced I am that we have the serious business and joy of much work ahead—if the commitment to a free and open society is ever going to mean more than eloquence and frustration,” wrote Clinton.

According to the letter, Clinton and Alinsky had kept in touch since she entered Yale. The 62-year-old radical had reached out to give her advice on campus activism.

“If I never thanked you for the encouraging words of last spring in the midst of the Yale-Cambodia madness, I do so now,” wrote Clinton, who had moderated a campus election to join an anti-war student strike.

She added that she missed their regular conversations, and asked if Alinsky would be able to meet her the next time he was in California.

“I am living in Berkeley and working in Oakland for the summer and would love to see you,” Clinton wrote. “Let me know if there is any chance of our getting together.”

Clinton’s letter reached Alinsky’s office while he was on an extended trip to Southeast Asia, where he was helping train community organizers in the Philippines.

But a response letter from Alinsky’s secretary suggests that the radical organizer had a deep fondness for Clinton as well.

“Since I know [Alinsky’s] feelings about you I took the liberty of opening your letter because I didn’t want something urgent to wait for two weeks,” Alinsky’s long-time secretary, Georgia Harper, wrote to Clinton in a July 13, 1971 letter. “And I’m glad I did.”

Harper told Clinton that Alinksy’s book Rules for Radicals had been released. She enclosed several reviews of the book.

“Mr. Alinsky will be in San Francisco, staying at the Hilton Inn at the airport on Monday and Tuesday, July 26 and 27,” Harper added. “I know he would like to have you call him so that if there is a chance in his schedule maybe you can get together.”

It is unclear whether the meeting occurred.

A self-proclaimed radical, Alinsky advocated guerilla tactics and civil disobedience to correct what he saw as an institutionalized power gap in poor communities. His philosophy divided the world into “haves”—middle class and wealthy people —and “have nots”—the poor. He took an ends-justify-the-means approach to power and wealth redistribution, and developed the theoretical basis of “community organizing.”

The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power,” wrote Alinsky in his 1971 book. “Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”

Clinton’s connection to Alinsky has been the subject of speculation for decades. It became controversial when Wellsley College, by request of the Clinton White House, sealed her 1968 thesis from the public for years. Conservative lawyer Barbara Olson said Clinton had asked for the thesis to be sealed because it showed “the extent to which she internalized and assimilated the beliefs and methods of Saul Alinsky.” Clinton opponent turned Clinton defender David Brock referred to her as “Alinsky’s daughter” in 1996’s The Seduction of Hillary Rodham.

The paper was opened to the public in 2001. While the thesis is largely sympathetic to Alinsky, it is also critical of some of his tactics.

Clinton described the organizer as “a man of exceptional charm,” but also objected to some of the conflicts he provoked as “unrealistic,” noting that his model could be difficult for others to replicate.

“Many of the Alinsky-inspired poverty warriors could not (discounting political reasons) move beyond the cathartic first step of organizing groups ‘to oppose, complain, demonstrate, and boycott’ to developing and running a program,” she wrote.

The letters obtained by the Free Beacon suggest that Clinton experimented more with radical politics during her law school years than she has publicly acknowledged.

In Living History, she describes her views during that time as far more pragmatic than leftwing.

She “agreed with some of Alinsky’s ideas,” Clinton wrote in her first memoir, but the two had a “fundamental disagreement” over his anti-establishment tactics.

She described how this disagreement led to her parting ways with Alinsky in the summer before law school in 1969.

“He offered me the chance to work with him when I graduated from college, and he was disappointed that I decided instead to go to law school,” she wrote.

“Alinsky said I would be wasting my time, but my decision was an expression of my belief that the system could be changed from within.”

ttps://independentminute.com/2024/10/27/trump-mocks-hillary-clinton-after-she-makes-wild-hitler-claim/

To read – add an ‘h’ to the above.

Trump Mocks Hillary Clinton After She Makes Wild “Hitler” Claim

Donald Trump has big plans for New York, and he’s making waves in one of the bluest states in the country. For months, the former president has been strategically targeting blue-state voters, leaving Democrats nervous as he carves out ground in traditionally left-leaning regions.

Now, Trump is taking his New York campaign to a new level, planning a massive rally in the heart of Manhattan at none other than Madison Square Garden. The event, set for October 27, promises to be an electric night for his supporters and a clear statement that he’s unafraid to bring his campaign right into the Democrats’ backyard.

But while many see this as an exciting move for Trump’s campaign, not everyone is thrilled. Hillary Clinton, a longtime Trump critic, didn’t just criticize the rally — she went so far as to compare it to a Nazi rally. Yes, you read that right. In a bizarre leap, Clinton suggested Trump’s MSG rally was akin to one of Hitler’s rallies, setting off a firestorm of backlash. Her comments were so extreme they left even some of her allies scratching their heads. Unsurprisingly, Trump didn’t take her comments lying down, firing back with his own choice words.

Fox News:
“Hillary Clinton is so messed up from her raging 8-year-long case of anti-Trump derangement syndrome that she forgot SHE did an event at Madison Square Garden when she was a senator, and her husband Bill accepted the Democrat nomination there,” Trump campaign national press secretary Karoline Leavitt said.

Trump Fires Back at Clinton’s Hypocrisy

After Clinton’s inflammatory comments, Trump’s campaign didn’t hesitate to hit back. In a statement, his national press secretary Karoline Leavitt called out Clinton’s “anti-Trump derangement syndrome,” noting that Clinton herself once held a political event at Madison Square Garden.

Not to mention, her husband, former President Bill Clinton, famously accepted the Democratic nomination at the same venue.

Leavitt’s response was sharp, pointing out the hypocrisy and questioning Clinton’s rhetoric. “Hillary’s rhetoric about half of the country is disgusting,” she said, highlighting Clinton’s track record of condescension toward Trump’s base.

Trump, ever the showman, has embraced this backlash as fuel, and he’s made it clear this rally will be a powerful demonstration of his reach and popularity in every corner of America — even in the liberal stronghold of New York City.

Madison Square Garden Set for Massive Attendance

Trump’s team is pulling out all the stops for the MSG rally, treating it as one of the high points of his campaign. Sources within the campaign say they’re expecting a packed house, with over 19,000 seats likely to be filled.

This event, following Trump’s recent large rallies across the country, shows a surge in enthusiasm from supporters who are eager to see his message delivered loud and clear.

According to a campaign official, Trump’s rallies are now drawing crowds that rival those of major music festivals. “Like Coachella and others to come, MSG is because we are adding some very big venues because we are seeing very high interest in attending events,” a campaign source told Fox News Digital.

Trump’s rally is first-come, first-serve, promising to fill the arena with fans ready to stand shoulder-to-shoulder in support. The campaign anticipates that this event will showcase the energy and diversity of his fanbase, which cuts across traditional party lines and challenges the idea that New York is a foregone conclusion for the Democrats.

Clinton’s Comments: Desperation or Derangement?

Hillary Clinton’s comments about Trump’s rally have drawn significant criticism, and not just from conservatives. Many see her reference to Nazi rallies as an attempt to stir up fear rather than engage in genuine political debate.

This isn’t the first time Clinton has made extreme remarks about Trump or his supporters, but her comments this time struck a new low, according to Trump’s campaign team.

For Trump supporters, Clinton’s words confirm what they’ve always suspected: that she and others in the Democratic establishment look down on them.

This rally, scheduled just days before the election, is the perfect opportunity for Trump to counter that narrative. As his team notes, Clinton’s comparison is hypocritical given her own ties to the very venue she’s now criticizing.

Trump’s Rally: More Than Just a Campaign Event

Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally isn’t just another campaign stop; it’s a declaration. By holding an event of this scale in the heart of New York City, Trump is challenging the long-held belief that conservative voices don’t have a place in liberal states.

He’s making it clear that he’ll campaign anywhere and everywhere, no matter how much it rattles the establishment. The rally, which takes place just nine days before Election Day, could give Trump a serious boost as he seeks to energize his base and sway undecided voters.

Trump’s decision to campaign in blue states signals a bold strategy. He’s not just aiming to win — he’s aiming to change the map and the narrative.

For Democrats, Trump’s presence in New York is a reminder that no state can be taken for granted. And for his supporters, it’s a sign that he’s more determined than ever to take his message to every corner of the country.

****

Below is a letter that Billary wrote to Saul Alinsky.


Read Hillary Clinton’s 1971 letter to Saul Alinsky

Yahoo News

Mon, September 22, 2014 at 10:55 AM CDT

Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks during the Clinton Global Citizens awards ceremony for the Clinton Global Initiative 2014 (CGI) in New York, September 21, 2014. The CGI was created by former U.S. President Bill Clinton in 2005 to gather global leaders to discuss solutions to the world’s problems. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton (UNITED STATES – Tags: POLITICS ENTERTAINMENT)More

A letter from Hillary Clinton to the late community organizer Saul Alinsky in 1971 was published Sunday by the Washington Free Beacon.

In it, Clinton, then a 23-year-old law school graduate living in Berkeley, Calif., informs the Chicago activist that she had “survived law school, slightly bruised, with my belief in and zest for organizing intact.”

“The more I’ve seen of places like Yale Law School and the people who haunt them,” Clinton wrote, “the more convinced I am that we have the serious business and joy of much work ahead, — if the commitment to a free and open society is ever going to mean more than eloquence and frustration.”

Clinton first met Alinsky when she was at Wellesley working on her 1969 thesis on his controversial theories on community organizing, many of which were outlined in his 1946 handbook, “Reveille for Radicals.”

In the book, Alinsky encouraged community organizers to “fan the latent hostilities” of low-income, inner city residents and “search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them.” His 1971 book, “Rules for Radicals,” published a year before his death, expanded on that theme. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it,” Alinsky wrote.

“Dear Saul,” Clinton wrote in the 1971 letter. “When is that new book [Rules for Radicals] coming out — or has it come and I somehow missed the fulfillment of Revelation? I have just had my one-thousandth conversation about Reveille and need some new material to throw at people.”

She thanked Alinsky for the advice he gave her about campus organizing.

“If I never thanked you for the encouraging words of last spring in the midst of the Yale-Cambodia madness, I do so now,” Clinton wrote.

She also asked if they could meet the next time he was in California.

“I am living in Berkeley and working in Oakland for the summer and would love to see you,” Clinton wrote. “Let me know if there is any chance of our getting together.”

She added: “Hopefully we can have a good argument sometime in the future.”

Alinsky’s longtime secretary, Georgia Harper, sent Clinton a letter in reply informing her that he was away on a six-week trip to Southeast Asia, but that she had opened the letter anyway.

“Since I know his feelings about you I took the liberty of opening your letter because I didn’t want something urgent to wait for two weeks,” Harper wrote in the July 13, 1971, letter. “And I’m glad I did.”

“Mr. Alinsky will be in San Francisco, staying at the Hilton Inn at the airport on Monday and Tuesday, July 26 and 27,” Harper added. “I know he would like to have you call him so that if there is a chance in his schedule maybe you can get together.”

The correspondence between Alinsky and Clinton was discovered in the archives for the Industrial Areas Foundation — a training center for community organizers founded by Alinsky — housed at the University of Texas at Austin.

According to Clinton’s 2004 memoir, “Living History,” Alinsky had offered her a job after her graduation from Wellesley, but she turned him down.

“He offered me the chance to work with him when I graduated from college, and he was disappointed that I decided instead to go to law school,” she wrote. “[He] said I would be wasting my time, but my decision was an expression of my belief that the system could be changed from within.”

Source

kommonsentsjane

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

KOMMONSENTSJANE – Joe Rogan’s Donald Trump Episode Racks Up 26 Million Views in First 24 Hours.

10/28/2024

ttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/joe-rogan-s-donald-trump-episode-racks-up-26-million-views-in-first-24-hours/ar-AA1t0Dtb?ocid=StaticFallback&pc=U531&cvid=08a3f16c98a9461aa94c5d7e1d314242&ei=45

Donald Trump speaking during a news conference, Oct. 25, 2024, in Austin, Texas, left, and Joe Rogan, right, at a UFC event, Aug. 18, 2023, in Boston. The former president appeared on Rogan's podcast on Friday.

Donald Trump speaking during a news conference, Oct. 25, 2024, in Austin, Texas, left, and Joe Rogan, right, at a UFC event, Aug. 18, 2023, in Boston. The former president appeared on Rogan’s podcast on Friday.© Uncredited/ASSOCIATED PRESS

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump‘s podcast interview with Joe Rogan has been viewed over 26 million times on YouTube in its first 24 hours.

It is the most viewed podcast appearance so far for either candidate in the 2024 presidential campaign, and among the highest viewed Joe Rogan Experience episodes in history.

Trump sat with Rogan for a full three-hour podcast episode, discussing topics ranging from UFOs, the alleged impact of wind turbines on the mental health of whales, to Trump’s regrets in office, and his false claim that the 2020 election was stolen through widespread voter fraud.

The Joe Rogan Experience is the most watched podcast in the world. It has 14.5 million Spotify followers and 17.5 million YouTube subscribers. Although Spotify and Apple Podcasts do not release viewership data for individual episodes, the YouTube views suggest it is one of the biggest episodes in the show’s history, and reached more viewers than other podcasts so far on the campaign.

According to Rogan fan website JRE Library, across the podcast’s 15-year, more than 2,000-episode-long history, the 10 most watched episodes were between 27 million times and 68 million times on YouTube, so the Trump interview falls just outside that range in its first 24 hours.Related video: Top 10 Moments from Joe Rogan’s Interview With Trump (WatchMojo)

*****

But I had a contract with The Apprentice..

WatchMojo

Top 10 Moments from Joe Rogan’s Interview With Trump

View on Watch

The most viewed episode ever was his September 2018 interview with tech billionaire Elon Musk, who has endorsed Trump in his 2024 presidential bid. In the show, which has been viewed more than 68 million times, the Tesla owner famously smoked marijuana and drank whiskey with the host.

Rogan’s podcast was exclusively available on Spotify from 2020 until earlier this year. The episodes from that time have since been reuploaded to YouTube, but do not have full viewership data from the time they were released due to being uploaded to the site retrospectively.

The most recent Rogan episode to have as many YouTube views as the Trump interview was in May 2020 when he spoke with radio host Alex Jones and comedian Tim Dillon, which has been viewed almost 28 million times.

Jones is a prominent conspiracy theorist who was ordered to pay almost $1 billion to the families of Sandy Hook victims after he spent years defaming them by saying their children had not been murdered, but were instead “crisis actors.”

Did Joe Rogan Endorse Donald Trump?

Rogan did not endorse Trump during the interview. Rogan has previously endorsed Independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has since suspended his campaign and endorsed Trump.

In the podcast, Trump praised Rogan, calling him “a fascinating guy,” while the host praised the candidate’s sense of humor. “One of the beautiful things about you is that you freeball,” Rogan said, telling the former president that he thought his impression mocking President Joe Biden was “funny stuff.”

Rogan said that he would be interested in doing an interview with Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris, but her campaign has since confirmed that she will not join him on the show before Election Day.

Related Articles

kommonsentsjane

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

KOMMONSENTSJANE – CNN Panel Swarms Kevin O’Leary After He Exposes Kamala’s Rise to the Top.

10/27/2024

ttps://dailyallegiant.com/cnn-panel-swarms-kevin-oleary-after-he-exposes-kamalas-rise-to-the-top/

Add an ‘h’ to view if Google erases this.


The Daily Allegiant

An Unfiltered News Experience

  1. CNN Panel Swarms Kevin O’Leary After He Exposes Kamala’s Rise to the Top

Headlines

CNN Panel Swarms Kevin O’Leary After He Exposes Kamala’s Rise to the Top

 By Thomas Cooper  

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned or a CNN panel confronted with the truth.

And make no mistake: Most of the panel that was convened at 10 p.m. Eastern on Thursday had just been confronted, the day prior with the first genuine bomb of Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign.

Sure, she had that interview with Fox News, but that was Fox News. CNN is friendly territory; anyone who pretends otherwise is delusional or believes CNN viewers are dupes. Indeed, I’m not sure those two things are mutually exclusive.

However, nobody who witnessed the previous hour, where Harris flailed and failed with a mostly simpatico Anderson Cooper, could ignore questions like this:

CNN: You’ve been in the White House for four years. Why haven’t you done any of this already?

KAMALA: “I’m pointing out things that need to be done that haven’t been done that need to be done.”

pic.twitter.com/Ia5z5BSVXX

— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) October 24, 2024

COOPER: Is there something you can point to in your life that is a mistake that you’ve learned from?

KAMALA: “I have worked very hard to make sure that I’m well-versed on issues.”

The Kamala you see stumbling in every unscripted answer she gives is what she calls “well-versed.” pic.twitter.com/fmENkOtpvI

— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) October 24, 2024

There were plenty of takeaways to discuss even a day after the event, and in a sober panel who realized the disaster that the event was, they’d likely be talking about how the vice president clearly hasn’t unburdened herself of her past cringeworthiness in the past four years or so.

However, given that the panel was given over mostly to lefties to moderator Abby Phillip, Washington Post opinion writer Catherine Rampell, CNN en Español political commentator Maria Cardona, and former Comedy Central host Larry Wilmore, it was up to conservative strategist Shermichael Singleton and “Shark Tank” panelist and businessman Kevin “Mr. Wonderful” O’Leary to represent the right side of things.

O’Leary went a bit further than offering an apologia for Donald Trump, arguing that the very selection process that gave the Democrats Harris as a nominee without her earning a vote was partially responsible for her sinking poll numbers and disastrous performances.

“I would like to introduce the concept to the panel tonight. It’s going to be a short dissertation. But I want you to think about this, because I watched like you did yesterday and something hit me pretty hard,” he said.

“Only 90 days ago, Pelosi went to Biden and said, ‘you need to step aside,’ and convinced him to do so. He made the decision, and he did actually ask her, and we’ve now learned this — is she the right person to drive this home? He questioned that,” he said of Harris.

“He could have said, we need to run a process in order for me to make this move, but they decided not to. I don’t know who they is. Was it Obama? Was it Pelosi? I don’t care who it was. In stock picking, just listen to this analogy, you may agree, you may not, 88 percent of managers, because of the world I live in, cannot beat the S&P year in, year out. So, you give them $1,000, the S&P beats them, they can’t pick stocks. This is the second time the Democratic Party has circumvented democracy and chose –“

“That’s not true,” Rampell cut him off.

“Yes it is. Hillary Clinton was chosen … And what happened to her? And now we’ve chosen —

“Kevin, Hillary Clinton won a primary, OK?” Phillip said. “She won a primary.”

But, as O’Leary pointed out, that wasn’t exactly a primary where the Democratic Party allowed much in the way of a challenge: “Nobody could compete with her, even Bernie Sanders,” he said.

“She won a primary,” Phillip reiterated.

“So, did Kamala Harris win the primary?” O’Leary shot back.

Crosstalk ensued. Phillip tried to end it by resorting to the last refuge of the desperate: Blame Canada!

“I know that you are from Canada, but the primary process–” she said, before getting cut off.

“That’s why it’s — I’m perfect for this,” O’Leary countered. “I have no skin in the game other than to get a great president.”

WARNING: The following video contains graphic language that some viewers will find offensive.

NEW: CNN panel completely loses it after Shark Tank’s Kevin O’Leary (correctly) points out that Kamala Harris was not democratically nominated.

The “pro-democracy” party really hates it when you point out that they don’t actually support democracy.

O’Leary: “Listen to this… pic.twitter.com/HhpIIUQpgJ

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) October 25, 2024

“I think the case I’m trying to make to all of you and I hope I’m going to win it by the end of this show, is that there’s nothing wrong with the policies or whatever they are,” O’Leary said.

“This is the same candidate that lost in 2019 and 2020 and has never been tested by the markets for various reasons we can argue about, but she’s never won anything.”

O’Leary went on to note that he does have some skin in the game; his kids were born in the United States and most of his investments are here, he says. However, the salient point is this: A small group of individuals who choose a candidate rarely outperform the primary process, flawed indeed though it may be.

The only time we had something that looked like a primary process was on the 2016 and 2024 side for Republicans (Donald Trump won both) and in 2020 for the Democrats, which produced the electable-if-senescent Joe Biden. More importantly, it rooted out a clique of younger, more progressive Democrats who were beloved by the media but didn’t translate electorally. Harris — along with Beto O’Rourke, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand and Julián Castrointer alia — were casualties of this hype.

In 2016, there were primaries — and surprisingly close ones — but the Democratic National Committee made sure that Hillary Clinton won.

We all know what happened in the first case: Bernie Sanders came surprisingly close to her in a number of key primaries and, even though he lost, cast a pall over her campaign. Thankfully, she was faced with a candidate she was sure she could smear with so much mud that he was unelectable: Donald Trump, along with his “basket of deplorables.” That worked out about as swimmingly as you can imagine it would in hindsight, but at the time nobody seemed to notice anything amiss until Election Day turned into election night, which turned into tears and anxiety attacks for anyone wearing an “I’m With Her” button.

What does she have in common with Kamala Harris? Both candidates were handpicked by party elites because it was Their Turn. Neither had grassroots support. And it all seemed like it was going to work, until it didn’t.

The polls are showing both Harris and Trump essentially even nationally — a huge blow for Harris, who likely needs to win by several points in the popular vote to carry the swing states she needs. It’s unlikely to improve over the next week-and-a-half.

This is what happens when you don’t allow the people to select a nominee. Individual investors generally can’t outperform the market in picking stocks, and party elites can’t outperform their voters in picking someone that America will vote for. It’s a lesson the Democrats, holding on for sweet life, are learning far too late — if they learn it all.

Source

kommonsentsjane

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment