America's ignorance of Obama 'disturbing'

[Revmitchell]

A pro-family activist and former presidential candidate says a recent editorial in a leading business publication illustrates just how little the American voting public knows about president-elect Barack Obama.



Two months before the presidential election, Investors Business Daily (IBD) published an editorial entitled "Michelle's Boot Camps for Radicals." It revealed that Barack Obama was a founding member of the board of a publicly funded non-profit organization known as Public Allies, but he resigned when his wife Michelle became executive director of the Chicago chapter of Public Allies in 1993.

The IBD editorial said the organization's mission is to radicalize American youth and use them to bring about "social change" through threats, pressure, tension, and confrontation. On its website, Public Allies said the IBD piece painted an inaccurate, distorted view of their work. But the editorial points out that during the presidential campaign, Obama said, Gary Bauer 1"We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the military.


More Here

 

[LadyEagle]

No one cares, Rev M. They will find out soon enough. :BangHead:

 

[donnA]

through threats, pressure, tension, and confrontation

don't we currently arrest people for acting like this, it's what we here call hoodlums.

 

[carpro]

...the American media did not press Obama to answer questions about some of these questionable ideas and affiliations. "The result is that I think we had one of the most undereducated electorates in the history of our country partake in this election, not knowing the first thing about what the man who's now been elected president has on his agenda,"

The signs were all there.

Americans shut their eyes and closed their minds and voted for a radical socialist that associated with anti-American terrorists, socialists, and communist radicals and is married to a radical racist that has only been proud of her country twice in her life.

Now they'll reap what they have sown.

The largest deficits in history ....by far ...followed by huge tax increases across the board for everyone that actually pays taxes. All to fund the socialization of America.

The growth of government, the likes of which has never been seen in our history is about to occur.

Who will stand in the way? You're a racist if you do, just like you were if you saw through Obama's sleight of hand before the election.

The Republicans in congress? Gutless.

It will have to run it's course. The American people will revolt eventually and throw the anti-america dogs out of office.

I only hope I live long enough to see it. :thumbs:

 

[JustChristian]

don't we currently arrest people for acting like this, it's what we here call hoodlums.

Actually, it's called more untruths and political smears. Here is what they say on their web site. Go and look at it for yourself.

Public Allies

http://www.publicallies.org/site/c.liKUL3PNLvF/b.2634379/


Public Allies is changing the face and practice of leadership in communities across the country. Our mission is to advance new leadership to strengthen communities, nonprofits and civic participation.

Why change the face and practice of leadership?
Because the next generation of American leaders needs to look like America will look, connect across cultures, facilitate collaborative action, recognize a community’s assets, commit to self-development, and be accountable to the people they work with and the community they serve. We believe a new approach to leadership is necessary to live these values. We believe that through these values, we will create a more just society.

How do we make it happen?
Through our signature AmeriCorps program,Public Allies identifies talented young adults from diverse backgrounds and prepares them for careers working for community and social change. Allies serve 10-month, paid apprenticeships at local nonprofits and participate in a rigorous and rewarding leadership development program with a diverse group of peers who are also of and working within their home community.

In addition to our signature program, Public Allies supports the continued leadership of our Alumni through an active network. We also offer training and consulting through The Leadership Practice, which helps groups better engage and strengthen communities and support diverse young leaders.

Our social impact
Public Allies is a premier pipeline for developing diverse young nonprofit and community leaders, and we prepare leaders and organizations to lead more effectively for our changing times.
We serve communities today, while developing better leaders for tomorrow. By cultivating new leaders and a new kind of leadership, Public Allies invigorates the public life of our communities. When citizens learn, practice, and share these values, they engage more community members, unite people across social boundaries to work for the common good, create more effective and responsive solutions to social problems, and ultimately build a more just society for all.
Everyone leads… and we walk the talk. Our Allies are ages 18 to 30, and about 67% are people of color,15% are LGBT, and 50% are college graduates. And 95% of Allies have met or exceeded the expectations of the nonprofit organizations they serve, with 95% of Alumni reporting they would participate again if they could. Over 80% of Alumni have continued careers in nonprofit and public service and they volunteer and engage in civic and political activities at more than twice the rate of their age cohort.

Response to Investors Business Daily Editorial

On September 4th, Investors Business Daily attacked Public Allies in order to smear the Obamas. They painted an inaccurate, distorted view of our work which been further distorted by many blogs. It is unfortunate that a nonpartisan nonprofit organization has been used by IBD to attack the Obamas. No one associated with Public Allies was interviewed by IBD, so it is important to set the record straight.

Public Allies mission is to advance new leadership to strengthen communities, nonprofits and civic participation. We achieve our mission in two ways. First, we have built a successful pipeline for young adults to begin nonprofit and public service careers. Second, we help individuals and organizations become more effective leaders. Read more

 

[KenH]

1) The American people will revolt eventually and throw the anti-america dogs out of office.

2) I only hope I live long enough to see it.

Well, since obviously the tone of debate has not been raised in this forum I'll just dive right back in.

1) We just did that in the elections of 2006 and 2008.

2) Since you were alive when the past two elections took place, you did in fact live long enough to see it. Congrats. :thumbs:

 

[carpro]

Republicans are pikers at spending when compared to liberals with a government checkbook.

The worst is yet to come, unless you are a big government anti American socialist.

 

[Dragoon68]

Republicans are pikers at spending when compared to liberals with a government checkbook.

The worst is yet to come, unless you are a big government anti American socialist.

Apparently there are several of those around who are pleased with what they see coming. They must be. I can't see how they couldn't have known.

 

[JustChristian]

Republicans are pikers at spending when compared to liberals with a government checkbook.

The worst is yet to come, unless you are a big government anti American socialist.

People say that but in reality it's just not true.

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm


1. The only time we have seen national debt reduction in the past 60 years was when Democrats were totally in charge of our government or when one party was in the White House and another ran Congress.

2. In the past 60 years when Republicans were in control of the presidency and both Houses of Congress, neither debt, nor government spending was ever reduced. The last time a Republican Congress reduced the national debt was in 1947, under Truman’s leadership.


Prior to the Neo-Conservative takeover of the Republican Party there was not much difference between the two parties’ debt philosophy. They both worked together to minimize it. However the debt has been on a steady incline ever since the Reagan presidency. The only exception to the steep increase over the last 30 years was during the Clinton presidency, when he brought spending under control and the debt growth down to almost zero.

Comparing the borrowing habits of the two parties since 1981, when the Neo-Conservative movement really took hold and government spending raced out of control, it is extremely obvious that the big spenders in Washington are Republicans and their party’s presidents. The only Democratic president since then, Mr. Clinton raised the national debt an average of 4.3% per year. The Republican presidents (Reagan, Bush, and Bush II) raised the debt an average of 10.8% per year. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 30 years, Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.52[6]. Any way you look at it Neo-Conservative Republican presidents cannot or will not control government spending.

 

[carpro]

People say that but in reality it's just not true.

Hide and watch.

Obama is a far different political animal than has ever occupied the oval office before.

Annual deficits will top a trillion dollars easily.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Republicans are pikers at spending when compared to liberals with a government checkbook.

The worst is yet to come, unless you are a big government anti American socialist.

Funny thought Carpo seeing as how Reagan and G. Bush, two Republicians spent more and ran up the debt to astronomical heights, while Clinton, a Democrat had a budget surplus and was beginning to pay down the debt.

 

[carpro]

Funny thought Carpo seeing as how Reagan and G. Bush, two Republicians spent more and ran up the debt to astronomical heights, while Clinton, a Democrat had a budget surplus and was beginning to pay down the debt.

My statement stands.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The only Democratic president since then, Mr. Clinton raised the national debt an average of 4.3% per year. The Republican presidents (Reagan, Bush, and Bush II) raised the debt an average of 10.8% per year. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 30 years, Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.52[6].

Why would you go and ruin a good debate with facts?

 

[saturneptune]

Every one of you should hang your head in shame defending either party about spending our tax money. What are you trying to prove? Which group is the holier group of thieves?

Think about what you are defending, two organizations controlled by self indulgent, power hungry thieves of the American people. Why don't you put things in proper perspective by comparing these two rotten to the core parties to a Holy God instead of to each other? There is not enough difference between them to be worthy of mention.

For all of you defending the Republicans, do you run your household budget by spending more and more without creating more income, never saving or give a thoguht to the debt you are accumulating?

For all you defending the Democrats, do you run your household budget by spending money like there is no tomorrow and expect your neighbor to provide the extra income and claim you balanced your budget?

Amazing.

 

[carpro]

Why would you go and ruin a good debate with facts?

The past is not under discussion. The future is.

I've made a prediction. I may be wrong.

If I've read the character and politics of Obama correctly, I'll be proven right.

If not, I'll be wrong. But it won't have anything at all to do with the economic performance of any president in the past.

Try to stay on topic, Roger. The subject is the economics of an Obama presidency, not bush or reagan or Clinton.

Sound familiar?

 

[carpro]

Every one of you should hang your head in shame defending either party about spending our tax money. What are you trying to prove? Which group is the holier group of thieves?

Think about what you are defending, two organizations controlled by self indulgent, power hungry thieves of the American people. Why don't you put things in proper perspective by comparing these two rotten to the core parties to a Holy God instead of to each other? There is not enough difference between them to be worthy of mention.

For all of you defending the Republicans, do you run your household budget by spending more and more without creating more income, never saving or give a thoguht to the debt you are accumulating?

For all you defending the Democrats, do you run your household budget by spending money like there is no tomorrow and expect your neighbor to provide the extra income and claim you balanced your budget?

Amazing.

Nice diatribe.

I have neither defended republicans nor attacked democrats in this thread.

Try dealing with that particular fact.

 

[saturneptune]

Nice diatribe.

I have neither defended republicans nor attacked democrats in this thread.

Try dealing with that particular fact.

Your default position is to attack Democrats and give Republicans a free pass for liberal policies.

The facts are quite clear. It is easier to believe in Santa Clause than to believe there is a difference in the way the parties spend our tax money.

Don't worry, your liberal buddy will be back in Crawford before you know it. Maybe you all can BBQ together.

 

[carpro]

Your default position is to attack Democrats and give Republicans a free pass for liberal policies.

I have neither attacked democrats nor praised republicans. My "default position" is purely a matter of your opinion, not fact.

Try dealing with the reality before you instead of your own pet peeve for a change.

Back on topic...

Do you agree or disagree with my analysis of Obama's future fiscal policies? Or would you like to try the straw man argument of ctb?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The past is not under discussion. The future is.

I've made a prediction. I may be wrong.

If I've read the character and politics of Obama correctly, I'll be proven right.

If not, I'll be wrong. But it won't have anything at all to do with the economic performance of any president in the past.

Try to stay on topic, Roger. The subject is the economics of an Obama presidency, not bush or reagan or Clinton.

Sound familiar?

Mea culpa. I have long been under the impression that the past is a good indication of the future. I assumed that you were in agreement with this quote:

Republicans are pikers at spending when compared to liberals with a government checkbook.

I assumed that was a statement based on your perception of what has already happened.

 

[carpro]

Mea culpa. I have long been under the impression that the past is a good indication of the future.

Apparently only when it suits you.

Obama has no past performance in this area. But he has told anyone that cares to listen what he intends to do.