portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting united states

faith & spirituality | imperialism & war

Obama an Early Student of Man Who Dedicated Book on Community Organizing to Satan

In one such book, "Rules for Radicals," Alinsky wrote: "Lest we forget at least an over the shoulder acknowledgement of the very first radical, from all our legends, mythology, and history ... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom-Lucifer."

Sen. Obama is on the public record as being an avid admirer of Saul Alinsky, the man who defined the type of community organizing in which Obama spent his younger years - years that Obama said "gave him the best education of his life." Ironically, he also said that it was during this time that he "learned the true meaning of my Christian faith."
Obama an Early Student of Man Who Dedicated Book on Community Organizing to Satan

Posted By Kathleen Gilbert On October 31, 2008 @ 12:00 am In Politics, Pro-Life | 1 Comment

In a Fox News blog column last week, contributing columnist and writer James Pinkerton re-examines a low-lying, but indisputable connection in Sen. Obama's history that, he says, voters should know about. The lines connecting Barack Obama and Saul Alinsky have in the past been explored in some detail, including in a lengthy piece published in the Washington Post in March of 2007, but have largely flown under the radar in the final leadup to November 4."Could Lucifer play a role in this presidential election?" writes Pinkerton in his column.

"It may sound crazy, but one of the candidates in this race has publicly praised, even emulated, a writer-activist who himself paid tribute to Lucifer. That's right, Lucifer, also known as the Devil, Satan, Beelzebub-you get the idea.

Pinkerton wryly observes, "If you've never heard of this true fact - and most Americans obviously haven't - well, that might help to explain why John McCain is behind in the polls."

Pinkerton explains that Obama was a disciple of Saul Alinksy, the Chicago agitator who wrote key works on the methods of left-wing revolutionaries.

In one such book, "Rules for Radicals," Alinsky wrote: "Lest we forget at least an over the shoulder acknowledgement of the very first radical, from all our legends, mythology, and history ... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom-Lucifer."

Sen. Obama is on the public record as being an avid admirer of Saul Alinsky, the man who defined the type of community organizing in which Obama spent his younger years - years that Obama said "gave him the best education of his life." Ironically, he also said that it was during this time that he "learned the true meaning of my Christian faith."

According to the Post, Obama's political career began when Alinsky's disciples hired the newly-graduated Obama, who was already a follower of Alinsky's thought, to study and implement Alinsky's methods to organize black residents of the South Side.

When The New Republic interviewed Mike Kruglik, one of Obama's early teachers in Alinsky's methods, Kruglik called Obama "the best student he ever had."

According to the Post, even after attending Harvard Law School Obama "continued to teach the Alinsky philosophy."

In his article, Pinkerton asks, "So why hasn't he [McCain] highlighted the Alinsky-Lucifer connection? Why hasn't the McCain-Palin ticket raised this issue, knowing full well that if the candidates say it, reporters have to cover it?

"Good questions."

Other than David Freddoso's book "The Case Against Barack Obama" and a smattering of Internet coverage, says Pinkerton, the "Alinksy-Lucifer" connection has gone sorely underreported.

According to Pinkerton the Obama-Alinsky connection is simply one more piece of information about Obama that, when added to the mix, helps prove that the Democratic candidate is not on the same wavelength as most Americans.

"Had McCain really gone after Ayers AND Wright AND Alinsky-Lucifer, all at once," wrote Pinkerton, "he would have had a strong argument that Obama was, and is, well out of the mainstream."

See the original FOX News blog article:
[1]  http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/23/jpinkerton_1023/

Article printed from Catholic Exchange:  http://catholicexchange.com

URL to article:  http://catholicexchange.com/2008/10/31/114321/

URLs in this post:
[1]  http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/23/jpinkerton_1023/:  http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/23/jpinkerton_1023/:  link to www.lifesitenews.com
inkerton_1023/%3E http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/23/jpinkerton_1023...%3C/a%3E

Is Fox your only source? 07.Nov.2008 09:38

unbelievable

its called "info-tainment" for a reason you moron!

wow 07.Nov.2008 09:56

..

your bias is now blinding you-
this is a very well know quote, printed in the foreword of his book, but if THAT'S not good enough for you,
here is a link to a satanist's own website devoted to followers of the Devil:
 http://www.theisticsatanism.com/politics/Alinsky.html

her article is titled:
Saul D. Alinsky
A role model for left-wing Satanists

happy?

(who's the moron?)

Wow 07.Nov.2008 12:02

redsdisease

This is the first bit of info that I've seen that gives me any hope for the Obama presidency! Here was me thinking that just another neo-liberal moderate was becoming president. Nope, it turns out he's a radical as fuck satanist. Sweet!

How to make money during a Satanic Presidency 07.Nov.2008 12:52

Opportunist

I'm investing in Pitchforks!

OBAMA ALINSKY ALLIANCE 07.Nov.2008 15:31

Lew Church, PSU Progressive Student Union lewchurch@gmail.com

A week ago in Portland, a speaker from Kensington Welfare Rights Union (Willie Baptist) in Philadelphia spoke to about 40 people at Sisters of the Road, and supported Obama but criticized Chicago organizer Saul Alinsky. Having read both Rules for Radicals and Reveille for Radicals, my thought is that Alinsky made his Lucifer/organizing comment as a way to get people to think about effectiveness, not quite adovacting satanism, per se. Besides, I thought over the past 8 years the real satanists have been Bush-Cheney.

It was odd, and interesting, at the GOP convention that Rudy Guliani trashed Obama for being a 'community organizer' like only 'real Americans' (like Sarah Palin) would be true-blue and become Wall Street lawyers (a 'real' job) after going to Harvard, etc. Or, in Palin's case, be runner-up Miss Alaska, etc.

The religious right did win a victory this week by defeating (for now, but costing $80,000,000 that could have gone to jobs, health care and education!) gay marriage. Even in 'blue' Portland, I know at least two Christian women who are actively supporting Pat Robertson's Harry Potter Boycott (which hasn't had much of a dent in sales) because Harry Potter is "witchcraft," ipso facto.

The Sisters speaker from Philadelphia, last week in Portland, seemed pretty religious-based (Christian) and said 'the economy' is the issue to organize on, with 'discussion' but with no stated specific strategy. Hopefully, Obama will have enough global support, and grassroots support via Internet domestically and internationally, to move the U.S. to the Left, as Hugo Chavez has done with/in Venezuela. In both Chavez's and Obama's cases, however, it will be useful to 'measure' what changes they have or will make, ie, on housing, jobs, health care, education, etc. Or, what changes we can force Obama to make, etc.

One of the problems with the 'lofty rhetoric' of Bill Clinton in 1992 was that in 8 years, there was hardly a single progressive victory the Clinton-Gore team achieved. Hillary actually made the biggest attempt, by trying to create a national health care system (she has come the closest to doing that in the U.S. of anyone in U.S. history, so far -- and some PSU students supported Hillary, not Obama, because her health care plan had mandates, and Obama's doesn't).

One theme noted by former Portland resident and anti-nuke organizer Norman Solomon, in supporting Obama, was that Obama 'couldn't be specific' in the election or would be seen as too radical and too far left to get elected. However, if Obama 'governs from the middle, with no ideology' he may wind up being a symbolic version of Bill Clinton and change little. While it is true that Nelson Mandela and Barack Obama are both the first black presidents of their countries (S. Africa and the U.S.), both countries face globalization and increased neoliberal poverty since neither, so far, has embraced implementing socialist/Left economic and other policies. Chavez, in Venezuela, appears to be doing far better in that regard, at this juncture. Chavez, in particular, seems to be doing at 'exporting' economic democracy, or socialism, compared with Mandela/the ANC's very neoliberal policies in Pretoria. Hopefully, as a matter of governing the world's only superpower, Obama will hew more toward Chavez (Obama's already been trashing Chavez, rhetorically) rather than Mandela.

Symbols are important, but so is (to use Obama's rhetoric) actually changing the world. Much of Hillary's critique of Obama in the primary was that rhetoric [even her husband's in the 90s] is the opposite of action-- that is, PR-spin versus actual 'organizing.' Rahm Emmanuel as White House Chief of Staff doesn't seem to bode will for the 'really changing things' rhetoric Obama's used for many years now.

******************************

503-222-2974
PO Box 40011, Portland, Oregon 97240

God was a fan of Satan too 07.Nov.2008 18:21

@

Lucifer was God's favorite angel. Does that mean God is a Satanist?

fox news reposts on portland indymedia 08.Nov.2008 02:03

yay

This "fox news" is a humor site right?

ROFLOL 08.Nov.2008 05:31

Mike Novack

An honest mistake perhaps.

Friend, that was a tongue in cheek dedication. Even if Alinsky did happen to be religious instead of atheist or agnostic it woudln't be one with a fundamentalist interpretation of a god and a devil. But more to the point, whatever he presonally believed has would surely know that a high percentage of his readers would be either atheists (disbelievers) or agnostics (nonbelievers -- and thos are very different things). In other words, he had to expect that those words would not be interpreted as indicatind he had some strange belief in the literal existence of a devil.

He simply didn't take into account that a "fundie" like youerself would be reading his words and so grossly misunderstand.

remedial web literacy 08.Nov.2008 15:43

you are not talking to the author

It's unlikely the actual author of this article posted it here. Somebody else did, and not necessarily because they agreed with it.