Does Mitt Romney’s “Entitled” Remarks Change Your Opinion of Him?

Obama's founding Fathers were. And Every one can google to verify.
1. BARACK OBAMA SR. extreme left wing socialist , believes taxes even up to the 100 percent level. You will receive it back in the form of welfare.
2. FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS,American Communist Party just after the 1939 Hitler-Stalin pact,Davis was on the FBI’s Security Index list, entailing that this hardcore Communist and “loyal Soviet patriot” would have been arrested if conflict started between Russia and America.
3. WILLIAM AYERS and his wife Bernadine Dohrn, who hosted meetings at their Chicago home introducing Obama during his 1995 Illinois State Senate run. Responsible for bombing the pentagon and the capitol building in 1971.
4. ALICE PALMER: Obama’s predecessor in the Illinois State Senate attended the 27th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and came away favorably impressed by the Soviet system.
5. GREGORY GALLUZZO : schooled Obama in Alinsky tactics. The Developing Communities Project, Obama’s first employer in Chicago, was part of the Gamaliel network of organizations.
6. MIKE KRUGLIK helped train Obama on Alinsky organizing methods. Kruglik was also involved in 2007 with indoctrinating Obama campaign volunteers on Alinsky methods 7. REV JEREMIAH WRIGHT: Rev. Wright was a close friend of the Obamas. He officiated their wedding, baptized their children, and Obama regularly touted his 20-year membership in Chicago’s . memorable anti-American screeds, Rev. Wright said, “The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, G-D –D--N America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people
8. Rounding out Obama’s social circle are various academics such as the PLO/Yasser Arafat apologists Rashid Khalidi and Edward Said, a professor of Obama’s at Columbia University, and Obama’s Harvard University Law School professor Roberto Unger, who proclaims himself in a self-description as a “leftist and by conviction as well as temperament a revolutionary.”



ALINSKY METHOD - WHAT IS IT AND HOW IT IS APPLIED

You might ask what is the Alinsky Method ...Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals "Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul..."

-- Thomas Paine
Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins -- or which is which), 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.

-- Saul Alinsky
"What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away."

***Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution.***( THUS THE 2008 ELECTION !!) sound familiar yet/// it will......
To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families – more than seventy million people – whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971]. They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default.
(THE BRAIN WASHING0 For Alinsky, organizing is the process of highlighting whatever he believed to be wrong and convincing people they can actually do something about it. The two are linked. THE organizer from outside — must first overcome suspicion and establish credibility.

Next the organizer must begin the task of agitating: rubbing resentments, fanning hostilities, and searching out controversy. This is necessary to get people to participate. An organizer has to attack apathy and disturb the prevailing patterns of complacent community life where people have simply come to accept a situation.
Alinsky would say,The first step in community organization is community disorganization."

Through a process combining HOPE and resentment, the organizer creates a "mass army" that brings in as many recruits as possible from local organizations, churches, services groups, labor unions, corner gangs, and individuals.

Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. LACK OF ATTENTION TO THE ECONOMY !! “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
AND LAST !!! Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. THIS IS WHAT YOUR PRESIDENT KNOWS ALL TO WELL HE WAS RAISE IN IT. MENTORED IT.. SOUGHT OUT FRIENDS , ASSOCIATES, HE STUDIED IT IN COLLEGE SOUGHT PROFESSORS WHO TAUGHT IT.. AND THEN BE CAME IT. AS A COMMUNITY ORGANIZER !!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I checked some of this out . Didn't want to waste time on the rest. Here are some of the sources I found for the Glenn Marshall Davis conspiracy theory.

The American Thinker (another right wing rag for non-thinkers)

Free Republic (Freepers launched campaigns against CBS's Dan Rather, when he exposed Bush, truthfully but with faulty evidence, The Dixie Chicks when they protested against the war in Iraq, and for the non existent Whitewater scandal of Bill Clinton's that cost us 1/4 billion. Couldn't find anything so they had to resort to embarrassing Clinton into telling a lie about a personal affair and Impeaching him. (like I know no republicans ever tell lies.) costing us millions more, and some have even threatened to assassinate Clinton.

Joseph Farah's " WND " ( another right wing hack and associate of Rush Limbaugh)

Alex Jones's " Info Wars " (Conspiracy theorist from the right wing)

Glenn Beck's " The Blaze". ( self explanatory)

All of these are right wing rags I have checked in the past and found to be disreputable and packed with lies and conspiracy theories. If what they say were true about Obama's true origins, they could have easily picked up some of Obama's DNA left behind somewhere and compared it with some from his half brother to disprove who he says his real father is. Why not? This is all I had time for but I definitely see a pattern. Shame on you for spreading this garbage to the electorate. No wonder the people are so misguided. And if you want to demonize the left, first take a look at what a much smarter man than us (Albert Einstein) has said about pure capitalism.


"Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept “society” means to the individual human being, the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is “society” which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.”

I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.

For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call “workers” all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production—although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is “free,” what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists’ requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the “free labor contract” for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from “pure” capitalism.

Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers’ goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career."

Albert Einstein

Einstein is saying you right wing extremists are crippled souls.