The President's campaign to bankroll college protests. Literally, his former campaign, "Obama for America." That's what they do now.
The senseless protests we’re seeing break out on the campuses of the University of Missouri, Yale and other colleges, as well as on bridges and highway overpasses and outside police stations, are precisely the kind of thing Obama was trained to organize while attending leftist agitation schools founded by Chicago communist Saul Alinsky.... Now Obama is returning the favor of his Alinsky masters, training and cloning an army of social justice bullies to carry on his revolution to “fundamentally transform America.” He’s doing it mainly through a little-known but well-funded group called Organizing for Action, or OFA, which will outlast his administration.

OFA, formerly Obama for America, has trained more than 10,000 leftist organizers, who, in turn, are training more than 2 million youths in Alinsky street tactics. The leftist group, which recently registered as a 501c4 nonprofit eligible for unlimited contributions, holds regular “organizing summits” on college campuses.


Anonymous said...

Names of the people being paid would be helpful. This is a start.


Ymar Sakar said...

It's like people think there's no unified command hierarchy here. That everything is "coincidental".

It's like they failed strategy and logistics analysis.

Grim said...

Well, nobody doubts that OFA is a conspiracy of a sort. Like Acorn before them, that's what they do.

Ymar Sakar said...

OFA is an organization. If you think every organization is a "conspiracy", you run into analysis problems later on.

Grim said...

OFA is a conspiracy as well as an organization. During 2008, it was conspiring to defraud the Democratic caucuses -- a point Clinton's organizations caught them out on, and even made a documentary about, but nobody cared. OFA was 'organizing' better than the Clintons were. The two organizations were working against each other, as to some degree they are today.

Ymar Sakar said...

That's only the stuff they allow you to know about, Grim. If your definition of a "conspiracy" is what your logical functions can see, then by definition, you are blind to all the other stuff which you don't see.

"The two organizations were working against each other, as to some degree they are today."

Which leads to the idea that soldiers following ROE is a conspiracy while they are competing against each other's branches. Following orders doesn't require a conspiracy. And Marines competing against Army, isn't a conspiracy either.

Your model is insufficient to predict the outcomes, Grim. Because your model is based on information that they allow you to have, that has been leaked by forces outside of your control.

Ymar Sakar said...

and even made a documentary about

I've watched portions of a video made by Democrats for HRClinton. That covered some of it. Most of it was Axel Rod and Chicago machine politics beating HRC's feminist machine.

So far you've labeled "conspiracies" things that succeeded and have happened in the past, based on information other people leaked or acquired. That is a predictive model good for whose OODA in war?

It's reactive, not predictive at all, for a model.

If you're looking for this "conspiracy" to be proven and exposed concerning the larger Leftist alliance, you would naturally be waiting until they succeeded.

Which is why your way of handling the data management and information load concerning labels like 'conspiracy' isn't what I use. It is not useful as other models. It is going defensive, allowing other people to manage your information streams, and set you to react in OODA. It leads ultimately to a strategic and tactical defeat. It cannot predict outcomes until after it has happened and "proof" has been presented. By that time, it is too late to act.

Grim said...

If your definition of a "conspiracy" is what your logical functions can see...

What on earth makes you think that's my definition? A conspiracy is defined by its actuality, not by epistemology.

Ymar Sakar said...

Labels are what blinds you to truly accurate predictive models, Grim. They are approximations, and often failures at that.

And it is epistemology which divides people in this country.

The higher priority of those who wish to survival isn't to ask whether they are being followed by a "conspiracy", it is 'Intentional' vs 'unintentional'. It is not about trying to dig up proof, after one's dead in an ambush, that it was a "conspiracy" to convince some lawyers and judges.