Team Obama Opens New Organizing for America St. Louis Office… Tea Party Breaks Out
Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, November 4, 2009, 8:53 PM
Tea Party Patriots Welcome Team Obama to St. Louis–
Team Obama opened their newest St. Louis Office tonight…
…A tea party broke out.
Team Obama held a grand opening a new Organizing for America office in south St. Louis City today. They must have received enough donations during the campaign last year that they still have money left to open new office locations.
The St. Louis Tea Party Patriots joined them at their grand opening celebrations. There were as many protesters outside as paid and unpaid activists inside the offices tonight.
The bearded lady greeted people at the front door for Team Obama. That always makes you feel welcome. It was a nice touch.
Team Obama posted their list of “buzz words” to hoodwink Americans into thinking that socialized health care was good medicine.
A few of the local Tea Party Patriots checked out the new Obama shop from inside the South St. Louis office . Left to right, that’s Bill Hennessey, Adam Sharp, Michelle Moore, Obama and me.
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Featured Story:
Horrible… Obama Tells Foolish Supporters: I’m Not Over-Spending… “I’m Running to Pay Down Our Debt”
Published May 23, 2012 at 11:51 pm - 52 Comments
Just_Saying commented:
The “beareded lady” looks mentally disabled. Be kind — many disabled people have no other friends than federally paid ones…
.
ar05075 commented:
Is this a product of stimulus money??
Is the WH counting these thugs that run the place as jobs created?
ar05075 commented:
Almost forgot,
Great spot for a Tea Party.!!! Good job St Louis. 2thumbsup.
Mark in Kansas commented:
It has to be unsettling for the OFA staffers to know they`re being watched this closely from the very first day they begin operations in a new facility. Inciting paranoia among these people from the very first day they begin operations in this new facility is an excellent tactic. Whoever it is in St. Louis coming up with these tactics to unsettle these people, my hat is off to you.
Keep up the good work.
Mark in Kansas commented:
Oh, and the picture of the local Tea Party Patriots standing in front of that deified mural of Obama is priceless.
Sally commented:
What a perfect initiation to this new office, I just love the pictures of you ‘all.
This might be a great Omen for its demise…
vitae commented:
FWIW, I agree with “Just Sayin’” — I think the inclusion of that photo and its accompanying comment were (at best) unnecessary.
Sasja commented:
I also agree with just saying and vitae. Unnecessary and unkind. Something I would expect from the left.
Opus #6 commented:
Good work, patriots!
helensharvest commented:
I’m so proud of you guys! May God keep on blessing you with such creative ideas! YOU ROCK! Love, Helen
AST commented:
There’s got to be somewhere for fired ACORN workers to get work!
“Organizing” has turned into a synonym for thuggery and anti-Americanism.
crystal commented:
Ooooo, I like the pic, Jim!
Way to be a stealth under the enemy’s radar.
jenny commented:
Excellent! Love the photos.
nobama commented:
I notice a lot of these acorn/seiu types look like simpletons.
Good job patriots
MDV commented:
Wait a minute… what’s the last item on that buzzword list? Execution? So they ARE planning death camps!
Chipper in Tennessee commented:
The “bearded lady” caption is unkind, unnecessary, and ungentlemanly. That is the kind of behavior common to our ‘progressive’ opponents and their odious websites. I expected better from you.
Miriam commented:
I am heartened by the commenters who defended the woman who gave of her time and energy to volunteer. Making fun of her appearance reflects more on the speaker than on the subject of his derision. Kindness and tolerance are the hallmarks of decent, mature human beings – these are attributes we try to teach small children, the least we can do is try to embody what we teach them as well.
J in StL commented:
The poster says it all. It’s not “Organizing For America”. I’ll bet there isn’t an American Flag there. It is “Organizing For Obama”.
He is their God. They are his servants. I have no doubt the taxpayers who they want to enslave paid for this travesty.
The Tea Party needs to add a new plank. “We are going to chase down the money this government has stolen.”
F commented:
So they’re still using the image stolen from AP? Nice touch. F
Curt commented:
No need to go after the ladies looks…Obama’s policies and the tactics of his fellow travelers are the target….
Curt commented:
s/b lady’s
Stewart commented:
I agree with those who expressed their displeasure at the unkind comment concerning the lady at the door. I understand the temptation to sink to the level of our opposition, but we’ve got to recognize it as temptation and resist it. One public display of insulting coarseness can drive many away who otherwise would be supportive of the Tea Party causes.
Solaratov commented:
I doubt that the woman on the door is any more mentally disabled than any other democrat.
But mocking her on the basis of her looks is rather beneath us. It’s not what we’re about.
OTOH, hasn’t anyone ever told her about Nair?
American Elephant commented:
Scary stuff! Mock it all we want, the truth remains that it is 2009, and Obama and the Democrats began organizing for 2012 the minute they took office. That puts in place their ground game for doorbelling, canvassing, getting out the vote….
and while Tea Party protesters should be congratulated for their protests, is there anyone or any organization on our side to match theirs?
If there is, I am unaware of it, and I am the first to admit I have no idea how to organize a ground game for an election.
They have more boots on the ground, they have more funding, everything they have done in DC since winning has been to stack the deck in their favor.
A protest is better than nothing, but this worries me. Dont we need to combat organization with organization? And how do we do it? Because I dont see it happening.
Cris commented:
Hang around any campaign long enough, and one will notice a few people who are ‘less fortunate’ than the rest of us.
Usually they are accepted with kindness.
However, Dems have a habit of emptying out the halfway houses and group homes for the sake of filling a room or getting bodies for a demonstration.
BTW, what’s she drinking?
Plasticturtle commented:
If they have excess campaign money, did they ever verify it was valid? Last year Team Obama said they were going to verify donations. I remember a lot of mickey mouse and john galts donating to the campaign last year. Did they every change their fraudulent ways for accepting money over the internet? They had every fail-safe option unchecked in the credit authorization software.
Tom63010 commented:
I actually know the lady you tagged as the bearded lady, for years she has done taxes in South County among other things. I have found to be a very pleasant individual.
Jim, I also know that her facial hair is due to of one of many medical conditions she has. As far as I know she does not live off the public.
When conservatives take cheap pot shots like that I don’t think it helps our cause!
I find it just as offensive as the liberals calling Tea Party participants Teabaggers.
bill-tb commented:
Our so-called president is one sick puppy. I wonder what would happened if Bush had set up propaganda offices all over the place.
stace commented:
That giant Obama poster gives off such an old-school, 20th century totalitarian vibe. Mao would be impressed, but it’s wildly inappropriate for an outfit that serves as an arm of a sitting US president.
Andreas K. commented:
Obama buzz words. Hmm. I like that.
Let’s start with the DETAILS of his plans and ideas.
Then let’s look at his TRAINING and the TRAINING of his minions in the White House, to see if they’re even remotely competent for the job.
Does Obie realize that every “buzz word” on the list can easily be turned against him?
Efficiency? He has none.
Flexiblity? Voting “present” most of the time is not flexibility.
Problem solving? What problems has he actually solved? Replace it with “problem creating” and you’re close.
Execution? Execution of plans needs decent leadership (which Obie does not provice).
Execution of dissenters requires hit squads (which Obie doesn’t have) and an unarmed population (which you won’t find in the US.)
Cool? Cool is no basis for government, sorry children from the far left.
Right fit? For what exactly? For being cool?
Targeted? Yes, the working Americans are targeted by a marxist, that’s never good.
Andreas K. commented:
“proviDe” of course. Meh.
Sarge commented:
How exactly does one ‘look’ “Mentally Disabled?”
What is so out-of-bounds about noting that an organization that is centered around & consists wholly of the creation and promulgation of an image, can’t even manage to have their greeter wearing clean clothing and displaying a minimum of decent public hygiene?
And why should the simple fact that someone ‘volunteered’ for something be considered a mitigation for the above?
“Volunteer” is not some sort of accolade that earns one a pass from displaying basic social grace & grooming, any more than it earns one a pass from civil behavior. Any nobility (or lack thereof) to be found in volunteerism is derived from what one volunteers to DO… not the mere fact of volunteering.
Political volunteering is usually nothing more than promoting one’s own self-interest. Nothing wrong with it, but nothing noble about it, either. And certainly nothing sanctifying about it!
I’d never feed my body at a restaurant that showed such a lack of concern for the impression made by their ‘public face’ – - why would I even consider feeding my MIND in a place with such low standards?
Miriam commented:
Sarge:
Ouch.
The poor woman doesn’t deserve what you dished out.
.
Phid commented:
Maybe Uncle Sam on stilts and the bearded lady could start a new circus act.
Sarge commented:
Miriam:
Don’t you think “poor woman” is a pretty condescending assumption to make, even in her defense?
Just asking…
submandave commented:
I have an honest question: where does the money come to open, equip, staff and run a place like this? The costs are not insignificant. If this is a group associated with the President (campaign $$, etc.), the hagiography exhibited is truly disturbing. If it is just a group of admirers, it is still troubling, but I would hope any decent person would be embarassed by the cult of personality on display.
Scott commented:
We have been labeled un-american, mobster, racist, extremist, wingnut, Stalinist, etc., etc., etc. None of which are true.
Personal attacks are off limits, but he didn’t “attack” her. He noted the greeter has facial hair. Which is obviously true.
Get over it.
Chip Bennett commented:
Ad hominem should always be off-limits. Let us not stoop ourselves to the debased level of liberal argumentation.
We question, argue, and attack ideologies, not the person espousing those ideologies.
Further, I note this statement on the First Things about page [emphasis added]:
Philippians 2:3:
Luke 6:31:
The ad hominem attack on this woman is no better than the behavior of many of the trolls who infest your comment threads on a regular basis.
Let us hold ourselves to a higher standard.
@Sarge:
How is a discussion regarding this woman’s mental ability/disability even relevant?
What is so in-bounds about attacking the person, rather than behavior or ideology? How do you know what degree of hygiene this woman displayed?
The admonition to avoid ad hominem derives from a basic understanding of human decency and respect, which should be extended to all persons, equally.
And likewise, why would I consider feeding my mind at a place that chooses to debase itself by resorting to ad hominem attacks, rather than focusing on the greater issues at hand?
As conservatives, as Christians, as respectable human beings – and any combination thereof – we must comport ourselves better than this.
Miriam commented:
‘Poor’ in the sense of not deserving to be dumped on by you or the blogger.
Get over it yourself.
.
Sarge commented:
@Chip Bennet:
“How is a discussion regarding this woman’s mental ability/disability even relevant?”
Thank you – - that was my point, in part. I was reacting to the initial comment by “Just Saying.” Not only is it impossible to tell mental disability by appearance, neither is this woman’s mental disability or lack thereof germane at all to the conversation.
“What is so in-bounds about attacking the person, rather than behavior or ideology? How do you know what degree of hygiene this woman displayed?”
Attention to hygiene IS behavior, sir. Appearing in public in a stained sweatshirt with unkept, apparently-dirty hair and a 5-o’clock shadow (whether male OR female!) when acting as a representative of an organization, is (in my humble opinion, of course – - you are welcome to yours) poor personal hygiene.
In what way did the author of the article “attack” this woman – - by describing her appearance accurately? “To the [wo]man” implies an attack, and you stated directly that the author attacked this woman…but all I see in the article is an accurate description (the lady is bearded, no denying it) and an honest reaction to how the author felt regarding this person’s effectiveness as a welcomer.
“The admonition to avoid ad hominem derives from a basic understanding of human decency and respect, which should be extended to all persons, equally.”
Excuse me; I made no ad-hominem attack in the section of my post that you chose to cite – - I was again responding to a previous poster (Miriam, in #33) who appeared to think that the act of volunteering somehow exempts a person from comment – - unless, evidently, that person is a blogger? I disagree.
“And likewise, why would I consider feeding my mind at a place that chooses to debase itself by resorting to ad hominem attacks, rather than focusing on the greater issues at hand?”
Pardon me, but aren’t you making an argument here against the very principle you are espousing?
Or do you really think that the author’s (accurate) description of the woman in question and his (presumed honest) reaction to her assignment as this facility’s greeter is the “greater issue at hand?”
To me, this appears that you are far more interested in commenting (at some length, too) upon your opinion of the behavior of other commenters, than you are desirous of actually addressing the “greater issue” of the subject of the article.
@Miriam
Pardon me, madam, but unless you know the woman in question personally, you have exactly no idea whether or not she is “deserving” or “undeserving” of anything.
You are making assumptions (the “poor” lady that “at least volunteered”) based on nothing more than your impression of her picture, in order to self-justify your decision to criticize the behavior of others… exemplifying the very behavior that you are condemning.
That strikes me as a far more offensive way to behave than “the blogger” referring (accurately) to an encounter with a bearded lady as nothing more or less than an encounter with a bearded lady.
Your yanking at the splinters of others would be more effective if you first got the plank out of your own eye.
Chip Bennett commented:
@Sarge:
My point was that, absent being present at the event, you are basing your assessment of this woman’s hygiene solely upon one photograph. Further, you are analyzing that assessment and concluding that it represented detrimental behavior. I believe that both the underlying assessment and the conclusion drawn from it are therefore specious.
Why mention her at all? What salient point does Jim make with mentioning her and including her photograph? What constructive benefit is conferred by her mention in this report?
None whatsoever.
But you were also defending the inclusion of the photograph and the ridicule of the woman depicted. How is defending ad hominem any different from the use of that ad hominem itself?
I am espousing the principle of maintaining decorum. I have a vested interest in not seeing Gateway Pundit devolve into yet another cesspool. I have a vested interest in ensuring that the message of conservatism is not diluted by memes that conservatives engage in personal attacks or any other counter-intuitive behavior.
Obviously, if I state that mention of this woman detracts from the “greater issue at hand”, then logically one can surmise that I do not believe the mention of this woman to be the “greater issue at hand”.
In fact, I believe that the mention – and particularly, derision – of this woman is so detrimental to the story that I cannot refrain from speaking against that derision.
Actually, I’ve not commented on the behavior of any commenter, but rather, have countered the argument that it is acceptable to ridicule this woman due to her physical appearance. The only behavior on which I have commented is that of Jim, in the incusion and ridicule of this woman.
And I stand by all of my above comments.
Sarge commented:
“I have a vested interest in not seeing Gateway Pundit devolve into yet another cesspool. ”
and
“The only behavior on which I have commented is that of Jim, in the incusion [sic] and ridicule of this woman.”
……
I see; so, it is your position then that you have a vested interest in protecting Jim Hoft’s blog from… Jim Hoft?
Tom63010 commented:
Mr. Bennett. I appreciate you taking on Sarge. In an earlier comment I pointed out that I know the individual in the picture. She lives at home with her mom in South County. She used to do my taxes but due to her hospitalization one year we had to make other arrangements. Although her appearance is “rough”‘, she is a very nice person.
I, like you, am disappointed that Jim decided to include her picture with a derogatory term associated with her.
I appreciate your Bible references. Here are a couple to consider:
Appearance of others:
1 Samuel 16:7 (New King James Version)
But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not look at his appearance or at his physical stature, because I have refused him. For the LORD does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.”
I do not believe that Jesus’ appearance what that of a White European but rather one who would look like a Middle Eastern person and in fact probably was not “good looking” as we would think:
Isaiah 53:2 (New King James Version)
For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, And as a root out of dry ground. He has no form or comeliness; And when we see Him, There is no beauty that we should desire Him.
vitae commented:
I am new to Gateway Pundit, and even then, am more the type to read rather than post comments. The reason I felt compelled to comment last night re: the inclusion and caption of the “bearded lady” picture was not because I was surprised that such a comment was made (I have read too many blogs to be surprised at that), nor because I do not support the right of a blogger to write whatever he or she wants to write on his or her own blog (which I do). Rather, apart from the obvious lack of charity, I was disappointed to see this on a blog on First Things’ site. ROFTers enjoy a clever, razor-sharp riposte as much as (or more than) the next person, but I fail to see how commenting on someone’s medical issues rises to the level of discussion and engagement with the issues that I have come to expect from First Things.
Chip Bennett commented:
@Sarge:
Well, if that’s how you choose to interpret my position, then so be it.
Stated another way: Jim Hoft is better than what he portrayed in this post. I respect and admire him and the work he has done with Gateway Pundit, and do not want to see him jeopardize that work or his reputation over such a juvenile act.
Chip Bennett commented:
@Tom63010:
And what witness are we now to this woman, either of conservatism or of Christ? How sad.
bg commented:
++
*sigh*..
there but for the Grace of God go (fitb)..
==
Sharon Moseid commented:
Enough about the lady with the hair. We get it everyone. That was uncalled for. Everyone needs to get to the issues. Most of you remind me of obama. He everywhere he does’nt need to be. How about this bogus so called health care. Something he nor anyone else in congress will be stuck with the way he and they want to do to us. Plus the military just to name a couple. Lets get the important issues.