Jon Doe - I agree with a lot of what the comments left on this post. Just remember that Obama is NOT a Muslim, Obama is NOT socialist and He was in fact born in the United States. Yet, he has continued almost all of G.W's empire building, spying on citizens, starting undeclared wars and selling out the economy to the highest bidder insanity.
Wednesday at 4:15am via mobile
Debby Reagan - Also Jon Doe...he was a Muslim, born and bred as one until (supposedly) he was 10 years old. He idolizes his father who was a Muslim, he BOWED before a Muslim king (MY President does NOT bow to no man...he is ALL leaders equal!), he has restricted FBI monitoring on ALL mosques here in the USA where some 80% of them preach violent jihad or distribute violent literature to worshippers, he overturned the Bush era ban on the radical Swiss born Muslim Cleric Tariq Ramadan from entering the United States, last year ordered the US government bailed out General Electric Capital Corporation to became the first Western multinational to issue an Islamic bond, and commanded that all of his governments security documents eliminate the words “Islamic extremism” and “jihad”, six American Muslim leaders who work with the Obama administration (that Obama appointed) are Muslim Brotherhood operatives who have significant influence on U.S. policy
(Arif Alikhan, assistant secretary of Homeland Security for policy development; Mohammed Elibiary, a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council; Rashad Hussain, the U.S. special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference; Salam al-Marayati, co-founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, or MPAC); Imam Mohamed Magid, president of the Islamic Society of North America, or ISNA; and Eboo Patel, a member of President Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships), appoints a Czar as the State Department’s legal advisor Harold Koh who believes America should defer to the International Court of Justice to determine legal precedents; a totally unconstitutional endeavor. (Koh is a member of the “trans-nationalism” school of legal thought that believes all distinctions between American Constitutional law and international law should vanish. Incredibly, he even believes Muslim law –Sharia law– should be applied to some disputes in US courts. Clearly, his views are in contradiction to the Constitution he swore to uphold, but no matter, he is now in charge of all legal issues for the U.S. State Department). Obama makes apologies to the Islamic world for America, and insists the “Arab Spring” was a movement toward democracy in the region despite the ascendency of the Muslim Brotherhood and the return of al-Qaida terrorism. His slight of Israel's president and he refuses to support Israel but yet supports anything Islamic is quite telling. And if all of this STILL doesn't assure you that Obama is a Muslim, then maybe HIS OWN WORDS will convince you!!!
In the 1940s Jarrett worked in several communist influenced organizations in Chicago, including serving on the publicity committee of the communist controlled Packing House Workers Strike Committee, with Frank Marshall Davis.
He also ran a radio show with Communist Party USA member Oscar Brown, Jr.
Vernon Jarrett was also a fan of Barack Obama. He watched his career from its early stages and became an influential supporter.
In 1992 Obama worked for the ACORN offshoot, Project Vote to register black voters in aid of the Senate Campaign of Carol Moseley Braun-who had strong Communist Party USA ties and was Harold Washington's legislative floor leader.
Obama helped Carol Moseley Braun win her Senate seat, then took it over himself in 2004-backed by the same communist/socialist alliance that had elected Washington and Moseley Braun. The Communist Party USA actively campaigned for Obama during his successful 2004 Illinois Senate race. Senior Chicago Communist Party USA member Bea Lumpkin, and her husband and comrade Frank Lumpkin were longtime supporters and a fans of Barack Obama. In March 2008, Barack Obama sent a message of support to the Communist Party USA controlled Cesar E. Chavez National Holiday organization: "Chavez left a legacy as an educator, environmentalist, and a civil rights leader. And his cause lives on. As farmworkers and laborers across America continue to struggle for fair treatment and fair wages, we find strength in what Cesar Chavez accomplished so many years ago. And we should honor him for what he's taught us about making America a stronger, more just, and more prosperous nation. That's why I support the call to make Cesar Chavez's birthday a national holiday. It's time to recognize the contributions of this American icon to the ongoing efforts to perfect our union."
Senator Barack Obama March 31, 2008.
I could go on...but I think this suffices to show that Obama IS A SOCIALIST... a MARXIST and a COMMUNIST without any doubt!
Wednesday at 4:53pm
(Here is the newly added visual aide for you Jon Doe)
Jon Doe - Interesting rant. Yet, I know Obama is not a socialist because I am actually a Marxist and none of Obama`s polices or decision making is in line with Marxist thought or any socialist model. At best, Obama is a servant of the Capitalist class. I really don`t put much stock into the whole `Obama conspiracy theory` because I see it as nothing more than reactionary. Yet, I am sure I am speaking to a brick wall. So, go on hating all Muslims, thinking that Obama is a socialist and the `evil commies` are coming to get you.
Wednesday at 2:14pm
Debby Reagan - LOL... it's not a conspiracy theory when it proves to be true. And I never said I hate ALL Muslims...just those who believe in either converting me or killing me if I don't convert and those who want to take away my country's Republic constitutional government and way of life. And as usual, people like you seem to overlook the 80 pound gorilla in the room by steering things away from facts and calling them conspiracy theories when they clearly and obviously are not. It is a fact that Obama was raised up around socialists, reveres them, and follows their way of thinking and teachings. It is a fact that he has clearly implemented these socialist agendas and ways that are in complete contradiction to our constitution and is trying to become a dictator that revels the reign of Stalin and Mussolini. It is a fact that the rest of the world sees him and recognizes him as a socialist. The only difference with THIS socialist is that he is a Muslim socialist, which makes him even more deadly to our way of life. So, you go right ahead and try to cloud these facts even more because to do so, will help your Marxist beliefs even further. But we Americans can not only SEE the 80 pound gorilla in the room now...but we also are now addressing how to remove it...even in spite of the socialist agenda of those in power in the White House and Marxists, Communists and Socialists worldwide who are assisting them and wishing them good fortune!
Wednesday at 2:39pm
Jon Doe - First of all, I am an American so you are not speaking for me when you say `we Americans` Second, the CPA has not been an actual Communist Party for a very long time. Saying the CPA is communist is like saying the Communist Party of China is still communist. Third, again considering that fact that I am a Marxist I can tell you with high confidence that Obama is not a socialist. There are many American Marxist who have no love for Obama. The only communist in the United States who support Obama are the higher ups and their rank and file lackeys in the joke that is the CPA. Fourth, I have been living overseas in Asia for many years now and I have never been to any Asian country in which it is commonly believed that Obama is a socialist. I also have many friends from all over the world and none of them believe that Obama is a socialist; it is something that only right-wing Americans believe. Lastly, let me repeat this again that none of Obama`s policies or decisions reflect any attempt to establish any socialist model. His policies do reflect a desire to increase the power of the American police state and further along the globalization of economies to achieve a global capitalist agenda.
Wednesday at 2:53pm
Debby Reagan - Ok, let me reword it...us Republic Constitutionalist Americans, better? Second, the CPA was considered by all means to have been a communist party at the time when Obama was growing up and being affected by it. The CPA even considered themselves communists back then. Just because they might not be effectively thought as communists NOW, doesn't mean that they weren't then. And third, just because a lot of American Marxists don't consider Obama a socialist, doesn't mean that he doesn't have many socialist ideas enough to be considered one by us Republic Constitutionalists! He embraces too many ideologies of socialism that is in contradiction to what our country was built upon and embraces! Fourthly, I don't know where you have been or who your many friends are, but it is clear that the European Union Times considers Obama a socialist. French socialist Francois Hollande’s and Obama’s platforms are virtual carbon copies, and Hollande is quite open about and proud of being a socialist.There can be no doubt that Obama is a socialist in the European reform-Marxism tradition. In France, Obama would be the candidate of the French socialist party. In Spain, he would be at home in the Socialist Worker’s Party. In Germany, Obama would be torn between the Social Democrats and Die Linke. In “Old Europe,” the welfare state is well entrenched. Elections are about tinkering at the margin. The United States has still to decide whether it wants the European welfare state or not. Obama does. So, is Obama a "true" socialist? Maybe not...yet! But he thinks too much like one and has as he said been well educated in the beliefs of one of the best known Marxist in America, Saul Alinsky, teachings and beliefs to be called any friend of a Republic Constitutional form of government. So, in that vein of view...yes, he's a socialist!
Wednesday at 4:24pm
Jon Doe - I am not going to not comment on all the reactionary comments in your last post. Although, I will comment on what you are trying to express. Many people, and groups, can call themselves Communist or socialist but that does not make it so at all. A person can be educated by someone who has Marxist beliefs but that does not make one a Marxist. Heck, I had two professors in University who taught Marxist ideas, in West Virginia no less, and they were not what influenced me to become a Marxist; life made me a Marxist. There are many political parties and vanguard parties out in the world who say they are `for the worker` but often they are full of donkey dung and only playing the fool at the king`s feast. There are actual Communist and Red groups in the world today fighting for a better future for the common man and women but usually those groups are not talked about by the right-wing because those groups are actually effecting things in a real and material way; i.e. the Maoist in Nepal as one example. Instead, the right-wing likes to mention what we `commies` like to refer to as `lipstick Communist.`They talk a big game but don`t work toward changing anything. Hollande in France is a good example of that.
Wednesday at 4:18pm
Debby Reagan - Jon...we have an old saying up here in the northeast...when you lay down with dogs that have fleas, chances are quite good that you'll get up with fleas. And so it is with life. So, even though technically true that being around a Marxist doesn't a Marxist make of one, if you have been brought up in your formative years with socialistic views, if you say that a Marxist's socialist beliefs are seared into your brain and has given you the best education of your life, what are the chances that you yourself aren't at least in part, a socialist? Life made Obama an Islamic socialistic sympathizer in the least and a true Islamic socialist at the most. And as far as what "commies" have done for the working man and women, well, I'll leave that for a discussion at a different time, for it is off topic here. But, I will say this much...tell your story of commie helpfulness to the estimated 20 million people killed by Stalin, the 45 million killed by Mao and the 11 million people Hitler killed. Bet they'd all disagree with your viewpoint on that! These 'commies' ruined their countries and it took many years for their people to reconstruct them. So, your kind of change, I'll pass on, tyvm! And as you'll point out, not all 'commies' are the same, so too goes for 'right-wingers'.
Wednesday at 4:52pm ·
Jon Doe - I am a citizen of America. I was born in America and grew up in America. To suggest that someone who does not share your `ideas` should toss away their US citizenship is not only insulting but expresses a sense of fascism which have been brewing in American society for a while now. (NOTE: this was a comment made to another commentator who suggested that Doe should find another country that fits his belief system.) If any president is violating the US Constitution they should be kicked out of office. Yet, where was the right-wing when G.W. was doing many of the exact same things Obama has kept doing? All silent back then as I remember. It was all gun-ho `American is number one!` Now that a different political faction hold the position of president in the `liberal democracy` style of government America practices, the right-wing suddenly starts screaming about violations of the constitution. It is nothing more than bourgeois politics at it`s ugly finest. Sadly, the average American is taken along for the ride every time. If it`s `our guy` then everything is all gravy, but if it is `their guy` then he must be the devil. BTW the phrase `playing semantics` is usually used as a bailing out of dealing with actual material conditions.
Wednesday at 3:31pm
Debby Reagan - And for the record Jon...I was just as upset with Georgie boy when he too turned 'turn coat" and did these things! So, I'm just as appalled by his "socialistic" tendencies. But with that said, he (Bush) was just a wee school boy compared to Obama! Obama is (being conservative here) 10 times worse and is in a vastly different playground altogether from Bush!
Wednesday at 4:52pm
Jon Doe - The US constitution is one of the most interesting docs ever written IMO. It has a lot of good ideas which have never really been fully practiced in America. Religion and politics have always been connected at the hip in America. Try to get elected in America without at least stating that you are a Christian and see what happens. If Americans really want separation of church and state then stop voting for people who profess a belief in a higher power. `All men are created equal` that has never been true in American society. The fourth Amendment, that has never been followed all that closely. The first amendment, just talk to any right-winger for about 15 minutes and one will clearly see how such ideas are viewed by people. I could go on and on and really give detailed case examples of how the US constitution has never really been followed all that closely in the USA.
Wednesday at 4:32pm
Jon Doe - I hate to break it to you but the 'American experiment' was never intended to 'free' anyone. It was a revolution spurred by land owning, slave owning white men who did not want to pay their taxes. Those are the kind of people who founded America. It has been though many struggle, worker and even leftist movements that any strive towards freedom and equality has happened in America at all. The founding principles of America did not give women the right to vote and made slavery legal and protected legally. It is things like what I just mentioned which make the founding principles of America argument hard for a lot of people to follow.
Wednesday at 4:48pm via mobile
Debby Reagan - No Jon...you are wrong. The revolution was in 1776 and started due to King George's taxing the people here but giving them no voice in the political arena over there. What you are referring to is the Civil War. (And, you're wrong about the true reasonof why the Civil War started too!). The 'American Experiment' was coined that after a Frenchman visited America and wrote a book on democracy in America LONG AFTER the pilgrims voyage here. First, we're a Republic, not a democracy and second, the pilgrims who came here didn't consider this an 'experiment'. They came here to escape religious persecution from the Church of England. So yes, it WAS to free people! And these pilgrims did not own slaves. So if you're going to state America's history, then state it correctly. Slavery didn't start in America and was brought to America in 1619. So, by the time our founding fathers made America in 1776, slavery was entrenched. Even though a good number of them owned slaves, not all did. And by vast majority, these slave owning founding fathers exhibited considerable aversion to slavery during the era of the Articles of Confederation (1781–89) by prohibiting the importation of foreign slaves to individual states and lending their support to a proposal by Jefferson to ban slavery in the Northwest Territory. But, the Founders demonstrated their commitment to maintaining the unity of the new United States by resolving to diffuse sectional tensions over slavery. To this end the Founders drafted a series of constitutional clauses acknowledging deep-seated regional differences over slavery while requiring all sections of the new country to make compromises as well. They granted slaveholding states the right to count three-fifths of their slave population when it came to apportioning the number of a state’s representatives to Congress, thereby enhancing Southern power in the House of Representatives. But they also used this same ratio to determine the federal tax contribution required of each state, thus increasing the direct federal tax burden of slaveholding states. Georgians and South Carolinians won a moratorium until 1808 on any Congressional ban against the importation of slaves, but in the meantime individual states remained free to prohibit slave imports if they so wished. Southerners also obtained the inclusion of a fugitive slave clause (see Fugitive Slave Acts) designed to encourage the return of runaway slaves who sought refuge in free states, but the Constitution left enforcement of this clause to the cooperation of the states rather than to the coercion of Congress. So, they did start to end slavery even in the beginning. And it did eventually get done. But the founding fathers considered keeping the states united as a country more important than giving ALL men the freedoms stated in the founding documents. And as far as women's rights from the founding principles...well, that has been more of a sexist problem and has been a worldwide problem since the beginning of time and even though wrong, can't be blamed on the founding fathers as they were a product of their times and had yet to be enlightened. The whole point is though, that eventually, it has worked out. And even though not perfect, it is the best "experiment" of a true Constitutional Republic form of government ever accomplished. And we Republic Constitutionalists want to keep it that way...and constantly striving to become better. That's why your Marxist beliefs, and what the US Government has done to erode this Republic cannot, and will not, be tolerated by us! It is NOT our way and we have the right, as all other countries do, to keep our founding ways and not have to explain why or apologize for it!
Wednesday at 6:00pm
Jon Doe - I have been to DC many times for many different reasons. I have seen all the monuments and read all the cute statements. Yet, the US Constitution says separation of church and state and that has never really been true at all.
Wednesday at 4:34pm
Debby Reagan - Once again Jon...you're wrong. Nowhere in our Constitution does it say that church and state are to be separate. What the 1st Amendment says is: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. And what this means is that this amendment prevents the establishment of a national religion, prohibits government aid to any religion, even on an non-preferential basis, as well as protecting the right of the individual to choose to worship, or not, as he or she sees fit. That's it. Nowhere does it state that the church can't be involved in political affairs and that those in politics can't be involved in church affairs! It only stops the government from religious dictatorship and preference (like what the pilgrims escaped from with the Church of England) and persecuting anyone who thought differently on religious beliefs (or the lack of any beliefs!). The "wall of separation" was written by Thomas Jefferson about what the 1st Amendment was about and the phrase is commonly thought to mean of what was just stated above that the GOVERNMENT itself should not establish, support, or otherwise involve itself in any religion on the behalf of the nation's people.
