Jesse Jackson Says "Prepare for a new America".

[JBond]

Scary stuff. Muslims are his priority. Israel, not so much.


http://www.nypost.com/seven/10142008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_o_jesse_knows_133450.htm?page=0He

Last updated: 12:34 pm
October 14, 2008
Posted: 1:35 am
October 14, 2008
EVIAN, FRANCE
PREPARE for a new America: That's the message that the Rev. Jesse Jackson conveyed to participants in the first World Policy Forum, held at this French lakeside resort last week.

He promised "fundamental changes" in US foreign policy - saying America must "heal wounds" it has caused to other nations, revive its alliances and apologize for the "arrogance of the Bush administration."

The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where "decades of putting Israel's interests first" would end.

Jackson believes that, although "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades" remain strong, they'll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama (http://www.nypost.com/news/p/obama_barack/obama_barack.htm) enters the White House.

"Obama is about change," Jackson told me in a wide-ranging conversation. "And the change that Obama promises is not limited to what we do in America itself. It is a change of the way America looks at the world and its place in it."

Jackson warns that he isn't an Obama confidant or adviser, "just a supporter." But he adds that Obama has been "a neighbor or, better still, a member of the family." Jackson's son has been a close friend of Obama for years, and Jackson's daughter went to school with Obama's wife Michelle.

"We helped him start his career," says Jackson. "And then we were always there to help him move ahead. He is the continuation of our struggle for justice not only for the black people but also for all those who have been wronged."

Will Obama's election close the chapter of black grievances linked to memories of slavery? The reverend takes a deep breath and waits a long time before responding.
"No, that chapter won't be closed," he says. "However, Obama's victory will be a huge step in the direction we have wanted America to take for decades."

Jackson rejects any suggestion that Obama was influenced by Marxist ideas in his youth. "I see no evidence of that," he says. "Obama's thirst for justice and equality is rooted in his black culture."

But is Obama - who's not a descendant of slaves - truly a typical American black?
Jackson emphatically answers yes: "You don't need to be a descendant of slaves to experience the oppression, the suffocating injustice and the ugly racism that exists in our society," he says. "Obama experienced the same environment as all American blacks did. It was nonsense to suggest that he was somehow not black enough to feel the pain."
Is Jackson worried about the "Bradley effect" - that people may be telling pollsters they favor the black candidate, but won't end up voting for him?

I don't think this is how things will turn out," he says. "We have a collapsing economy and a war that we have lost in Iraq. In Afghanistan, we face a resurgent Taliban. New threats are looming in Pakistan. Our liberties have been trampled under feet . . . Today, most Americans want change, and know that only Barack can deliver what they want. Young Americans are especially determined to make sure that Obama wins."

He sees a broad public loss of confidence in the nation's institutions: "We have lost confidence in our president, our Congress, our banking system, our Wall Street and our legal system to protect our individual freedoms. . . I don't see how we could regain confidence in all those institutions without a radical change of direction."

Jackson declines to be more concrete about possible policy changes. After all, he insists, he isn't part of Obama's policy team. Yet he clearly hopes that his views, reflecting the position of many Democrats, would be reflected in the policies of an Obama administration.

On the economic front, he hopes for "major changes in our trading policy."
"We cannot continue with the open-door policy," he says. "We need to protect our manufacturing industry against unfair competition that destroys American jobs and creates ill-paid jobs abroad."

Would that mean an abrogation of the NAFTA treaty with Canada and Mexico?
Jackson dismisses the question as "premature": "We could do a great deal without such dramatic action."

His most surprising position concerns Iraq. He passionately denounces the toppling of Saddam Hussein as "an illegal and unjust act." But he's now sure that the United States "will have to remain in Iraq for a very long time."

What of Obama's promise to withdraw by 2010? Jackson believes that position will have to evolve, reflecting "realities on the ground."

"We should work with our allies in Iraq to consolidate democratic institutions there," he says. "We must help the people of Iraq decide and shape their future in accordance with their own culture and faith."

On Iran, he strongly supports Obama's idea of opening a direct dialogue with the leadership in Tehran. "We've got to talk to tell them what we want and hear what they want," Jackson says. "Nothing is gained by not talking to others."

Would that mean ignoring the four UN Security Council resolutions that demand an end to Iran's uranium-enrichment program? Jackson says direct talks wouldn't start without preparations.

"Barack wants an aggressive and dynamic diplomacy," he says. "He also wants adequate preparatory work. We must enter the talks after the ground has been prepared," he says.

Jackson is especially critical of President Bush's approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
"Bush was so afraid of a snafu and of upsetting Israel that he gave the whole thing a miss," Jackson says. "Barack will change that," because, as long as the Palestinians haven't seen justice, the Middle East will "remain a source of danger to us all."
"Barack is determined to repair our relations with the world of Islam and Muslims," Jackson says. "Thanks to his background and ecumenical approach, he knows how Muslims feel while remaining committed to his own faith."

[numnuts23]

Another reason not to vote for Obama.

[JBond]

Why would we hold top level direct talks with the leader of Iran? He has sworn to eliminate Israel from the face of the earth. I wonder if this will be before, after or during the invasion of Pakistan. Iran is providing weapons, training and personnel to our enemies in Iraq. They are directly responsible for many of the problems in the middle east.

But all hail Barack. He will use his Jedi powers and suddenly they will love all their neighbors and there will be peace and harmony though out the universe.

Go Barack! Jedi warrior.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Jesse Jackson

JESSE JACKSON!

He is a prime example of why we need term limits.

I could be soak and wet standing next to Jesse Jackson in the middle of a tropical storm. He could tell me it is raining and I would probably still not trust his word or think he was trying to pull a con.

There are very few things that both Republicans and Democrats agree...one of the few is Israel.

Call me crazy but I don't think I am going to take the word of one Jesse "h**** town" Jackson.

[Bob Sacamano]

Barak will erase racism

cure AIDS

bring peace to the Middle East

awwww**** him!

[zrinkill]

Barrack will do what he thinks is right.

Half the Country will agree with him .... Half will not.

Same thing with McCain if he wins.

[JBond]

Barrack will do what he thinks is right.

Half the Country will agree with him .... Half will not.

Same thing with McCain if he wins.

I'm not convinced half the country approves of us throwing Israel aside in favor of Iran. I'm also not sure we have the forces to open a third front in Pakistan.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I'm not convinced half the country approves of us throwing Israel aside in favor of Iran. I'm also not sure we have the forces to open a third front in Pakistan.

I'm not convinced you are silly enough to actually believe he would throw aside Israel in favor of Iran.

[Maikeru-sama]

Alot of dumb comments in this thread, including the ones made by Jesse Jackson.

I doubt too much will change when Barack Obama is president.

The MAIN issue I have with Barack Obama is I don't know if he understands that he can't be a big spender during this current economic downturn.

However, I doubt government spending would decrease if John McCain were president either.

[MetalHead]

Barrack will do what he thinks is right.

Half the Country will agree with him .... Half will not.

Same thing with McCain if he wins.

I don't think Barack's half of the country really knows what they are playing with.
Go to the Stern thread and see what I'm talking about.

[Bach]

Alot of dumb comments in this thread, including the ones made by Jesse Jackson.

I doubt too much will change when Barack Obama is president.

The MAIN issue I have with Barack Obama is I don't know if he understands that he can't be a big spender during this current economic downturn.

However, I doubt government spending would decrease if John McCain were president either.

So Obama's lying when he says he'll bring change???

[Cajuncowboy]

I'm not convinced you are silly enough to actually believe he would throw aside Israel in favor of Iran.

Well,

Edward Said might tell you different if he were still alive.

:bang2:

[JBond]

I'm not convinced you are silly enough to actually believe he would throw aside Israel in favor of Iran.

Help me understand what he is saying. Obama says he will scrap our missile defense system. He also says he will meet with the leader of Iran. He said he will invade Pakistan. He also said he will cut our armed forces. Why is that a good thing?

[Maikeru-sama]

So Obama's lying when he says he'll bring change???

Yep, just like John McCain is lying when he says he is going to bring reform to Washington.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Help me understand what he is saying. Obama says he will scrap our missile defense system. He also says he will meet with the leader of Iran. He said he will invade Pakistan. He also said he will cut our armed forces. Why is that a good thing?

What does any of that have to do with putting Iran before Israel?

Look you can either be acting silly or really be silly in thinking he would scrap Israel for Iran if you want.

But I don't see it because it is one of the few things both parties agree on and there is a reason they both agree on it.

[JBond]

What does any of that have to do with putting Iran before Israel?

Look you can either be acting silly or really be silly in thinking he would scrap Israel for Iran if you want.

But I don't see it because it is one of the few things both parties agree on and there is a reason they both agree on it.

What makes you so sure Obama cares at all about Israel? His trainers (Wright, Ayers, Farrakhan, Jackson) hate Israel. We know many democrats in congress have no use for Israel. Ron Paul nuts believe we should let the chips fall where they may. Might as well kiss Israel goodbye.

[BrAinPaiNt]

What makes you so sure Obama cares at all about Israel? His trainers (Wright, Ayers, Farrakhan, Jackson) hate Israel. We know many democrats in congress have no use for Israel. Ron Paul nuts believe we should let the chips fall where they may. Might as well kiss Israel goodbye.

Ok...nevermind.

I guess I was wrong to think you were just being silly. Now I know.

[Bach]

So Obama's lying when he says he'll bring change???

Yep

At least your honest

[Kangaroo]

So Obama's lying when he says he'll bring change???

Yes

Both Candidates are look no further than the yes vote for the Bailout Bill

Neither one stood up and said hey what is all this extra stuff that has nothing to do with the Bailout nope they just made a checkmark for yes to make it look like they where doing something.

Instead we got the same politics we have gotten before; nothing changed they had their chance to back their words with action and we got what the same old song and dance.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Yes

Both Candidates are look no further than the yes vote for the Bailout Bill

Neither one stood up and said hey what is all this extra stuff that has nothing to do with the Bailout nope they just made a checkmark for yes to make it look like they where doing something.

Instead we got the same politics we have gotten before; nothing changed they had their chance to back their words with action and we got what the same old song and dance.

Yep...it was simply amazing how it went from 2-3 pages to something like 10 to over 400 pages in a matter of days.

That is some serious writing and bull going into that thing and the funny thing is I am willing to bet there are senators and congress men who have not even read it. They probably had aids write the stuff and just give them a summary of the completed product.

[Angus]

Barrack will do what he thinks is right.

Half the Country will agree with him .... Half will not.

Same thing with McCain if he wins.

Yes. That's the way it will start out. But four years is enough time to instill a particular way of thinking if instillation becomes the dominant purpose of a regime with all the tools. A change in thinking is what can come about.

I do not think McCain has the drive any longer to effect such a social change in the face of the overwhelming advantage liberals have in academia and MSM journalism. Sarah Palin does, I think, but it won't be her call unless she jumps the traces, should McCain win. If he wins, the division later may be as much as 57 - 43.

But Michelle Obama has the drive, I think, and if her husband is elected she'll have the instrument to accomplish a dramatic twist in the way Americans look at everything. She is angry; he is not; he is merely an ambitious, glib, useful idiot as far as she is concerned, I believe. I think he will do what she tells him to do, what Michelle thinks is right.

At the end of Obama's four years, Reverend Wright, Louis Farrakhan, and Father Pfleger will be national heroes and William Ayers or Bernadine Dohrn (or both) will be on the Supreme Court, to the satisfaction of just about everybody. The division won't be 50 - 50 any more; it will be 80 - 20.

Think that's impossible? Look at what mass hysteria has been manufactured from whole cloth by fringe groups backed up by MSM and a group of biased "experts" in the case of "global warming." Just a little while ago it was "acid rain." Think of Political Correctness. The American public is gullible - a large part of it - particularly, the young, and the liberals are good at manipulating it.

Jesse Jackson is right. If Obama is elected, drastic change is coming.

:eek:

[theogt]

New America. Same as the old America.

[Maikeru-sama]

Yes. That's the way it will start out. But four years is enough time to instill a particular way of thinking if instillation becomes the dominant purpose of a regime with all the tools. A change in thinking is what can come about.

I do not think McCain has the drive any longer to effect such a social change in the face of the overwhelming advantage liberals have in academia and MSM journalism. Sarah Palin does, I think, but it won't be her call unless she jumps the traces, should McCain win. If he wins, the division later may be as much as 57 - 43.

But Michelle Obama has the drive, I think, and if her husband is elected she'll have the instrument to accomplish a dramatic twist in the way Americans look at everything. She is angry; he is not; he is merely an ambitious, glib, useful idiot as far as she is concerned, I believe. I think he will do what she tells him to do, what Michelle thinks is right.

At the end of Obama's four years, Reverend Wright, Louis Farrakhan, and Father Pfleger will be national heroes and William Ayers or Bernadine Dohrn (or both) will be on the Supreme Court, to the satisfaction of just about everybody. The division won't be 50 - 50 any more; it will be 80 - 20.

Think that's impossible? Look at what mass hysteria has been manufactured from whole cloth by fringe groups backed up by MSM and a group of biased "experts" in the case of "global warming." Just a little while ago it was "acid rain." Think of Political Correctness. The American public is gullible - a large part of it - particularly, the young, and the liberals are good at manipulating it.

Jesse Jackson is right. If Obama is elected, drastic change is coming.

:eek:

More scare tactics I see.

The same tactics were used against John Kennedy as well.

[DallasCowpoke]

Jesse Jackson

He is a prime example of why we need term limits.

Jackson's not in politics, what exactly would we be putting term limits on that would affect him?

[BrAinPaiNt]

Jackson's not in politics, what exactly would we be putting term limits on that would affect him?

He was at one time for DC.

[DallasCowpoke]

He was at one time for DC.

You might wanna do a little research on what a "Shadow Senator (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/15/AR2007011501055.html)" is.

[Cajuncowboy]

More scare tactics I see.

The same tactics were used against John Kennedy as well.

I love it when people use the term "Scare tactics". This is the same term they used on McCain when he sounded the alarm about fannie mae and freddie mac.

People say "Scare Tactics" when anyone says something is a danger and they have no response to it.

I guess when I was a kid and my mom said to look both ways before you cross the street, it was just a scare tactic.

[Maikeru-sama]

I love it when people use the term "Scare tactics". This is the same term they used on McCain when he sounded the alarm about fannie mae and freddie mac.

People say "Scare Tactics" when anyone says something is a danger and they have no response to it.

I guess when I was a kid and my mom said to look both ways before you cross the street, it was just a scare tactic.

When people say like the below, there is no need to offer an intelligent response:


But Michelle Obama has the drive, I think, and if her husband is elected she'll have the instrument to accomplish a dramatic twist in the way Americans look at everything. She is angry; he is not; he is merely an ambitious, glib, useful idiot as far as she is concerned, I believe. I think he will do what she tells him to do, what Michelle thinks is right.


At the end of Obama's four years, Reverend Wright, Louis Farrakhan, and Father Pfleger will be national heroes and William Ayers or Bernadine Dohrn (or both) will be on the Supreme Court, to the satisfaction of just about everybody. The division won't be 50 - 50 any more; it will be 80 - 20.

[Cajuncowboy]

When people say like the below, there is no need to offer an intelligent response:

But you say that after most posts sounding the alarm regarding Obama's policies.

BTW, I agree that that post was over the top as well.

[Maikeru-sama]

But you say that after most posts sounding the alarm regarding Obama's policies.

BTW, I agree that that post was over the top as well.

No I don't.

I can be found criticizing both camps. When the first post came out about ACORN, I even said the FBI needed to go down there, investigate and put some folks in jail.

As I stated many times, I don't care about The Keating Five, I don't care about Rev. Wright, McCain's fights with Cancer, Bill Ayers, Obama being a terrorists etc etc.

I just don't.

[Cajuncowboy]

No I don't.

I can be found criticizing both camps. When the first post came out about ACORN, I even said the FBI needed to go down there, investigate and put some folks in jail.

As I stated many times, I don't care about The Keating Five, I don't care about Rev. Wright, McCain's fights with Cancer, Bill Ayers, Obama being a terrorists etc etc.

I just don't.

Curious. Why do you not care about their associations? Especially once that were heavily invested in someone? That seems odd to me. Would you care if Obama was buddies with Bin Laden or McCain was best friends with a Neo nazi?

[Angus]

Criticizing Obama has been made off limits
by Joe Scarborough • October 15, 2008

Before the vice presidential debate, we learned that the moderator was writing a fawning book about the transformative effects of the "age of Obama."


The media gave Gwen Ifill a free pass for her ethical breach, despite the fact she misled the debate commission about her book.

While I was concerned about Ifill's lapse of judgment, I was a bit curious about what the PBS star thought the "age of Obama" might look like.

I don't have to wonder anymore.

Let me give you a few helpful survival tips for the next four years.

The most important rule in this coming age is to remember that one must take great caution when criticizing Barack Obama.

Remember, even Democratic hero Bill Clinton was accused of being a bigot for calling Obama's political biography a "fairy tale."

Former Democratic vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro was compared to David Duke for suggesting that Barack Obama gained some advantages from being black.

Sarah Palin and John McCain joined the "Bigot's Club" this week when they dared to criticize The One Who Shall Not Be Criticized.

Palin was slandered for pointing out that Barack Obama launched his political career at the home of an unrepentant domestic terrorist.

The Associated Press grimly warned that any criticism of that former terrorist, William Ayers, was tinged with bigotry — despite the fact that the last time anyone checked, Ayers was white.

The New York Times' Frank Rich did what most hyperventilating leftists do when on defense, by comparing McCain and Palin's campaign to the rise of Nazi Germany.

The major networks all jumped into the fray and breathlessly read Democratic talking points, charging that McCain was encouraging angry mobs and racist rallies.

Interestingly enough, NBC's Kelly O'Donnell told me McCain's crowds were no more intense than those found at Democratic rallies. But let's not get bogged down with the facts. After all, this is a bright new age.

To understand just how much political correctness will chill free speech in this sunny era, look no further than John Lewis' statements this past weekend.

The Obama supporter and civil rights hero compared McCain and Palin to George Wallace and the bombers who killed four little girls in a Birmingham church in the early '60s.

How ironic that Obama's allies are trying to link Sarah Palin to domestic terrorists who were jailed before she was even born, while Obama's connections with William Ayers is off limits.

The double standard is as frightening as it is unfair.

But fairness and open-minded debate may not be welcomed in this new age we are about to enter.

Last month, St. Louis circuit attorneys warned citizens that they would be subject to criminal prosecution if they made statements that these Obama-supporting attorneys considered "false."

Wow.

How interesting that the same merchants of hate who spent the last eight years spitting out the most vile charges against George W. Bush are suddenly champions of polite political discourse.

The left is in hysterics, free speech is on ice, and somewhere Gwen Ifill is smiling.

The Age of Obama is already here.

http://www.pnj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081015/OPINION/810150314/1020

Joe Scarborough is the host of "Morning Joe" on MSNBC. E-mail him at joe.nbc@gmail.com.

[JBond]

Criticizing Obama has been made off limits
by Joe Scarborough • October 15, 2008

Before the vice presidential debate, we learned that the moderator was writing a fawning book about the transformative effects of the "age of Obama."


The media gave Gwen Ifill a free pass for her ethical breach, despite the fact she misled the debate commission about her book.

While I was concerned about Ifill's lapse of judgment, I was a bit curious about what the PBS star thought the "age of Obama" might look like.

I don't have to wonder anymore.

Let me give you a few helpful survival tips for the next four years.

The most important rule in this coming age is to remember that one must take great caution when criticizing Barack Obama.

Remember, even Democratic hero Bill Clinton was accused of being a bigot for calling Obama's political biography a "fairy tale."

Former Democratic vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro was compared to David Duke for suggesting that Barack Obama gained some advantages from being black.

Sarah Palin and John McCain joined the "Bigot's Club" this week when they dared to criticize The One Who Shall Not Be Criticized.

Palin was slandered for pointing out that Barack Obama launched his political career at the home of an unrepentant domestic terrorist.

The Associated Press grimly warned that any criticism of that former terrorist, William Ayers, was tinged with bigotry — despite the fact that the last time anyone checked, Ayers was white.

The New York Times' Frank Rich did what most hyperventilating leftists do when on defense, by comparing McCain and Palin's campaign to the rise of Nazi Germany.

The major networks all jumped into the fray and breathlessly read Democratic talking points, charging that McCain was encouraging angry mobs and racist rallies.

Interestingly enough, NBC's Kelly O'Donnell told me McCain's crowds were no more intense than those found at Democratic rallies. But let's not get bogged down with the facts. After all, this is a bright new age.

To understand just how much political correctness will chill free speech in this sunny era, look no further than John Lewis' statements this past weekend.

The Obama supporter and civil rights hero compared McCain and Palin to George Wallace and the bombers who killed four little girls in a Birmingham church in the early '60s.

How ironic that Obama's allies are trying to link Sarah Palin to domestic terrorists who were jailed before she was even born, while Obama's connections with William Ayers is off limits.

The double standard is as frightening as it is unfair.

But fairness and open-minded debate may not be welcomed in this new age we are about to enter.

Last month, St. Louis circuit attorneys warned citizens that they would be subject to criminal prosecution if they made statements that these Obama-supporting attorneys considered "false."

Wow.

How interesting that the same merchants of hate who spent the last eight years spitting out the most vile charges against George W. Bush are suddenly champions of polite political discourse.

The left is in hysterics, free speech is on ice, and somewhere Gwen Ifill is smiling.

The Age of Obama is already here.

http://www.pnj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081015/OPINION/810150314/1020

Joe Scarborough is the host of "Morning Joe" on MSNBC. E-mail him at joe.nbc@gmail.com.

This deserves it's own thread. Well done.

[Signals]

I don't think Barack's half of the country really knows what they are playing with.
Go to the Stern thread and see what I'm talking about.Let me help

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xg4Njtmbb10

[Jarv]

Barak will erase racism

cure AIDS

bring peace to the Middle East

awwww**** him!

Is he joining the band "Wild Stallions" ?

[Sasquatch]

Isn't Israel one of those reviled "socialist" countries?

[Kangaroo]

Wait I thought we already had the new US under Clinton

[vta]

Isn't Israel one of those reviled "socialist" countries?

What does that mean?

:confused:

[Sasquatch]

What does that mean?

:confused:

An honest question in light of earlier comments on Israel and our commitment to defend it.

Would you say that Israel is "socialist"?

[MilesAustinforMVP]

I'm not convinced half the country approves of us throwing Israel aside in favor of Iran. I'm also not sure we have the forces to open a third front in Pakistan.

Ok I'm Jewish and let me tell you what I think:

I hope Obama doesn't do what past presidents have done, and that is put the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of America. Not everything Israel does is in America's interests. Israel needs to get tougher with the settlers. Most people don't realize but the settlers are just as much terrorists as the Palestinian militants. The settlers have been known to bomb peace activists and Palestinian pre-schools, in addition to uprooting Palestinian crops and beat up on defenseless Palestinians.

Having said that, Israel tends to be right more often than not, but we shouldn't do what Palin said recently and that is "to never question Israel." We need to bring peace to the region and the only way we can do that is to be an ubiased mediator, and to get tough with Israel at times.

[JBond]

Ok I'm Jewish and let me tell you what I think:

I hope Obama doesn't do what past presidents have done, and that is put the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of America. Not everything Israel does is in America's interests. Israel needs to get tougher with the settlers. Most people don't realize but the settlers are just as much terrorists as the Palestinian militants. The settlers have been known to bomb peace activists and Palestinian pre-schools, in addition to uprooting Palestinian crops and beat up on defenseless Palestinians.

Having said that, Israel tends to be right more often than not, but we shouldn't do what Palin said recently and that is "to never question Israel." We need to bring peace to the region and the only way we can do that is to be an ubiased mediator, and to get tough with Israel at times.


So are you as a Jewish man voting for Obama?

[Angus]

Time to Use the "C" Word
by Laura Hollis

“I’ve looked over Jordan, and I have seen
Things are not what they seem.
What do you get for pretending the danger’s not real...
Meek and obedient you follow the leader
Down well- trodden corridors into the valley of steel.”

- Roger Waters

I am tired of all the dancing around the subject with respect to Barack Obama’s political, social, and economic views. He’s not a “liberal,” or a “Democrat,” or a “progressive,” or even a “socialist.” Let’s call it what it is, shall we? It’s time to use the “C” word. His policies are communist, pure and simple.

Even without the power of the Presidency, a filibuster-proof Senate, and U.S. Supreme Court appointments under his belt, Obama has already:

* called for a national citizen military force;

* sent government agents to intimidate American citizens who have said they don’t agree with him and will not vote for him;

* tried to use the offices of state Attorneys General to silence any opposition or dissent;

* offered questionable “support” for the Second Amendment “right to bear arms” – as long as it isn’t in self-defense;

* proposed his version of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need;” (plumbers – plumbers, for pity’s sake, should pay more taxes???)

* trained, funded and utilized organizations like ACORN that are notorious for voter registration fraud;

* consorted with and funded terrorists and anti-American radicals;

* attended a church led by a racist, black supremacist, anti-American bigot;

* been mentored by Frank Marshall Davis, who was apparently not only a Communist and a bigot, but also a pervert, and who warned Obama not to go off to college or fall for “equal opportunity and the American way and all that s***.”

Despite concerted efforts by the media to hide this information, Obama’s connections with the Communist Party have been unearthed by independent investigators, journalists and bloggers. And like clockwork, Obama apologists and handlers are trying to assuage the public’s concerns with assurances that Obama is “not that radical;” he knows that “socialism is dead;” he is a pragmatist, not an ideologue.

Uh-huh. Sure. Well, they got the “pragmatist” part right, anyway. Obama’s immersion in the philosophy of Saul Alinsky has made him a master of political pragmatism. Conservatives make another fundamental error when they wonder why Obama is heralding policies like higher taxes that have been proven, time and time again, to fail. Newsflash: You don’t get it. It’s not that Obama is ignorant, or misguided. He knows – as do his Red backers – that the policies he espouses will cause further economic trauma. This is deliberate. Because the worse things get, the more receptive the public will be to Obama’s & Co.’s honey-tongued assurances that the government will step in and “make it all better.” Look at Hurricane Katrina, and the recent financial crisis: how many people were clamoring for the government to “do something”? And that’s nothing compared to what we’re going to face when Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid collapse.

Obama’s colleagues are shrewd; they know that they have little chance of taking over all of private enterprise by force. Instead, they want the public to hand it over to them, bit by bit.

Even the briefest study of Communist Party ideology dating back to the 1930s reveals a concerted campaign to infiltrate and destroy the United States from within, by gaining control of the universities, of the media, of primary and secondary school, of the courts, and ultimately the entire government. Joseph McCarthy’s monumentally bad rap notwithstanding, dozens of former spies have come forward, as have the documents, attesting to the Party’s intentions. When the Soviet Union fell in 1989, those ideas pretty much went the way of the dodo in Russia, but they have been alive and well in this country for 80 years. People like William Ayers are proof.

Communism is – at best – a failed business model. At worst it is a recipe for slaughter. In its initial phases, communism depends upon arrogance, ignorance, deceit, and complicity. Its advocates and standard-bearers are typically messianic ideologues who use economic hardship to deceive well-meaning but woefully ignorant people into agreeing with its basic premises. Once in power, however, the communists themselves are merciless, for two reasons: one, communists have a deistic view of their own righteousness and benevolent intentions. And two, the principles of communism are fundamentally flawed and utterly at odds with human nature. Everyone is only “equal” in the eyes of God; using earthly measures (talent, ability, skills, interests, motivation), humans are as different as can be. Attempts to create equal results, as opposed to equal opportunity, are doomed to failure. Failure, in communists, produces frustration. And frustration, in communists, results in oppression.

Because of principle #2, above, communism has always resulted in economic deprivation – if not outright starvation - on a widespread scale. And so because of principle #1, the opposition – and this becomes a larger and larger segment of the population as time goes on – must be silenced, because they cannot be “converted.” When that is not enough (and it is never enough), they are jailed, sent to forced labor camps, starved, shot, flayed, buried alive, tortured, dismembered and killed in whatever novel and despicable ways the communists can come up with to silence dissent and usher in utopia.

These practices are not the exception. They are the rule. In the pantheon of the Unholy Church of Communism, the patron saints are Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim Jong Il, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot. Millions of people have suffered and died at the hands of these butchers – initially hailed as redeemers, visionaries, and liberators but who turned out to be nothing more than elitist *******s cloaked in the guise of “social equality” who thought they knew what was best for everyone else.

Communism has failed everywhere it has been tried. We have nearly 100 years and 100 million corpses as proof. The only people who believe otherwise are certain American liberals – because they are the most ignorant people on the planet, and because they have never had to live under it.

But never have the communists felt closer to achieving their goal than they are now. Make no mistake, they are waiting behind Barack Obama, panting and slavering at the prospect of taking over every branch of government, systematically dismantling the economic system that has provided our country with unprecedented prosperity and dissolving the procedural protections that have insulated us from the oppression, starvation, despair, and death that has accompanied communism and every other form of tyranny.

Americans seem ready to hand over their lives and livelihoods to this bloviating neophyte with associations so unsavory they should render his candidacy a joke. It would be inscrutable even if there were not so much precedent. We’ve all heard people exclaim, when examining incident after historical incident of genocide, or government oppression, “How could that have happened?” In the same breath, they assure themselves that it couldn’t happen here because, “America is different.”

This is breathtakingly ignorant, and it is a dangerous falsehood. There is NOTHING exceptional about Americans as human beings. We are subject to same whims, caprices, fears and lusts for power as every other human beings.

What is exceptional is our economic and political system. If we dismantle the very procedural protections that were put into place to protect us from tyranny (by people who had lived with tyranny and knew it well), then tyranny is what we will get.

And we are being lured into the same noose that has ensnared so many millions of hapless souls, despite reams of pages of history. We express horror at the Hitler Youth in little matching uniforms singing “Hitler will save us, Hitler is our Lord,” but then we smile and laugh as we see grade schoolers in matching blue t-shirts singing, “Obama’s gonna save us.” We are outraged by the army of children in Sudan, but think nothing of American black boys in camouflage pumping their fists and chanting propaganda from Obama’s campaign. We are repulsed by some dictators’ claims that they are gods, but shrug it off as insignificant when Louis Farrakhan – a vicious anti-semite, among other reprehensible things – says “the Messiah is speaking” in a speech referring to Obama.

Still don’t think it can happen here? Well, you’re in good company. Neither did the Russians. Or the Germans. Or the Chinese. Or the North Koreans. Or the Vietnamese. Or the Cubans. Or the Cambodians.

Critics will call this alarmist fear-mongering. So be it. Don’t say you haven’t been warned.

http://townhall.com/Columnists/LauraHollis/2008/10/16/time_to_use_the_c_word?page=full

[JBond]

Agnus, I pray you are wrong, but common sense says you are right.