Watch CPAC 2012 Live
-
Why Doesn’t Obama Ban Iranian Press TV? by Kenneth R. Timmerman
The Case of CH2M HILL: $2 Billion in Crony Stimulation by Rusty Weiss
The Truth about George Soros by AIM Staff
Lifting the Veil on WikiLeaks by AIM Staff
The Truth about Al-Jazeera English by Cliff Kincaid
Reaganomics and Obamanomics in the Media and in Reality by Malcolm A. Kline, Don Irvine and Spencer Irvine
How State Budget Battles Could Mean More Criminals Back on the Streets by Michael Tremoglie
Radical Muslims, Environmentalists and the Green Jihad by Mark Musser
Russian-Backed Propaganda Networks Claim Obama is a CIA Agent by Cliff Kincaid
Media Conceal True Nature of Flash Mob Racial Violence by John T. Bennett
NBC’s Mitchell Should Resign Over Telling Gaddafi’s Lies (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) by Cliff Kincaid
CASA de Maryland: The Illegals’ ACORN by James Simpson
Special Report
The Newswire
Take AIM Podcast
With the release of a 40-page “Unfit for Publication” report attacking Jerome Corsi’s new book, The Obama Nation, it should be obvious that the media-backed presidential candidate, Barack Obama, is terrified of having his carefully concealed communist and foreign connections exposed to public view.
However, the Obama campaign’s attack on Corsi’s book and Corsi personally acknowledges on pages 9 and 10 of its report that the mysterious “Frank” in Obama’s 1995 book, Dreams From My Father, is in fact the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) member Frank Marshall Davis. This identification by AIM and others hasn’t been disputed by the media, which has desperately tried to ignore the Obama-Davis relationship, but the Obama campaign has not responded to it until now.
The admission that Obama’s mentor was Frank Marshall Davis, an identified CPUSA member, can only add to growing public concern about Obama’s relationship with a Communist pawn of Moscow who was the subject of security investigations by the FBI and various congressional committees which examined Soviet activities in the U.S.
According to these official documents, cited first by AIM and also by Corsi in his book, Davis was a secret CPUSA member who became a member of an underground communist apparatus in Hawaii. As late as the 1970s, Davis was involved with a CPUSA front organization, the American Committee for Protection of Foreign Born, dedicated to keeping foreign communists such as labor leader Harry Bridges from being deported from the U.S. Davis, a friend of Bridges, a secret CPUSA member, became Obama’s mentor during the years 1975-1979.
But the Obama report makes no admission that Davis was a communist and doesn’t dispute anything Corsi documents about Davis’s membership in the Communist Party. Instead, the report picks and chooses from Obama’s book in order to try to put some distance between Obama and Davis. The report attempts to play down instances in which Obama soaks up Davis’s anti-American thoughts and pro-communist “poetry.”
But if the relationship were so innocent, why didn’t Obama identify Frank by his full name in his book and denounce his communist and anti-American views? Why doesn’t he denounce those views now?
At this point, it is clear that Corsi is to Obama what the National Enquirer is to admitted adulterer and liar John Edwards. The Enquirer exposed Edwards secret life when the rest of the media were refusing to investigate the candidate and making fun of the Enquirer.
It is noteworthy that the Obama campaign’s “Unfit for Publication” report begins with citing negative “reviews” of the Corsi book from various publications, including the New York Times, Washington Post, and Time magazine. The media are angry and jealous because Corsi did the heavy lifting that the media refuse to do.
While Obama’s communist and foreign connections are of serious and ongoing concern, Corsi’s treatment of Obama’s admitted drug use has emerged as a special raw nerve for the Obama campaign and his media acolytes. They realize that many Americans, whose families have been decimated and destroyed by illegal drugs, may recoil at the thought of having an admitted user of marijuana and cocaine occupy the oval office.
The Attack Begins
Acting on information provided by a left-wing group known as Media Matters, which functions as an unofficial arm of the Democratic Party, the New York Times attacked Corsi for charging that Obama has “yet to answer” whether he ever dealt drugs and when he stopped, if indeed he ever did. The Times protested that Obama has answered that charge, at least the part about quitting marijuana and cocaine, by saying that he hasn’t used drugs since he was 20 years old.
So why did Corsi raise the subject when it supposedly has been put to rest? It’s because, as an experienced investigative reporter, he knows that a few perfunctory denials, which could be expected from someone running for office, do not constitute any form of proof or convincing answer that he in fact ever did quit drugs. As Corsi has suggested in defending his book’s account of Obama’s admitted drug use, self-reporting by drug users about when they quit is notoriously unreliable. Every drug addict claims to have quit at one time or another. That’s what drug testing is all about.
Joyce Nalepka, president of Drug-Free Kids: America’s Challenge, points out that recovering cocaine addicts say that the high from cocaine is so intense that you never stop wanting it. She points to the case of former Washington, D.C. Mayor Marion Barry, who was caught twice using cocaine. Barry was caught in one case as a result of a police sting and another because of court-ordered drug testing.
Don’t you believe Obama when he says he quit drugs? “No,” replied Nalepka. “And I didn’t believe Mayor Barry either.”
The Soros Connection
However, she does believe that, if Obama is elected, his backers in the drug legalization movement funded by billionaire George Soros will press for legalization of marijuana, cocaine and other dangerous drugs. Soros is a big backer of Obama and has contributed financially to his campaign.
During the Reagan Administration, Nalepka served as the president of the anti-drug group that Nancy Reagan served as honorary chair. She warns that Obama has “voted for at least two pro-legalization [of marijuana] bills” and that drug legalization advocates are spreading the word that Obama will not support federal enforcement of federal marijuana arrests. She said a questionnaire, which includes the question, “Do you support keeping drug possession, dealing and trafficking a crime?,” has not been answered by the Obama campaign. John McCain, on the other hand, vows to “uphold the law,” she says.
When she made several calls trying to find out what happened to the questionnaire, an Obama staff member said that the appropriate official would call “within the hour.” But that was “weeks ago,” Nalepka says.
Even if Obama took and passed a drug test, Nalepka says she would never vote for him, explaining, “It appalls me at the thought that people would be naïve enough to vote for someone who admits drug use.” She says this view stems from 30 years of “watching parents wail and cry and talk about the hell their families went through” because of marijuana, cocaine and other drugs.
“I would never vote for an elected official who was ever a drug user,” she tells AIM. “We have to get this country back to being an honorable nation with honorable people running it.”
But the views of Nalepka and others in the campaign against illegal drugs have been ignored by media anxious to accept Obama’s word that he has quit dangerous mind-altering drugs.
Nalepka is concerned that progress that has been made is at risk. “We worked long and hard to close those drug paraphernalia shops in the 1980s and long and hard again to get student drug testing in the schools so we could get drugs out of the schools,” she said. “And we’re going to allow someone to come in to the White House of the United States of America who was a drug user?”
Corsi’s account of Obama’s drug use is apparently one of many “lies” that an official Obama campaign spokesman has alleged to be in the book. The Times story defending Obama against Corsi’s book was followed by a Washington Post story attacking the author. The liberal media have been forced to take note of the book because it has become number one on the New York Times bestseller list.
The Davis Connection
Regarding the Davis-Obama relationship, now confirmed by the Obama campaign, the Post, as well as its “conservative” competitor, the Washington Times, recently ran a dishonest Associated Press story that portrayed Davis as a positive influence on Obama who had no affiliation with the CPUSA. This was the real lie.
Prior to that, the only time the Post came close to mentioning Davis was after I held a May 22 news briefing on the subject and Post reporter Dana Milbank attended and then attacked our event without mentioning that the main subject was none other than Frank Marshall Davis. Of course, dishonest coverage like this helps explain why Corsi’s book is meeting a pent-up demand for facts about the candidate and is so successful. The American people understand that they are not getting the truth about Obama from the mainstream media.
Another line of attack—that Corsi is doing the bidding of the Republican Party and the John McCain campaign—makes no sense because Corsi writes very critically of McCain and is a member of the Constitution Party, which is fielding its own presidential candidate, Chuck Baldwin, this fall. Plus, Corsi’s editor at WorldNetDaily, where he writes regularly, is Joseph Farah, whose book, None of the Above, argues against Obama and McCain.
The pro-Obama media emphasize that the Corsi book is published by Simon & Schuster’s Threshold Editions, whose main editor is former GOP strategist Mary Matalin. The 40-page Obama report dishonestly claims the Corsi book is “brought to you by the Bush/Cheney Attack Machine.” But it is clearly the case that Corsi and Farah are independent conservatives who have no allegiance to the GOP. Corsi has written articles and even a book attacking the Bush/Cheney Administration’s secretive Security and Prosperity Partnership, a forerunner for an emerging North American Union.
Corsi has written a book on Obama for the obvious reason that little is known about the Democratic candidate, and there is no evidence that the major media are interested in uncovering or publicizing the hidden facts about him. On the other hand, the media are doing a good job covering McCain’s controversial connections, such as his ties to lobbyists for foreign countries.
Post reporter Eli Saslow writes that the Corsi book “lacks major revelations.” Wouldn’t it be nice if the Post let us decide that for ourselves? Why not run a true and accurate story about Frank Marshall Davis and let the readers decide? But Saslow must figure that such a story would only hurt the media’s candidate.
Saslow let the truth slip: “Until recently, he [Obama] had the luxury of presenting his story alone.” Since when should a presidential candidate have the ability to present his own story without critical comment and investigation by the media? And especially on the subject of admitted use of marijuana and cocaine and connections to communists? But that has been the case with Obama, and that is why Corsi is being attacked.
Larry King as Obama Puppet
As part of the campaign to destroy Corsi, some reporters have dredged up some controversial comments he posted on a website that people found objectionable. CNN’s Larry King, with the help of a “progressive” from Media Matters named Paul Waldman, tried this and other tactics on his show on Wednesday night. They are just a diversion from the substance of the book. King found Corsi guilty of “false” claims against Obama even before he introduced Corsi on the show.
On the other hand, King identified Waldman as being from “A progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing and correcting conservative misinformation in the United States media.” This is how the organization, which has significant links to the Democratic Party, describes itself. It started out as a front for Hillary Clinton but is now spending most of its time defending Obama.
It is interesting to note that the title of the official Obama campaign report on Corsi, “Unfit for Publication,” was an actual headline over a previous Media Matters account of Corsi’s book. In attacking AIM’s reporting on the costs of Obama’s Global Poverty Act, the Obama report also cites misleading charges from Media Matters (Jonathon Moseley addresses this controversy in the August-B AIM Report.) So it is obvious that the Obama campaign and Media Matters are colluding.
These pathetic attacks will probably generate more interest in the book. And once people read the book, they will only have more questions and suspicions about Obama and his powerful media machine.
Share This
About the author
Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.
101 Comments for Obama Confirms Relationship with CPUSA Member
KKKliff !!! Obama is not a communist, he’s an alien lizard from the planet zenu !
But keep up your good work, your psychotic rambling is always entertaining to read !
KINCAID WROTE: But if the relationship were so innocent, why didn’t Obama identify Frank by his full name in his book and denounce his communist and anti-American views? Why doesn’t he denounce those views now?
RESPONSE: Obama didn’t identify “Frank” by his full name in his book because he identified a number of people only by their first names. This is common practice in a memoir. I would think a journalist like Cliff Kincaid should know that. Obama probably did not (and does not) denounce his “communist and anti-American views” because Davis did not reveal any “communist and anti-American views” to Obama. What specific “communist and anti-American views” is Kincaid referrring to?
His demand for fair wages and other benefits for workers?
His demands for equal protection of the laws?
His demands for freedom of the press?
His support for a woman’s right to choose?
His demand for integration of the armed forces?
His support for the integration of the AFL and CIO?
His demand to end restrictive covenants in real estate:
His support for the Fair Employment Practices Act?
His demand for general dismantling of all laws supporting racial segregation
His demand for an end to laws support anti-Semitism?
His demand for an end to nuclear weapons?
His demand for the rights of soldiers in combat zones to vote in national elections?
His support for a broad United Nations (not just the U.S. and Great Britain forming a world power union)?
KINCAID WROTE: “Regarding the Davis-Obama relationship, now confirmed by the Obama campaign, the Post, as well as its “conservative” competitor, the Washington Times, recently ran a dishonest Associated Press story that portrayed Davis as a positive influence on Obama who had no affiliation with the CPUSA. This was the real lie.”
RESPONSE: What evidence do you have that Davis was not a positive influence? If the AP’s failure to mention Davis’s affiliation with the CPUSA is a “lie,” then AIM’s portrayal of Davis’s “Red Army” poem as anti-American is ALSO a lie, because AIM failed to mention that the Red Army was an ALLY of the United States when the poem was written. If AIM-speak considers half-truths to be “lies,” then AIM may one of the world’s biggest liars because AIM columns regarding Davis are filled with half-truth’s including the facts that:
-When Davis opposed U.S. entry into WWII, both Congress and the general population opposed U.S. entry into WWII. Failure to mention Davis’s position was the common position was a half-truth, and therefore a “lie” in AIM-speak.
-When Davis was associated with communist-affiliated institutions, other leading African-American writers, such as Richard Wright and Langston Hughes were ALSO associated with communist-affiliated institutions. It was NORMAL for African-American writers to be associated with communist-affiliated institutions for one simple reason. According to The New Red Negro ONLY the Communist left had any significant institutional impact on African-American writing during the 1930s and 1940s. This support was crucial as the institutions that had maintained the New Negro Renaissance faded. And for better or for worse, the leading CPUSA functionaries involved in “Negro work” took a direct interest in African-American cultural production in a manner that was unusual, if not unique. Failure to mention that Davis’s association with communist-affiliated institutions was NORMAL during that period was a half-truth, and therefore a “lie” in AIM-speak.
AIM should be careful about calling the kettle “black.” If AIM’s half-truths are added to AIM’s direct falsehoods, they may set a new record in the Annals of Prevarication.
CLIFF KINCAID WROTE: But if the relationship were so innocent, why didn’t Obama identify Frank by his full name in his book and denounce his communist and anti-American views? Why doesn’t he denounce those views now?
RESPONSE: Obama didn’t identify “Frank” by his full name in his book because he identified a number of people only by their first names. This is common practice in a memoir. I would think a journalist like Cliff Kincaid should know that. Obama probably did not (and does not) denounce his “communist and anti-American views” because Davis did not reveal any “communist and anti-American views” to Obama. What specific “communist and anti-American views” is Kincaid referrring to?
His demand for fair wages and other benefits for workers?
His demands for equal protection of the laws?
His demands for freedom of the press?
His support for a woman’s right to choose?
His demand for integration of the armed forces?
His support for the integration of the AFL and CIO?
His demand to end restrictive covenants in real estate:
His support for the Fair Employment Practices Act?
His demand for general dismantling of all laws supporting racial segregation
His demand for an end to laws support anti-Semitism?
His demand for an end to nuclear weapons?
His demand for the rights of soldiers in combat zones to vote in national elections?
His support for a broad United Nations (not just the U.S. and Great Britain forming a world power union)?
KINCAID WROTE: “Regarding the Davis-Obama relationship, now confirmed by the Obama campaign, the Post, as well as its “conservative” competitor, the Washington Times, recently ran a dishonest Associated Press story that portrayed Davis as a positive influence on Obama who had no affiliation with the CPUSA. This was the real lie.”
RESPONSE: What evidence do you have that Davis was not a positive influence? If the AP’s failure to mention Davis’s affiliation with the CPUSA is a “lie,” then AIM’s portrayal of Davis’s “Red Army” poem as anti-American is ALSO a lie, because AIM failed to mention that the Red Army was an ALLY of the United States when the poem was written. If AIM-speak considers half-truths to be “lies,” then AIM may one of the world’s biggest liars because AIM columns regarding Davis are filled with half-truth’s including the facts that:
-When Davis opposed U.S. entry into WWII, both Congress and the general population opposed U.S. entry into WWII. Failure to mention Davis’s position was the common position was a half-truth, and therefore a “lie” in AIM-speak.
-When Davis was associated with communist-affiliated institutions, other leading African-American writers, such as Richard Wright and Langston Hughes were ALSO associated with communist-affiliated institutions. It was NORMAL for African-American writers to be associated with communist-affiliated institutions for one simple reason. According to The New Red Negro ONLY the Communist left had any significant institutional impact on African-American writing during the 1930s and 1940s. This support was crucial as the institutions that had maintained the New Negro Renaissance faded. And for better or for worse, the leading CPUSA functionaries involved in “Negro work” took a direct interest in African-American cultural production in a manner that was unusual, if not unique. Failure to mention that Davis’s association with communist-affiliated institutions was NORMAL during that period was a half-truth, and therefore a “lie” in AIM-speak.
AIM should be careful about calling the kettle “black.” If AIM’s half-truths are added to AIM’s direct falsehoods, they may set a new record in the Annals of Prevarication.
Sorry guys, I have to say something here, or I can not get email notifications from AIM so I can follow the comments – and OH! The Plot Thickens, and this is sure going to be great. Between Cliff Kincaid, Jonathon Moseley and Mr Corsi’s book – Abomination, me thinks the American Traitor – Osamabama – is toast in November – as he should be – sorry MSM – Gore, Strike One, Kerry, Strike Two, and Osambama, Strike Three – You’re outa here – can Americans ever again believe even the most minor of items in your so-called newscasts EVER Again?
Now we just have to hope that at the Democrat Convention in weeks the #### does not hit the fan so fast that the Wolves in Sheeps clothing of the Democrat Party do not bring Hillary back – because I think Hillary can beat McCain – and even sadder than that is in November when REAL Republicans are forced once again to plug their noses and vote for McCain – and that plugging might just asphyxiate us.
Looking forward as Osambama slinks from the world stage as Edwards is doing right now as the scum that he is!!
As America learns about Obama’s friendship and political beliefs with members of the Communist Party, USA, Americans will turn away from supporting him and his political beliefs. America must turn away from Communism in support of free loving Judeo-Christian values.
Does anybody else possess the presence of mind to recognise the hypocrisy in AIM promoting itself as a media watchdog? Just take a glance at the front page, and the juxtaposition of headlines alone gives it away—this is not a site promoting accuracy or criticising bias, but a spin machine with an obvious right-wing agenda. Now, i don’t have a problem with that—everyone is entitled to his/her opinion—but it reeks of ethical bankruptcy when one masquerades bias behind an ostensible interest in accuracy.
The nail in the coffin is the very notion that Jerome Corsi, his pitiful misapplication of ink and woodpulp, and the shrill audacities contained therein, are worth so much as a mention—especially the way he is quoted above, which not only deigns to ignore the fact that Corsi is naught but an opportunistic liar, but actually quotes the man as though he were a credible authority. The fact that the book made #1 on the NYT Bestseller List simply confirms that evaluating literary merit or relevance solely on the basis of sales is a fundamentally flawed system, and is the main reason Americans carry the reputation of being so dubiously literate. If you consider Corsi’s pack of lies to be relevant political analysis, then you would no doubt find your mind wracked with glorious insight upon reading The Employee Manual for the McDonald’s Corp. Soft Drink Dispenser.
Perhaps you haven’t heard, but Corsi has a scheduled appearance on the white supremacist talk-show, ‘The Political Cesspool.’ Yeah…sounds like a hell of a proving ground for credible sources.
I have been posting on Politico the fact of Obama’s mentoring by the communist, Frank Marshall Davis, for a couple of months, along with his connection to Raila Odinga, the socialist PM of Kenya that Obama campaigned for in 2006. After Odinga lost the election, his Muslim Forum pact supporters went on a murderous rampage killing Christians, which brought about the intervention of the AU, and Obama himself, to stop the slaughter by installing Odinga in a power-sharing arrangement. What struck me was the somewhat muted responses from the leftists, as opposed to their normal obscene and over-the-top rants for their messiah. They already knew about his background, and were just hoping that it stayed hidden through the election. Now, the American people can vote up or down on a true closet muslim and marxist candidate. He is toast, and the urban war slated for Denver will only pour more fuel on the flames.
Has the Obama story as written by Jerome Corsi now going to be sent to the “race issue”, rather than discussed on by the facts? Is playing the “race issue” the only way the left may be able to win on this one? America is sick and tired of the “race issue” on every losing left wing issues. The radical Liberal left brings up the “race issue”, then only to try to blame the Conservatives.
@Oscar Y. Harward: What facts? Most of the shrill screed in Corsi’s book is based on half-truths or imaginings in the first place. Corsi, now as in the past, is good at one thing—playing on the general reluctance to second-guess anything in print (read: gullibility) in order to eviscerate his targets’ character. While you may be skeptical of the ‘race issue,’ it should be obvious to all but the quite willfully naïve that Corsi (and many other Obama detractors) have stooped to racism and xenophobia, and there’s no excuse for that. However, when people call out Corsi, et al for taking cheap shots, they’re accused of ‘playing the race card.’
i’m tired of this pointless bickering and below-the-belt punches. What—is the plan to only start bringing up relevant issues once somebody is already elected?
To MKD – #3:
Right on!
And, if the Commies are so bad – - why has the government gone into Big Business with the Communist Chinese? How many American manufacturing and production jobs have been lost to the Communist Chinese?
It’s the height of hypocrisy to berate Obama because, as a child, he had an association with an adult (and black) American Communist poet – - while, at the same time, supporting the current government’s and Wall Street’s selling out of American workers to the Communist Chinese – - for money!
It’s oxymoronic. Or, maybe, just plain racist
BlackHat, AIM is to conservatives as Politico is to liberals. I read both, but at least here I get to put in a word now and then.
The only way to be truly informed is to take in as many views as possible and sort out in your own mind the fact from the spin.
This is a great and informative article, like it or not, and the topic will not go away quickly.
@Slinkicat: You said, “The only way to be truly informed is to take in as many views as possible and sort out in your own mind the fact from the spin.”
You think i don’t know that? That’s why i’m still here. However, i stand by my criticism of organisations that market themselves as ‘media watchdogs’, against bias, but in turn end up spreading bias and disinformation. As i said, it’s hypocritical. AIM is guilty of it, Politico is guilty of it, as is FOX News and, et al. About the only truly unbiased, non-partisan website i can think of is factcheck.org.
Oh…and about the above ‘great and informative article,’ how do you qualify Corsi’s unsubstantiated rumours and outright lies as ‘great and informative’?
Black hat, how do you jive up “Dreams of My Father,” which doesn’t match some facts? Do you still believe in the tooth fairy, too?
Cowboyu6, fair/unbiased press would have a field day with Obama… moreso than with OJ, and they sure over-followed it.
What IS an AMERICAN SENATOR, who hasn’t even taken his Senatorial chair, doing going to a Muslim country, criticizing THEIR President, and standing on the platform with his opponent. Why
wasn’t THAT investigated? We KNOW why it wasn’t reported, lol.
The blackout on the battle in Halls of the House, Obama never bringing forth his Birth Certificate, that trip to Kenya….I’m sure our
forefathers never DREAMED of such from a “free press.”
One GOOD thing came of it, though. The American people will never trust the common media again..and I personally hope their sponsors catch on to that.
I have a relative, and it is said of him, “You know he’s lying when his lips move.” Gee, I haven’t asked them their opinion of the MSM. Does
that mean Main Stream Media, or Mighty Sorry Mess?
Oh well.
The big thing about this election that concerns me is the electronic voting machines. I feel that the whizzes have shown they can be compromised. Congress, I believe it was (may be another gov’t branch) wouldn’t okay $75 million
(peanuts nowadays) for “back up” paper ballots.
So. Maybe my son has it right: We have given God the bird; we have thumbed our noses at Him. He doesn’t even have to “wreak vengenance” upon us. Is all He has to do is to turn His face from us, and we’ll do it to ourselves.
I’m 74. I KNEW A BETTER AMERICA. Today, it is like a foreign nation in comparason. So sad. So
true.
Blackhat and other Obama supporters. Corsi is not the first that has discovered the information on Obama. Several people took it upon themselves to do the vetting because the Soros-backed news was not reporting the truth.
Many of us have documentated information that we have sent to the media. These documents were verified, along with sealed proof. No one wanted to report it.
Corsi, is not the only author who has found all of this information out. Perhaps if you read the book and follow the footnotes, who will see for yourself. If Corsi or any other author was slandering me, I’d want to belittle he/she back. Definitely, discredit that person.
All of us who have done individual and group vetting on Obama, welcome all to do their own research. You’ll find out that all he’s been saying and promoting is a fraud.
There are so many things about Barack Obama/Barry Soetoro that many of us have uncovered and it makes us cringe.
As Kbentleyls said you Obama supporters are more than welcome to do your own research. We have, and we have found we will NEVER vote for Obama no matter how much glitz and glitter the DNC tries to polish him with or how many lofty speeches he gives.
A bomb is still a bomb no matter if it’s wrapped with gilt paper and tied with a big shiny bow.
LOL, BlackHat! I guess you don’t read Media Matters, or it would top your list of phony media watchdogs. I unsubbed from FactCheck a couple of weeks ago because it is totally biased and rarely even mentions the many lies told by Obama while it nitpicks nuances in McCain’s ads.
Carolyn, you are a rare jewel. Don’t you wish the young liberals knew as much as they think they do? Even Obama himself, the “anointed one”, who presents himself as the answer to all the problems of this country, while being unable to answer a straight question about his own positions.
Aren’t you glad this is the great country it is, rather than the failure Obama thinks needs his communist-style change? I sure am.
P.S. Okay, this is the tenth time I’ve tried to post to this thread, and each time I get a phony response that I haven’t copied the code word exactly. Fortunately, after the first time I copied my response and pasted it, which I advise each of you to do before submitting, just in case.
PPS, KBentley, you are totally right. Let us pray all the truth comes out.
All you left wing Liberals may decide to add John Edwards to your list of believers for Sen. Obama. You know, just recently, John was saying the right wing media was lying also. Now, the entire media agrees that John Edwards was lying then, and is still lying today. I wonder if John, himself, believes what he is saying. John may consider cutting to the end, tell the truth, and maybe finally admit that even his so-called “junk science” he practiced in the courtrooms and made him many millions of dollars should or could be returned to clear his conscience. With that, he may advise Obama to clean his conscience to admit his love for those other than our America, and our free loving Americans.
OSCAR HARWARD WROTE: “Has the Obama story as written by Jerome Corsi now going to be sent to the “race issue”, rather than discussed on by the facts? Is playing the “race issue” the only way the left may be able to win on this one? America is sick and tired of the “race issue” on every losing left wing issues. The radical Liberal left brings up the “race issue”, then only to try to blame the Conservatives.”
RESPONSE: Virtually all research will contain some errors. When the pattern of error is consistent, however, it suggests that the researcher is motivated by something other than truth.
Some people still insist that Frank Marshall Davis was a “huge influence” on Barack Obama because Obama attended college after Davis advised it, despite Obama receiving similar advice from other sources.
By the same logic, the fact that the United States has implemented most of Davis’s “radical” recommendations in comment #3 may also mean that Davis had a “huge influence” on domestic and international policy of the United States, despite the United States receiving similar advice from other sources. (That’s only if you ignore the post hoc fallacy, that is.)
For everyone else, it should be obvious that advice does not necessarily mean influence.
Hyperman, I take it you think your puerile ad hominem attack on Kincaid is indicative of intelligent liberal discourse? Please present your proof that Kincaid is a racist if you have the courage or integrity to do so. My bet is that you think anyone who opposes Sen. Obama is a racist.
You are a dangerous person. There are people out there who will believe the trash that you spew out into the world. Look to yourself and grow up and do some good on the planet.
Carol, there are several of us who have responded to this article. Which one is the “dangerous person”?
How can we believe anything Barack Obama says? What Obama says today is different from yesterday, and probably will be different tomorrow. It seems as if Obama and the Reid/Pelosi team are punishing consumers and want to leave everyone with at least one automobile in the driveway, as consumers cannot purchase gasoline to drive. Drill now for oil, to provide more gasoline at reasonable prices. The Reid/Pelosi team disallows even an open vote on the Republican leaders on Capitol Hill to allow for drilling for more oil. That is what is costing the consumers more cost for gasoline, as well as purchasing all products at their stores, just to pay the transportation cost. The Democrats on Capitol Hill headed by Barack Obama and the Reid/Pelosi team are punishing all consumers for not allowing more oil drilling now. All you left wing Liberals may decide to add John Edwards to your list of believers for Sen. Obama. Is it a lie to continue to change your positions everyday, or is it a lie to fail to tell the truth as John Edwards is now being charged? Or is it just a lie to blame Barack Obama and the Liberal Reid/Pelosi team for anything?
To Carol Bayard and Blackhat:
If I am the dangerous person Carol refers to, thank you for the compliment. I am a dangerous person to the designs of Osama Obama and his leftist clique, and will continue to be. Saw forms last night from OO indicating he was a muslim, and also with an alias, Barry Soreto, not sure of the last name spelling. Have to wonder about the strident and over the top denials of him ever being a muslim. Thought being a muslim was ok, so why the violent reaction to the obvious fact that he was once a muslim, if not still a muslim? Same with his relationship with “Frank” Marshall Davis, the Hawaiian communist, who mentored him in the ways of radicalism and political organization. In addition to a place of honor in Osama Obama’s book, he honored “Frank” by moving to Chicago, Frank’s former home, to live and learn among the radicals like Ayers, Dohrn, Sol Alinsky, Wright, and many others. He obviously learned his lessons well, especially the #1 communist rule, hide your true identity and blend in with the masses until you achieve power. Sadly for you leftist loons, the whole house of cards is collapsing, and at an accelerating rate. Denver will be the final hurrah for your faux messiah, as Repeat ‘68 and the other crackpots put on their show for the American voter. And Obambi is now tied with McCain in the polls even before this gift from Denver. LOL
I really haven’t heard Obama “Say” anything… he memorizes speeches and knows how to drop ‘code words’ like change! and preach as well as any Bible belt Evangelist… but he says NOTHING… The kind of change he will bring about.. we are not going to be able to live with.
I’m as sick about being “stuck” with McCain as the rest of the conservative masses are.
This is what we will always have as long as the primaries are structures as they are.
We’re stuck with the choice of voting for “the lesser of the two evils”.
I for one am sick of that same choice over and over again.
One of the largest problem we face today is voters who doesn’t put any time into finding out about the candidates and their stand on policies before they vote.
Reasons such as… I’m voting for him because…. “he’s younger”….“he’s older”…“it’s time for a black President” … or (my personal favorite).. “he’s cute”… now that is a informed voter! It’s enough to make head explode.
Cowboyup6, we need more well-spoken “dangerous” people like you. The trouble is that half the voters in this country are very poorly informed and treat the presidential election like an American Idol selection.
Good looks, a melodious voice and great stage presence are the determining factors, regardless of the usual empty words interspersed with a few dangerously naive plans. Qualifications to lead the greatest country on earth in times of war? Oh, that doesn’t matter at all. He’s over 35 and an American. Besides, he wants “change” – Right out of Saul Alinsky. He only has to fool half the people to bring down this great country from within.
@cowboyup6: Will you drop the pitiful “Obama’s a Muslim!” “Obama’s a Communist!” bullsh*t, already?! i honestly don’t care who is voting for whom, but the character assassination has reached some really abject lows this election season, and from what i’ve seen, those flinging the most pungent excrement are so-called conservatives.
In case you didn’t get the memo, a long time has passed since 1954. i’m pleased to inform you that Joe McCarthy is dead, as is communism itself, for all intents and purposes. Moreover, this country was never in any kind of peril of being ‘taken over’ by communists—the Red Scares were ruses concocted in order to whip people like you into a state of fear, and subjection to the government. The fact is, and remains in perpetuity, that the US treasures its beloved capitalism entirely too much for another economic system to replace it—and to believe that could happen due to one man winning the presidency is…well…suffice it to say, i’ve heard more intelligent discourse from crackheads.
Is it that nobody can conjure up any legitimate criticism of Obama…is that the reason for all the ignorant, nauseating invective? If that’s the case, then the Right truly is pathetic. Believe me, even i can come up with legitimate criticism of Obama—based on actual issues—in spite of the fact i plan on voting for the man!
Obama is not a Muslim, nor is he a communist. Period. Now, i’m not here to defend Obama’s campaign platform—he can do that on his own. However, i’m sick and tired of disinformation and irrelevant banter. If you can’t come up with something real, then do everybody a favour and shut up.
@Slinkiecat: cowboyup6 is well-spoken? Ha! Dangerous?! are you kidding me? i’m convinced you wouldn’t know ‘dangerous’ if it pistol-whipped you!
Cliches and assonance with ‘Osama’ hardly passes for intelligent discourse…
For Obama, it is not a case of “character assassination”. It is a case of “lack of character” on Obama for free loving Americans who wish to keep our US Constitution with our freedoms enclosed. People are learning facts concerning Obama. If you lay down with the dogs, you will get fleas on you. It appears Obama may be dirtier than a pig in a mud puddle. Now, that is dirty. When you regularly associate with members of the Communist Party, you will, also, become infected with Communism ideology
Oscar, you reinforce the very point i’m trying to make—you talk about how you’re apparently afraid Obama, if elected, will somehow compromise your freedoms under the Constitution, how it’s a “lack of character,” etc.
Consider my position here—it’s very difficult to carry on a conversation with someone, when they will not (or perhaps cannot) back up their assertions with facts.
…and yes, it is character assassination to conjure up ridiculous, totally unfounded (and sweepingly disproved) rumours that ‘Obama is a Muslim radical, and he’s been sent by al Qaeda to destroy America from the inside…” or “Obama had a communist friend when he was younger, therefore, if Obama is elected, he’s going to make this whole, voraciously capitalist country ‘go communist’ overnight.” Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?
Let Obama prove to the American public himself that he has character – Over the past two years he has proven just the opposite, with his many associations and long-standing friendships with nefarious and bigoted anti-American people like communist Frank Davis, the hateful anti-semitic Rev. Wright, criminal Tony Rezko, unrepentent terrorist Bill Ayers and his cohort Doerhn, various terrorist supporters in his campaign that he has had to toss aside once they were revealed, and so on. Where does it stop? This phony baloney snake-oil salesman fancies himself the savior of the world, to the point of thinking he can stop the seas from rising, tear down walls when he works day and night to build them.
How can any person with a brain think of promoting this totally unqualified beginner to the top spot in the nation without admitting to total idiocy? This shameful Democrat party has taken politics to a new low. Even the phony John Kerry had ten times the qualification of Obama, and he lost because of his flip-flops, as will your junior Senator Obama.
Obama is twice dangerous because of his naivete which allows the anti-American Soros to control him, and his combined communist and Black Liberation Theology linked to Islam.
All we can do is fight the liberals who want to put this weak puppet into the White House so they can control him and destroy this great country.
Oh, yes – Don’t forget to pray, a lot.
Evidence that Frank Marshall Davis was “bigoted”?
Let me just say “Amen” to Slinkiecat. It could not be said any better. America deserves better. Obama is associating with what appears to be dirty personalities, and Obama should know better, if he had solid common sense.
Popolo, I didn’t mean to lump the commie in with the bigots, but he is just as bad with his influence on a young boy who is so easily steered in the wrong direction. Frank Davis shares the blame for corrupting Obama, a gifted young man who could have become a great patriot without this turn to the far left.
Slinkiecat:
What evidence do you have that Frank Davis corrupted Obama?
Thanks!
Still waiting for someone to say something intelligent…
Allow me to reiterate what i’ve asked before: Is there anybody involved in this discussion who is capable of pointing out a concrete reason for their disdain of Obama? i’m talking evidence here. Frankly, all i’ve heard anybody say here is that “Obama knew a communist when he was younger [Frank Davis]. Therefore, he [Obama] is a dyed-in-the-wool communist, and will destroy America if elected.” Is that basically the extent of people’s thinking here? If that’s the case, then how (using actual examples, rather than hollow rhetoric) and why do you draw these conclusions. Honestly—i’m not being facetious—i’d really like to know. Thank you.
You can’t be both a Communist and a Moslem. The first bunch were atheists, the second group are fervent monotheists. You can’t be a Moslem and also attend Christian services and proclaim Jesus is the Son of God. To do so violates Sharia, the Islamic theological law code. The punishment, according to the Koran, should be death, followed by eternal damnation. How could anybody today be a Communist unless he/she were forced to be or were insane or just plain stupid. Whatever else he is, Obama is neither unintelligent or a psychotic. Besides, would Obama be that stupid after the failure of Communism is plan for all to see? Does anyone think he hasn’t seen what has happened to Russia and China? Even officially Communist countries – the few that remain like N. Korea and Cuba – are adopting captalism. Plus, just HOW could Obama impose Marxism on the US? The president is neither a king nor a dictator.
But some things are clear: Corsi is a liar, a hypocrite and a blasphemer. He dodged the draft with student deferments in 1964-72 but claims he is a patriot. He besmirched the reputation of a true war hero with a Silver Star and three (3!) Purple Hearts. Corsi’s book, Unfit for Command, has been clearly shown to be a collection of lies. Corsi claims to be a Roman Catholic. But he got divorced and then remarried in 1991. That means automatic excommunication under Canon Law. And Corsi called the greatest pope of the last several centuries, John Paul the Great, on his way to being proclaimed a saint, to be “senile.” How could anyone believe what such a worm writes? If you don’t want to vote for Obama, that’s your business. But to accept nonsensical lies about the man’s religion and political beliefs is to reveal your own ignorance. Finally, if you really believe such ridiculous stories, shouldn’t you be preparing to flee to New Zealand or maybe even Mars? After all, Obama is likely to be elected. If what Corsi has written is true, to blog attacks on Obama is to ensure you will be sent to the American Gulag and worked to death. Is Corsi preparing to leave the US? I don’t think so. In other words, his actions reveal he is a scummy con man and a black-tongued liar.
Mark asked: “What evidence do you have that Frank Davis corrupted Obama?”
I can point to the big government give-away programs Obama promises to buy votes – Free health care, college tuition, race-based initiatives, global poverty bill, etc. – hundreds of billions of dollars that we don’t have. This is communism, Marxism, socialism, whatever you want to call it. Certainly it is not the kind of ideology that made this country grow into the strong and free nation we are today, and that he wants to change.
Next is Obama’s desire to cut our nation’s defense, our nuclear arsenal, anti-ballistic missile program, and military strength.
On top of that, Obama wants to conscript our young people into a sort of domestic Peace Corps to give them government jobs instead of letting them make their own way into our free market system and earn their way up. This is communism.
If you’ve read any of Saul Alinsky’s work, which inspired Obama, you would see how it influenced him to follow those teachings in his only job in Chicago, the ACORN “community organizer” position that was formed to unite the black churches into a large voting block.
Only an Alinsky-inspired communist would take on this “messiah” persona to elevate himself to a point where he thinks he can heal the world and stop the rise of the seas, without even having made a difference in South Chicago, which still wallows in crime and poverty.
If Obama were a leader, you’d surely expect that he would have solved some of Chicago’s problems, and then as an Illinois Senator would have made a mark there, maybe getting rid of some very corrupt politicians… oh, well. Those corrupt politicians are the ones who launched Obama’s political career. He owes them.
Brian, you said: “You can’t be both a Communist and a Moslem…”
That is right, but it doesn’t preclude being influenced by both. Obama’s Marxist programs he promises to institute if he is elected prove the communist influence. This is probably stronger even than his Muslim influence from following Rev. Wright and Louis Farrakhan. Obama mentions in his book “Dreams of My Father” that he would stand with the Muslims if the political winds should turn in an ugly direction. This has gotten him support from several Islamic groups, both domestic and foreign.
We know Obama finally denounced the Trinity United Christian Church after much media exposure of the bigoted and hate-filled rhetoric they constantly supported. If Obama didn’t believe it all, it’s unlikely he would have attended that church for 20 years. Obama does not share the deeply held beliefs of most Christians, especially in the issue of the sanctity of human life from conception to death.
As a political hack, Obama can pretend to be any religion he wishes, and with the ability to change with the wind, he can go back and forth easily from atheism to Christianity, mouthing the appropriate phrases depending on his audience. He is a phony all the way through.
Obama may well be stupid enough to be blind to the failure of communism. He was too young to realize its danger through the mid-1900s when we were building bomb shelters in all public buildings and doing drills in the schools in case the USSR decided to nuke us.
Obama has no clue about what to do about Russia. He had to wait a day and try to rephrase what Bush said.
Obama doesn’t seem to know that he isn’t running for president of the world. All that pandering to Germans and other Europeans got him nothing here at home. Americans know what we need is someone who will put America first, not one who fancies himself first a “citizen of the world.” Some of his statements were rather dictatorial, though, such as that he would demand more of the Europeans.
Corsi did us a great service when he exposed John Kerry as a liar, a hypocrite and a pretender. Kerry never was able to prove a single word of the Swiftboat Veterans false. Kerry lied to a Congressional Committee about his fellow soldiers and accused them of atrocities that he admitted he had committed himself. He should have been dishonorably discharged for his actions.
Fortunately for America, Obama is not likely to win the election. The more the voters learn about him, and hear his empty words, the less they like him. I saw today that Rasmussen Poll has him down another six points over the past week, to dead even with McCain. We can all take heart. Americans are not as dumb as you think.
There’s a logical fallacy here. It’s called an Ad hominem attack:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Let me provide an example.
Lets say Ken Lay donates to George Bush’s campaign
lets say George Bush calls Ken lay a good friend and kenny Boy
Lets say Ken Lay is a crook
therefore:
Can I say that George Bush is a crook?
of course not.
@scott: George Bush is a crook, but independently of your logic exercise.
@Slinkiecat: First, considering communism has a great many flavours, it’s not impossible that someone might find a way to put the two together.
You’re making a gross exaggeration calling Obama’s proposals, i.e. heath care, ‘Marxist.’ i suppose you believe that FDR was a Marxist as well?
Also, so far as i know, Obama has no association with Louis Farrakhan. Furthermore, if you listened to the unedited Rev. Wright sermons, rather than the ones severely cut-up and used for political ammunition by Fox News, etc., you would find that in many respects, Wright speaks the truth—it’s politically inconvenient for Obama—but nonetheless, Wright is right.
Furthermore, i don’t understand your aversion to Obama having support from several Islamic groups…or do you simply follow the “All Muslims are Terrorists” mantra?
As for Corsi’s book—i’ll say this again—that it was published is a abominable misapplication of ink and paper, not to mention a denigration of the written word. Here is a man who makes his living deliberately sabotaging others’ careers, whether using facts, creative twisting of facts, or outright lies. Whatever you think of his victims is irrelevant (i, for one, didn’t care much for John Kerry)—Corsi is a contemptible horror of a human being.
Slinkiecat:
You outlined a number of Obama’s positions that are common among liberas, but gave no evidence that DAVIS corrupted him. According to Kincaid’s expert on Davis, “there is no evidence that he instructed Barack Obama in communist ideology.” Obama’s book mentions only racial discussions.
Once again: What evidence do you have that Davis corrupted Obama?
Thanks!
Dear Mr. Slinkiecat, Generally I don’t respond to a person too cowardly to use his/her real name. (By the way, am I a friend or relative? Am I a child? Thus, I expect to be addressed as either Dr. Sullivan (Ph.D., Columbia University, 1984) or Major Sullivan (USMC Reserve, 1964-93). More to the point: 1)if Obama were a Marxist and he became president, he couldn’t institute anything much by himself. He could ask Congress to pass the bills he requested. He could sign them into law only if they passed Congress. But if such laws violated the Constitution, the Supreme Court could rule them unconstitutional. Given the strong protection of property rights under the Constitution, Marxist legislation would never becomed legal. True, the Constitution could be amended. But is it even vaguely likely that 38 state legistatures would approve the transformation of the American economy in that way? And if they did, that woudl be the will of the American people – as highly unlikely as that would be. 2) But Obama is hardly a Marxist. You think he supports the dictatorship of the proletariat? You think he believes that the US should be a workers’ state that controls the means of production? Are you insane? He certainly isn’t. Besides, have you ever read the final paragraph of the Communist Manifesto? If enacting those programs makes you a Communist, then Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrwo Wilson, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan were Communists? You don’t believe that, look at what Marx wrote. My point is that: a) much of Marxism has been adopted by successive adminstrations since 1900; b) Marxism split between Social Democracy and Communism in the late 19th century. (Ever heard about Eduard Bernstein? I very much doubt it) 3) Were did you get the idea that Wright is under Moslem influence? You may not like his type of Christianity (as a Roman Catholic, I am obliged to consider his ideas heretical)but, as I mentioned, one can’t mix oil and water. It’s simply impossible to be a Moslem and a Christian. 4) Yes, Obama has stated that if Moslems came under attack for their religion, he would defend them. So would I. But that also would be true if the victims of religious discrimination were Jews, Hindus or any other religion. That’s the American way. 4) Trinity United Christian Church is not monolithic. (You certainly can’t accurately describe a church as “they” and I don’t just mean your grammar is faulty. Certainly you have little or no idea what all of its members think or believe. How could you? (Do you live in Chicago? Have you ever talked to those people?) As a Catholic, I am obliged to attend my parish church every Sunday. Do you think that I agree with everything the priests in my parish say? I don’t. But I have a moral obligation to go to Mass and to listen to and consider what they say. That’s what being a Catholic means. I suspect that is true for the members of other Christian churches. I imagine that was true for Obama, too. In any case, neither you nor I know what is in his heart. Nor is that any of our business. After all, that’s what separation of church and state means. Or don’t you accept the First Amendment? 5) I am opposed to abortion. But for you to state that most Christians believe in the sanctity of life – I assume you mean in regard to abortion – than you are ignorant of what survey after survey reveals abut Christians in the US. It may be hypocritical of them – as a Catholic I must consider it a sin – but about 70% have consistently supported Roe vs. Wade. What people claim to believe and what they actually do are two very different things.6) Obama is hardly too young not to have been aware of the evils of Communism. He was certainly old enough to remember what happened in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, the plight of the “Boat People,” the Mariel boatlift, the murderous Communist regime in Ethiopia under Mengistu, the Soviet invasion of and genocidal campaign in Afghanistan, Brezhnev’s oppression of the Russian Jews, Moscow’s support for the Arab attempt to annihilate Israel in the Yom Kippur War, Tiananmen Square, the attempts to smash Solidarity in Poland, John Paul’s repeated denunciations of the abomination of Communism, the attempted repressions of the Eastern European revolutions in 1988-89, the Soviet massacres in Tblisi and the Baltic Republics. (You really don’t know much history, do you?) 7) Obama has no clue what to do about Russia? Does Bush, his “Russian expert” Secretary of State or McCain, who claims he has been in touch with Saakashvili for years? Evidence of Russian intentions toward Georgia have been obvious for the past six months. We have over 100 US military advisers in Georgia. Do you think that they didn’t report what was going on to Washington? And isn’t it the responsibility of the president to deal with foreign crises? What did Bush do when he was literally sitting next to Putin in Beijing last week while the Russians were already on the move? And all you can do is blame Obama? You are truly irrational. 
Corsi certainly DID lie about Kerry. His supporters DID disprove Corsi’s lies about Kerry’s heroic performance in Vietnam. T. Boone Pickens certainly DID renege on his promise to pay them $1 million for exposing those lies. I was in Vietnam from June 1968 to June 1969 – admittedly far to the north in Quang Nam province – and I know a thing or two about what went down. You don’t get a Silver Star or three Purple Hearts without deserving them. How do I know? Because I have a Silver Star, too and a Purple Heart. They aren’t given out with the C-rations. Kerry earned them, as even the men Corsi interviewed agreed. Corsi edited out any of their remarks favorable to Kerry. 9) What gives you the impression I think the American people are dumb? Quite the contrary. I expect them to elect Obama in November because I think the majority of Americans are quite smart. I don’t know about you, however. 10) By the way, what about your military service? Ever heard a shot fired in anger? Ever sacrificed anything for your country? I very much doubt it. From what you write, you are a slimy blowhard and, as Dr. Johnson put it, a scoundrel hiding behind his supposed patriotism.
cowboyup6,
I understand your opposition to Sen. Obama, but I wish you would stick to provable facts including citing your sources for some of the rumors you repeat. In trying to defeat Sen. Obama canards, innuendoes, and prevarication will do more harm than good.
Obama was registered as a Muslim in both schools, one public and the other Catholic, that he attended in Indonesia since he was the son of a Muslim. The public school was not a Madrasah as some claim but it was predominantly composed of Muslim students due to the demographics of Indonesia. Also, like many people, Obama came to the Lord in midlife. Perhaps you doubt that’s possible but as a fundamentalist evangelical I’ve seen it often, including with myself.
As for an alias, he did use the name Barry in college as a nickname, just as I don’t use my Spanish name Roberto but go by Bob. I don’t think I’m involved in a conspiracy because I do that. As for the last name Soreto, that‘s simply a false rumor going around the internet, just like the false rumor that Obama doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen.
As for Obama’s political stripes, it’s no secret that he’s one of the farthest left in the Senate. It’s also true that Obama had relationships with far let individuals and groups such as his mother and father who were both socialists, Frank Marshall Davis, Prof. Rashid Khalidi, William Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Saul Alinsky, Rev. Wright, his wife a socialist attorney, Mike Kruglic, ACORN, and the Marxist New Party of Chicago.
But then as we all know associations don’t matter, they’re coincidences, and each one is merely an isolated situation. We also all know that character doesn’t count and everything depends on the definition of is.
Yet despite the facts that Obama’s associations are suspect at best, that he’s inexperienced with not much of a track record, that he prefers not to deal with specifics but prefers terms like change and hope which can relate to anything, that he has a strange understanding of the Constitution despite being a “professor” of constitutional law, he will become the next president. First, people are rightly disappointed in Bush and the Republicans, particularly since the Republican Party betrayed its core principles when it traded its 1994 Contract With America for a contract on America and turned the party over to the neoconservatives. Then there is the economy over which McCain had no input but will be blamed by those who have little understanding of how our economy works. Then there is the fact that Sen. McCain simply doesn’t have the charisma that Sen. Obama has and as we all know looks and charisma is far more important than experience.
So get ready for a socialist welfare nanny state under Obama, Pelosi, and Reid that will go for an appeasement minded isolationist policy with open borders. And by the way, if you live in the East, buy a prayer rug and learn the direction of Mecca. If you live in the West, learn Spanish. The Balkanized land that once was a democratic Republic under Constitutional Law before Bush and Clinton will become an Aztlan Caliphate.
Brian R. Sullivan, with the SCOTUS Kelo Decision do you really believe that we have property rights in the US anymore? And name any other of the Bill of Rights that’s still intact despite the recent Heller SCOTUS Decision which even DC is trying to thwart save the Third even.
As for Sen. Obama’s liberal/socialist agenda, please remember that he’ll have the help of Pelosi and Reid and a Democratic controlled House and Senate. Also with the prospect of Obama naming 2 to 3 supreme Court justices we might well wind up with a very left leaning supreme Court.
By the way, as for your “obligation” to attend Parish Mass every week, would you attend it where the priest was a known pedophile? If so I’d doubt your Christianity even if you claim you’re a Catholic.
Liberalism is so close to communism the Democrats might as well come clean and admit that they want a nanny state with government redistributing wealth so there is no incentive to excell at any job or investment.
We are all known and judged by the company we keep, so if you lie with dogs you will have fleas.
If the voters in this country don’t come to their senses before election day and reject Senator Obama, we will have a disastrous situation of a triumverate in our government, completely ruled by liberals/socialists/Marxists, and even having a veto-proof majority in Congress. Gone would be any hope of Constitutionalist justices on the Supreme Court as well as on lesser federal benches, and more of our Constitutional rights will be wiped out as liberal judges misuse their position to legislate.
The main danger of a neophyte president is that he is putty in the hands of nefarious financiers who wish our country ill, of powerful lobbyists controlling many long-seated Senators, and of foreign leaders who will use his weakness and fear of standing up for the USA instead of the world courts.
Dear Mr. Benitez, 1) Property rights are extremely secure in the US. True, they are more secure for the wealthy who can afford the best lawyers to defend their rights in that regard. But even for those in the middle of the economic ladder and -insofar as they own any property – those at the bottom, their rights remain more secure in our country than anywhere else on earth. The proof? First of all, consider why most of the tens of millions of immigrants to the US have come over recent decades: the chance to improve their economic situation, to acquire property and to have such possession protected and defended by law. The waiting lists for more legal immigrants counts in the millions because of such property rights in the US. Second, consider the balance between public and private property holdings in the US. The ratio in America is the highest in the world in favor of private holdings. Third, why do so many foreigners hold US bonds? Because they are a secure investment. Unlike many other countries, the US has never repudiated public debt. That holds true not only for American citizen bond-holders but for non-citizens.Foreigners know that the US is bound to defend their ownership of US Treasury issues, if only to ensure we can go on borrowing money. That’s also why so many hundreds of thousands of foreigners own American real estate, own homes here, keep their money in US banks and invest in American stocks and corporate bonds. That includes not only foreign rich but many millions of middle-class foreigners. You dont’ believe that? Then investigate the holdings of Norwegian pension funds – just as one example. Fourth, what other country has so many people imprisoned for robbery, theft, forgery and fraud? The US also has the highest percentage of population incarcerated for such crimes against property. Unlike klepto-states like Nigeria, Pakistan or Indonesia, the US also has a high rate of conviction of public officials for stealing the people’s money. Remember the fate of Randy Cunningham, Bob Ney, and the likely fate of Ted Stevens and Tom Delay. They stole public property and have either paid or will pay very severely. Have you ever read or heard of ANY British member of parliament or French member of their national assembly imprisoned for such crimes? (Or, for that matter, for securities fraud, inside trading or stock manipulation. Study the careers of the British subject, Robert Maxwell, or the Canadian Conrad Black for just two example of the great difference between property rights in the US and elsewhere.) Yes, property rights are far more safe in the US than anywhere else on the planet. (By the way, what have YOU done about your opposition to Kay SCOTUS? I doubt anything except whining about it. But you do have many legal ways to challenge that decision under our Constitution. Have you exercised any of them?) 2)As for pedophile priests, they are grave sinners whose crimes cry out to God for divine punishment. Remember what Jesus said about what happens to those who corrupt innocent children. But I sense a anti-Catholic bias in your question. Do you think that Catholic priests are more guilty of pedophilia than ministers, rabbis or imams? Accurate figures are difficult to collect about such crimes. But every indication is that such heinous offenses are just as common in other countries and among non-Catholic clergy. But your snide question makes clear that you don’t know much about Catholic theology or Canon Law. Catholics are obliged to attend their parish church, regardless of their opinion or knowledge about the parish priests. That is because of Catholic doctrine that the personal morality of a priest does not affect his administration of the sacraments. A priest who has murdered someone in secret can still celebrate the Eucharist in a valid way. Those Catholics who receive the host from such a man, however evil he may be, do indeep receive the body and blood of the Son of God. A pastor who has robbed from his parish can still hear confessions – unless and until forbidden to do so by his bishop – and serve as the intermediary with God for absolution. A priest who molests little boys or girls can nonetheless perform a valid baptism. Of course, such men are both vile sinners and abhorrent criminals. They deserve punishment in this world and – if unrepentant – in perpetual hellfire. But you don’t seem to realize the difference between the US legal system and Canon Law. They operate along completely separate lines, as laid down in the Constitution. So, yes, I follow the teachings of the Catholic Church and accept its doctrine on the sacramental power of properly ordained priests. You may not agree this is a proper from of religious practise. That’s your right. But my observance of my religion is absolutely none of your business. 3) As to which of the Bill of Rights are still effective: all of them. That doesn’t mean that such amendments are always enforced. Thomas Jefferson warned about the necessity for eternal vigilance to protect our freedoms. One can’t take them for granted. We must fight to keep them. But any citizen has the right to raise such issues in our legal system and pursue them all the way to the Supreme Court. Individual citizens or groups of same can take political action in the voting booth, by petitioning their Congressional representatives, by public demonstrations, by forming new political parties to address such concerns. All of those freedoms to exercise God-given rights are laid down in the Bill of Rights and remain in force. Consider the political actions of (the racist) David Duke,(the Communist) Angela Davis, (the nut case) Lyndon Larouche as well as much better people like Ross Perot, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Shirley Chisolm, Ron Paul, Bernie Saunders, James Stockdale, Ralph Nader, Bill Blair, Mike Huckabee and all the millions of Americans who worked as volunteers for them, raised money for them, voted for them, just to name a few recent examples. Furthermore, your own words belie your statements in these regards. If you didn’t believe your First Amendment rights were protected, you wouldn’t be blogging as you do. 4) Obama’s liberal/socialist agenda? To even raise that bizarre question reveals your ignorance. Liberalism and Socialism are antithetical. The basis of Liberalism is freedom (“libertas”) from state control of the economy and from state interference in one’s individual and group rights. The basis of Socialism is state control over or interference in the economy. Thus, ever since the enactment of the Interstate Commerce Act way back in the 19th century, the US has been operating under a form of Socialism. The Federal Reserve, the various anti-trust acts, the income tax, the Social Security System, the FDIC, Medicare and Medicaid, protection of collective bargaining, the various Federal Housing Acts, the Taft-Hartley Act, Food Stamps, unemployment insurance, Workman’s Compensation, the bail-out of Chrysler, the creation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and recent intervention in the credit and mortgage systems (which President Bush signed into law) are ALL examples of Socialism. But that is quite diferent from Communism. While very few politicans are willing to acknowledge it, the US has long been a Social Democracy, with its foundations laid under the administrations of Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson. (You sure don’t know much about economics or economic history, do you?)
5) Finally, how DARE you state that I only “claim” to be a Catholic? What do you know about the state of my soul? What do you know about how I practise my religion? You have revealed yourself to be an ignorant swine, perhaps even like one of those Jesus drove over a cliff into the sea. I don’t know anything about your own religious beliefs and wouldn’t be so presumptuous to question them. Those are entirely a private affair between you and God. But if, as you state, you are devoted to the Bill of Rights, then practise what you preach in that regard.
Why are we even surprised to find that Obama has many radical freindships and beliefs he’s hiding so strongly; he is nothing but a “media creation”, and this is the only reason he won the Democrat primary. American voters are notoriously uninformed and with very short attention span so most rely on TV ads that are few seconds long to form their opinions of individual candidates. I think that ADS that portray the real Obama should be shown often on TV and other media to help us understand who the “real” Obama is.
he’s is the in the category of one of the worse persons of the year. Too bad that the world can’t see that.
We need to destroy Obama and it pisses me off that he is Black becaue he causes more racial problems. Does he even realize that he is on a hit list with 800 million men from the East?
All of the Illuminati’s are and oh he is right in there. It’s too bad as I wanted him to be the right person to make change. BUT not the kind of change he has in mind. STOP OBAMA NOW
Mr. Sullivan—
Based on your above postings, you are indeed well versed and well read, well-learned, and smart. Not very wise, though, beyond what may generally consititute “common sense”.
It is good you served in the US military. Especially at a time when communism was such an enormous threat to freedom-loving peoples the world over, I appreciate and am grateful for your service to freedom.
1. You yourself injected your Catholicism into the discourse. Once admitted by you, it cannot reasonably be expected by you to remain out of bounds. People outside any religious group can identify a hypocrite. When a religion is one of the staunchest defenders of life, how simple to identify a member of that religion as a hypocrite when that member decides to defend and support a politician who is for killing even already-born babies. Even the most casual observer will immediately wonder about your “Catholisicm”, for we are known by our fruits. Not all Americans have their eyes and minds closed.
2) Today’s liberals do not practice the liberalism you defined, which is Classic Liberalism. And, given your knowledgeable writings above, you know that. Therefore, you argue with malicious pretense. Or, maybe your just not as smart as I presume. Given your support of Obama, you lack honor when making this argument. On the other hand, Mr. Benitez is correct, and you know that, as well. You correctly stated that Obama cannot change our government by himself. Mr. Benitez knows this, also, and smartly pointed out that, should Obama be elected, Congress will likely become nearly as liberal as he (merely by numbers, nevermind attitude) and that he would also likely name 2-3 Supreme Court judges. Mr. Benitez can see the writing on the wall, just as so many other Americans can, that, should he be elected, Obama would have the US move towards socialism in a far more malignant way than we have already exerienced. You wrote that socialism is based on government control of the economy. That’s only partly true, especially as exercised today, or anticipated by liberals today. Mr. Benitiez is right: liberals most certainly want to control all aspects of our society. Evidence? a) courts making law in California and Massachusetts with regard to marriage despite exisiting laws’ prohibitions and no action from the states’ true lawmakers. b) courts making law with regard to property rights despite specific Consititutional prohibitions. c) teachers everywhere making (de facto)law with regard to public education. d) private organizations in concert with courts making (de facto) law with regard to religion in the public arena everywhere. Plainly, the bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution itself, is under attack by liberals with a mindset like Obama. Again, many Americans are aware of this truth, for our eyes and our minds are not closed.
I’d like to write more, but my wife and I are off to dinner at a friend’s house. I believe you should be able to recognize that your support of Obama is based on a series of ruses. many people on this website cansee that, and we hope that your eyes and mind will also soon be open to the maliciousness that is the Democrat party’s intent.
Brian R said….“You outlined a number of Obama’s positions that are common among liberas, but gave no evidence that DAVIS corrupted him”
Anybody mentored as a child by a Communist has been corrupted. But, as a Communist thinks…their ideology is not corrupting. How about you?
“i suppose you believe that FDR was a Marxist as well?”
Yes…what do you think the “Great Society” was patterned after
Blackhat said….“In case you didn’t get the memo, a long time has passed since 1954. i’m pleased to inform you that Joe McCarthy is dead, as is communism itself, for all intents and purposes. Moreover, this country was never in any kind of peril of being ‘taken over’ by communists—the Red Scares were ruses concocted in order to whip people like you into a state of fear, and subjection to the government.
Blackhat are you really that naive? Do you have such a pathetic grasp of history that you really believe that statement? The Communist party is alive and well in The United States. Google it. California just passed a bill stating that teachers can no longer be fired for teaching Communism. California’s Maxine Waters just spoke outloud and said she was for “Nationalizing” The oil Companies. Yoo hahhh Hugo Chavez comes to California. Please don’t tell me you are that blind. OsamaObama already has plans in place to have the largest civil defense National Police force in the World. He spoke about it in one of his speeches. The USA brownshirts oh boy thats cool. The Dem blindness is the most devastating conundrum I have ever seen. They have foisted on us, one the most dangerous men I ever listened to. His words are colorful and inspiring. His intentions, unspoken, between the lines are terrifying. Frank Davis most certainly had a huge affect on this man Barack Hussein Obama. If he is elected, hold on to your hats folks, we are in for a ride. It just may be our last.
After watching the Brokeback Showdown yesterday, I think most American voters will see that Obama will expose himself as the inept politician he is, and the statesman John McCain will easily defeat him in November.
Obama is like a freshman in high school without his teleprompter and carefully worded speeches, which themselves are empty phrases coopted from other speakers or even popular songs. He is so devoid of a lifetime of relevant experience, while McCain has such a rich history and proven dedication to this country for several decades.
Some of us get it, and others remain blinded by a quest for political dominance, to the point where they will bring forth a self-proclaimed leader who hasn’t ever led anything, all in the name of “change” where that could mean destroying all that is great about this country.
You Democrats should be happy with your control of both houses of Congress and forget about turning our country into a nightmare of communist ideology. See if you can deal with San Fran Nan and her greedy control of our national energy policy just because she has invested so heavily in T. Boone Pickens’ Clean Energy corporation that she wants to deny the rest of us access to our own oil. Maybe she can afford a million-dollar windmill to power her next plug-in car, but the rest of us have to have gasoline for at least the next 20 years.
Power corrupts, and absolute power (all three branches of government) corrupts absolutely.
If you want Obama, beware of the consequences. Even Hillary, with all her corruption, is less dangerous for this country.
Dear Mr. JAWoods, Once again, I am confronted by someone too cowardly to identify himself by his real name. What, exactly, are you afraid of? Thus, before I address your semi-literate, presumptuous and ignorant opinions – which I will enumerate below – I find myself in contempt of someone hiding behind a pseudonym. As for your nonsensical statements: 1) I don’t mind if anyone discusses my personal religious beliefs after I have laid them out. Nor am I offended by criticism of the Catholic Church. What offends me is ignorance in regard to same. I repeat, I don’t “claim” to be a Catholic, I am one. According to Catholic teaching, once baptised into the Church, one remains a member forever, in this world and the next. I was baptised a Catholic. Even if one becomes a monstrous sinner or adopts atheism or converts to another religion, Church doctrine states that such a person remains a Catholic. You may not consider that logical or morally correct. That is certainly your right. But the use of “claim” in my regard is both personally offensive and theological incorrect. THAT is what I found obnoxious about Mr. Benitez’ comment. You indicate that one cannot be a good Catholic yet also offer political support for a politician who supports abortion rights. That is simply incorrect, as both the papacy and the American Catholic hierarchy have made quite clear. What the Church authorities have stated is that one cannot in good conscience vote for such a person if their advocacy of abortion is their main position or forms the core of their position. At the same time, the Church also teaches that one must obey the laws of one’s country, respect the views of the majority in a democracy, be a good citizen under a just government and respect the honest opinions of members of other religions. Many American Catholics ignored Pope John Paul’s unequivocal condemnation of the war in Iraq. Yet the Church never instructed American Catholics not to vote for George Bush in 2004. Nor has or will the Church make a similar statement in regard to Obama. What it teaches is that one has the moral obligation to consider the totality of a candidate’s views, then choose the person who comes closest to meeting the Catholic concept of morality. In that regard, I prefer Obama over McCain by a wide margin. Obama has repeatedly made clear his personal objection to abortion. But he also supports a woman’s right to choose. That, by the way, under Roe vs. Wade, is the law of our land. If abortion were to be made illegal in the US or even in my state, I would support such a ruling with heart-felt sincerity. To make this point more clear, as I’ve indicated before, in the eyes of the Church both McCain and Obama are heretics. Both of them advocate artificial birth control, a grave sin according to Catholic teaching. (Admittedly, as is obvious from the average size of American Catholic families, the great majority ignoe that teaching and practise artifical birth control anyway – probably in the range of 85-90%)Once, during the Counter Reformation, Catholics were enjoined to engage in armed warfare against Protestants. That resulted in the horror of the Thirty Years War. I find it shocking that my Church ignored the teachings of Jesus in that regard. I am grateful that I did not live in that time. I am even more grateful that I live in a time where I can live under a free government that enforces the separation of church/synagogue/mosque/temple and state. As for your statement about Obama’s support for “killing already-born babies,” are you referring to partial birth abortion? If so, I suggest you read what Obama has stated and written about such matters. He has hardly taken the stand you believe he has.
2) You state that what you call “Classical Liberalism” is not the same as contemporary liberalism. Well, no ideology that has existed for over 300 years, from the time of John Locke, remains static. But the essence of libealism was and remains the same: the maximum liberty for the individual within a society that protects the rights of all. Far too many Americans accept rightwing definitions of liberalism. Far too many have never read the works of the great liberal thinkers and, out of ignorance, accept non-liberals definition of the concept. Liberalism was conceived before the advent of industrial capitalism and monopoly capitalism. Thomas Jefferson, one of the greatest liberals, fearing what he saw as the direction capitalism was taking (hence his opposition to Alexander Hamilton’s economics)argued that free white Americans would be best off as small independent farmers. But by the post-Civil War period, Hamilton’s vision had triumphed. The excesses that followed (miserable and unsafe working conditions, child labor, price-fixing,etc.) until the Progressive Era, forced liberals to rethink their ideas. After lengthy debate, American liberals decided that the essence of their ideas was not formulaic resistance to state intervnetion in the economy but defense of freedom for individuals. From that sprang support for labor unions, the five-day work week, consumer protection, unemployment insurance, workman’s compensation, etc. Of course, that represented government intervention in the economy. But liberals decided that the end (personal freedom even for the poor and the weak) was more important than outmoded concepts from the pre-industral era. Yet you have the ignorant audacity to state that I lack honor, that I am guilty of malicious pretense, that I know Mr. Benitez is right in expounding my ideas. Even if such were the case, how could you possibly know what is in my heart? All your base words really show is your ignorance of political thought and history. Worse, you make these insults hiding under a pseudonym. If you were to identify yourself and provide your address, I would travel to where you live and dare you to say such things to my face. You call me lacking in honor? It is YOU who are the sniveling coward. No man of honor would state what you have spewed out.
2) Are you really so irrational and paranoid to think that if Obama were to be elected president, the Congress elected with him would likely follow him blindly? Have you researched the individual positions of all the hundreds of Democratic candidates for the Senate and House to arrive at such a conclusion? You express only your fears, not any informed opinion. Not even Franklin Roosevelt or Lyndon Johnson, after their overwhelming victories in 1932, 1934 and 1964 enjoyed such power. The Constituion imposes checks and balances, as even Bush and Cheney have been forced to discover. American political history makes clear that when any one party gains a huge majority, it then splits into factions. Consider the Congress that Lincoln faced even after all his most bitter enemies left Washington to join the Confederacy. He still faced opposition on numerous issues and had to fight hard to get his proposed legislation passed. In many cases, he failed. Such woudl also be the fate of a President Obama. As for the supposed power Obama would enjoy to appoint 2 or 3 judges to the Suprme Court, your fears are again based on ignorance. Consider the ages and health of the sitting justices. If any are likely to retire or die in office over the next four or eight years, they would be the older liberal ones. Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito are going to be on the Court for many years to come. Likely, so would the “swing vote,” Kennedy. The retirees that Obama might see are the liberals Stevens and Ginsburg. Finally, presidents can’t “name” Supreme Court justices, only propose them to the Senate. It is the Senate that approves or disapproves the nominee. After all, Robert Bork isn’t sitting on the court, is he? Nor is a majority in the Senate held by the opposition party any guarantee that they will reject a nominee proposed by a president from the other party. After all, Clarence Hill is on the court, isn’t he?
The rest of your blog is filled with such ignorant and irrational blather, that I will return to it tomorrow – lest this blog grow to an impossible length.
Julie O said: “Anybody mentored as a child by a Communist has been corrupted. But, as a Communist thinks…their ideology is not corrupting. How about you?”
Sorry, but that is wishful thinking based on an imaginary relationship. “Dreams” indicates Davis advised him only on ethnic matters. Kincaid’s expert said there is no evidence that he instructed Barack Obama in communist ideology. Wishful thinking is not evidence. An imaginary relationship is not evidence. Only evidence is evidence.
Mr. Sullivan, your insults are anything but respectful comment on this article. You should write your own column to expound as much as you wish on your ideas instead of trolling threads like this to preach to everyone who dares to opine.
Berating those of us who wish to remain anonymous for personal reasons, whether related to family, business or other associations, is an ad hominem attack which has nothing to do with the topic of the article, or to any comments made in good faith.
““Dreams” indicates Davis advised him only on ethnic matters. Kincaid’s expert said there is no evidence that he instructed Barack Obama in communist ideology. Wishful thinking is not evidence. An imaginary relationship is not evidence. Only evidence is evidence.”
This is really bizarre Mark. How much evidence do you need. His Pastor is a Black Liberation Theology believer and he sat there and listened to him for twenty years. If you read Cone you will know that it has a Marxist base. His friends in Chicago at least two of them are former home grown sixties terrorist that still believe the same way. I have listened to Bernadette Dorhn’s speeches on Communism. I don’t need Kincaid to tell me of Davis’ conversations with Barry. Are you going to tell me that his mentor wasn’t about to share his ideology with him? HE WAS HIS MENTOR! He was a Community activist and still a member of ACORN…that organization has socialist/communist leanings specializing in fraudulent voting practices. You are the company you keep Brian. This does not take a rocket scientist to understand, and lately there are not too many of those in the Dimocratic Party. There are enough cirles and arrows pointing me in the right direction, but I guess you need someone to take you by the hand and stick it in the muck and put it to your nose for you to know that the muck stinks.
Amen, Wysiwya
Sullivan states that he is a retired Reserve Major, USMC; and got a Ph.D. from Columbia. So on the one hand his behavior on this site as an officer (Ret) of the Corp is sad and says they didn’t teach him much respect for others, but on the other hand I can understand his disrespectful behavior as having a PhD from Columbia tells me he is steeped in liberalism from one of the liberalest schools in America – remember these are the people that clapped for Allmadinjihad, and didn’t even really speak out when he slammed the liberals buddies – gay people, yet they run off their campus any with a Traditionalist or Conservative American viewpoint – they make these people fear for their very lives.
They have already shut down anybody against their viewpoints at Columbia, so Nazi’s like Sullivan have to troll sites like this to slam and cow those they disagree with – yes, they want to shut you up. AND they will say and do anything to achieve their goals – to them the ends justify the means – these are the people that one day soon in America, you will have to raise your hand and ask permission of people like Sullivan – just to go potty.
Go back to the Daily KOS (Kommunistic Oppressive Socialism), Sullivan, but hey, that wouldn’t be any fun would it, everybody there has been indoctrinated to think absolutely the same – no mischief to make there – and if anybody has the balls to say something different there they are slammed and cowed down, receive hate emails, and their posts are deleted and labelled hate mail. Yes, somebody said it correctly Sullivan – there is a classic liberalism and that is the free exchange of ideas in a diverse forum – and modern liberalism HATES free exchange of ideas if they differ from the PC indoctrination – and YES you hate diversity unless it is the far left – EXCEPT when that diversity is Gays vs Allmadinjihad – that monster from Iran wins then – the guy your idiot Osamabama wants to sit down with and kiss up to.
As a disabled/wounded Vietnam Vet, USNavy (the Senior Service 
, 1972-76, Sullivan, the depth you must hate America and wish her harm with your support of Obama makes me sick. The first real Marines, the Minutemen of Lexington and Concord, and Colonel John Glover’s Marbleheaders, roll over in their graves, I am sure, when they hear of Marines with the twisted thinking that you espound.
@Wysisyg: “What you see is what you get” indeed—and what i see is ignorance and pompousness, coupled with a pitiful weakness of mind. Dr. Sullivan’s arguments stand in razor-sharp contrast to the abjectly pathetic excuse for discourse with has been allowed (no doubt out of a decidedly morbid curiosity on the part of the moderator) to continue. If you are insulted by Dr. Sullivan’s statements of fact on this forum, then i suggest you express your ‘opinion’ somewhere everyone agrees with you completely, so as not invite damage to your delicate sensibilities…
@Julie O.: i stand by my assertion. If you want to waste your time pining about when they’ll bring back the good ol’ days of the Committee on Un-American Activities, and party like its 1954, go ahead, but all the same, communism itself, as an ideology, has never come close to usurping your precious capitalism. The right wing enjoys outlandish, polarised characterisations of and and all social programs as a descent toward communism, but it’s all hollow rhetoric, nothing more. Let’s be rational, and not intentionally blow things out of proportion…
Why is it that you liberal trolls have to attack anybody with whom you disagree with insults instead of just stating your opinions and being respectful of the others who wish to participate in the discussion?
Agreeing with the premises of the article and offering supporting statements is expected on a site like this, so those of you who want to silence us are way out of line.
Go back to your disgusting liberal sewage lines where everyone agrees with you instead of disrupting a basically conservative one. You don’t convince anyone you are right when you bully others who comment.
Maybe you’re just pulling a common liberal trick – infiltrate message boards and get them shut down just to silence conservative speech.
Good morning, Mr. Sullivan—
I presume you to be reading this after 17 August.
Woods is my surname. No one “out there” needs to know my full name in order to read my opinions or respond to them. You certainly were able to respond. This website is intended to share ideas, not names. Were I to give my full name and address, as you seem to wish, some knucklehead wishing me harm might actually take action.
I’m really glad you wrote the name John Locke. Instead of letting your memory be hijacked by your intemperate emotions, you really ought to reread his works. While you’re at it, reread the works of Hobbes, specifically “Leviathan”. Compare and contrast with an open mind. If you honestly do so, you’ll find you have been supporting a group of people who wish to control all of society (today’s liberals) instead of letting individuals live freely within a society (classic liberalism). One foments licentiousness (today’s liberalism) while the other individual freedom with respect for one another (classic liberalism). I don’t know Thomas Jefferson’s heart, but the words he left behind for us indicate to me he would not be at all pleased with modern liberalism.
Also, a word of advice: don’t be such a blowhard. Gather your thoughts and then be succinct. You’ll end up writing better.
Wow, we got another one – BlackHat Hahahahaha
Sorry Black Hat, there is no moderator here. It is places like your Daily KOS that has moderators to shut down those with views that are against that site. Here, people like you can put down people that have the balls to comment and try to intimidate them into not ever saying what they believe. You disagree with Conservatives – Traditionalists – and other Patriotic Americans – and that is your right. The other commenters on this site may not want to listen to what you have to say, but they do not put you down for what you say UNTIL you put them down for what they say. It is always easy to figure out the liberals on this site – they hate the commenters they disagree with and it shows in their comments – they have a problem, like you, with respect.
There are a few of us here that have no use for despicable people like you that put down and try to cow others – so we speak up and give you a dose of that which you preach. If we want HATE, we will go to sites like Daily KOS, which is steeped in the hate that comes from the left – yes, the intolerant people that are the liberals/Democrats of today.
BlackHat, if you want to hear what you believe, just go to one of your hate sites, they all speak the same language as you were all indoctrinated in the same gulag – we here are trying to stop the gulags from ever force feeding their hate down our throats – I will never ever go to one of your indoctrination camps – just kill me first – and yes, I know, it will come to that if leftists get complete control of this country again.
Blackhat,you have come to this forum as nothing but a troll in a neighborhood in which you do not normally reside. Yet you arrogantly invite the ones who belong here to leave their own neighborhood if they do not agree with you. Your bullying and character assasination is so typical of far left tactics. But, it is indicative of the illness of the far left. Your superiority is all in your mind blackhat and is not admirable. You come from a side in the Kos that intimidates, bullys and shuts down opposite views. That is why the “moderator” has not cut you off. This is not the Kos. We do truly believe in free speech even if we do not agree. As to your condesending comment to me about blowing things out of proportion. I know Communism Blackhat, personally, and I know it well. You so naivelly believe that the old days of tyranny are gone. Listen to your threads. You drip tyranny blackhat…..and I could truly envision you being the keeper of the key at the re-education camps. Its not gone at all and we are so close to the wackos going more wacko and destroying everything this Country stood for and the good that has been done Worldwide. But you, in your hatred for all things Capitalistic believe that we should go back and live our lives saluting to our Comrades in power and work in the Gulags for the Government. You may just get your wish.
JULIE O WROTE: This is really bizarre Mark. How much evidence do you need. His Pastor is a Black Liberation Theology believer and he sat there and listened to him for twenty years. If you read Cone you will know that it has a Marxist base. His friends in Chicago at least two of them are former home grown sixties terrorist that still believe the same way. I have listened to Bernadette Dorhn’s speeches on Communism.
RESPONSE: None of that has anything to do with Frank Marshall Davis. Where is the evidence that Davis corrupted Obama? Conjecture and supposition are not evidence.
JULIE O WROTE: I don’t need Kincaid to tell me of Davis’ conversations with Barry. Are you going to tell me that his mentor wasn’t about to share his ideology with him? HE WAS HIS MENTOR!
RESPONSE: Do you know Davis’s ideology from any sources other than his writing? None of his writing supports a communist government for the United States, does it? Where is the evidence that Davis shared ANY communist ideology with Obama?
Kincaid’s expert said there is no evidence. Conjecture and supposition are not evidence. Evidence comes from Obama’s book, which outlined his ethnic conversations with Davis, not ideological ones. Obama doesn’t consider Davis his mentor. Kincaid’s expert doesn’t consider Davis his mentor. Why do you?
JULIE O WROTE: He was a Community activist and still a member of ACORN…that organization has socialist/communist leanings specializing in fraudulent voting practices.
RESPONSE: That has nothing to do with Davis. Could we please focus on the Obama-Davis relationship? What evidence do you have that DAVIS corrupted Obama?
All you are really capable of doing Mark is going on the attack. Do you debate? No. You attack and bully with questions that are irrelavent and not answerable by anyone. Conjecture? You sound like one of my old Liberal Professors that thrived on bullying his students, but never would have survived in the real world. Yes you dim bulb. Being a member of the CPUSA which is the Conmmunist Party USA. And you said what?
None of his writing supports a communist government for the United States, does it?
WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK THE CPUSA WANTS? DO THEY WANT A COMMUNIST PARTY FOR CANCUN?
Do you think something this dim is going to intimidate me? I don’t think so. I am conversing here with someone that may sound intelligent, but Mr. Mark you do not have one lick of common sense. Go back to Kos you dolt. I am done with you for the night, and I can bet there are a lot more here on this thread that feel the same way. Find a five year old to kick around. They are more your size little man.
Dear Mr. Woods, You impugned my honor, More specifically, you stated that I lacked honor in making an argument. That is an un-American, anti-Constitutional, illogical and false statement that only a coward and a fool would make. Why? The elements that constitute honor are probity, rectitude and reputation. How, exactly, can any honest argument by a person involve dishonor. How, in my particular case, is my argument dishonorable. Put another way, honor involves “putting your money where your mouth is.” In your case, you hide behind the excuse that I don’t need to know your identity and your address to respond to your opinions. In fact, when you call me dishonorable, I do need that information to respond fully. First of all, how can I sue you for libel without that information? Secondly, how can I confront you to ask you to say such things to my face? You have described me as “malicious.” To whom besides worms like yourself have I expressed ill will? How have I proceeded from extreme hatred? Do you have some supernatural ability to see into my soul? You describe me as “not very wise.” How would you know, one way or the other? (By the way, how do you define wisdom?) You calim in my regard that we are known by our fruits. Well, what do you know about what I have done with my life? If you do want to know, then google me. I have a fair number of entries on the internet and you are certainly able to see them for yourself. If YOU had any honor yourself, you would reveal your whereabouts. Your assertions about my integrity, my accomplishments and my honesty are so deeply offensive that, combined with your moral and – it appears – your physical cowardice, you have revealed yourself as lacking in even minimal honor. “No one out there needs to know your name.”? I do. But you are are so sniveling and fearful that you deny me satisfaction. You are beneath contempt.
As to your statements, I will resume where I left off. “Liberals certainly want to control all aspects of society.” They do? Then the persons you identify as liberals are no such thing but rather, totalitarians. Do you think the people in the US whom you identify as liberals are either Communists, Fascists or Nazis? If so, which? They could hardly be all three. The argument you use to define such a bizarre statement have to do with gay marriage, property rights, the empowerment of teachers, etc. First of all, we have a federal system in the US. Laws vary from place to place according to the will of the local population. If people in one municipality want to name a sewage plant after Goerge W. Bush, that is their right. that doesn’t mean that all sewage plants shoul dor would be named for that president. The same is true about the other things to which you object. If the majority of people in a jurisdiction wish to pass a law consistent with their state and our national Constitution, that is their inalienable right. You appear threatened by others assertion of their freedom. That suggest that YOU are a totalitarian. You don’t like recent court decisions in California and Massachusetts. So waht? Do you live there? If not, it’s none of your business. If you do live in either state, the American system offers you ways to combat such decisions. But if the majorty in any location disagrees with your position, then you are obliged under democracy to obey local laws or move somewhere else. I suspect that your basic problem is that you have values that are no longer shared by the majority of Americans. If so, I do feel somewhat sympathetic. But you are free to migrate to Australia or Antarctica. Once upon a time, many people in the US thought slavery was a good idea. They fought a war to defend that “peculiar institution.” They lost. It would seem your attitude is rather the same.
You state that my support of Obama is based on a series of ruses. Really? What tricks or artifices have I employed? Do tell. What I think is that you are tormented by the fact that I argue based on the facts and on logic to disprove your ignorant and misguided opinions and that drives you to distraction. Too bad, little toad.
Dear Mr. Wsiwyg, You wrote to me that “those of us who wish to reamin anonymous for personal reasons, whether related to family, business or other associations is an ad hominem attack” Yes, you are quite correct. I think you are a low down cowardly worm for your lack of moral courage. You are afraid of what your family, business associates or others with whom you deal would think of you, if they knew your real opinions? That’s the definition of a coward, you ignoramus. Have you no shame? It appears not.
You go on to defend your cowardice by stating “[this]has nothing to do with the topic of the article, or to any comments made in good faith.” You have provided prima facie proof of my assertions in your regard. How can anyone judge your supposed “good faith” if they don’t know who you are? Even more to the point, you have made a series of assertions which are based on ignorance, bias, emotional deficiencies and inabilty to argue rationally. That has EVERYTHING to do with the topic under discussion. How and why? Think about a debate in which the participants hid behind a curtain and refused to identify themselves. Think about a witness at a criminal trial, a person under no threat whatsoever, who tried to testify anonymously. That would be – quite rightly – inadmissable evidence Think about a person called before a Congressional committe who did the same. Have you ever tired to be a man? It seems not.
Brian R Sullivan: You, sir, have gone too far, and with your present rant, I suspect you are NOT a retired Major of the United States Marine Corp!
If I was Mr Woods, I would contact the FBI, as I believe you have threathened this man bodily harm for his free speech, and hoping that you both are not in the same state, then across state lines it becomes a federal matter.
If you are a graduate of Columbia, or a retired Major of the USMC Reserve, then they can easily contact you. Of course, based on the criminal behavior by you that I have now witnessed, I suspect you are not that which you say you are, so perhaps the Feds will not be able to access you.
But if you stated truth, I would suggest you leave this site AND DO NOT EVEN RETURN. Go back to the haters that your kind foster, but the AIM site is closed to you and your criminal rants. If you post here again, I will not wait for Mr Woods to conatct the Feds, but I will. Felons like you should be in prison – and if you own firearms, under the laws you liberal felons pass, then I suggest you turn them in to your local sheriff.
Dear Mr. Hansen, It appears that you don’t like the American Constitutional system. Do you object to First Amendment? Why not circulate a petition to have it abolished? You don’t like my ideas? Too bad. You didn’t give me the right to express myself, God did. (Looked at the Declaration of Independence lately?) But I hesitate to go on because I am seriously worried about your mental health. I don’t want to argue with someone who is possessed by the paranoia and confusion you exhibit. I worry that I might push you over the edge into madness. However, I will point out the obvious fallacies in your nonsensical rant. No the Marine Corps certainly didn’t teach me respect for others. Nor did it nor does it do that for anyone. The Marine Corps teaches people how to kill. It does a mighty fine job, as Marines have demonstrated since 1775. Such attitudes are inculcated by one’s family, one’s religious upbringing and by one’s life experience. What I learned is to respect those who deserve it. That doesn’t include you nor the other ignorant fools to whom I have responded. You and they take the counsel of their fears. In this case that is the fear of the unknown, the unfamiliar and of progress. that is disgraceful moral cowardice.
You have some very peculiar attitudes about Columbia University. Have you ever attended it? Have you ever visited it? Do you know anybody who has? I very much doubt it. If so, you state opinions out of ignorance. Columbia is a very large institution. It has a faculty that ranges across the political spectrum. So does its student body, you think it is a libeal institution? No, it’s very much more diverse. Proof? Why don’t you look at the list of its graduates over the past several decades? Many prominent conservatives have Columbia degrees. Don’t take my word for it, inform yourself.
I don’t know where you got your nonsensical ideas about Ahmedinejad’s appearance at Columbia this fall. I was there when he spoke in Low Library. what happened was very, very different than what you have stated. First of all, before he spoke, the university president denounced his statements about Jews, homosexuals, American democracy and the war in Iraq. When Ahmedinejad made his abhorrent comments about homosexuals, he was loudly booed. In fact, he was booed repeatedly, laughed at and asked many hostile questions which clearly disconcerted him. Why you think otherwise confounds me.
You call me a Nazi? Do you mean I am an anti-Semitic racist, who hates democracy, supports the idea that might makes right, despises Christianity, wants to ablish the Catholic Church, believes in the “Fuehrer Prinzip,” wants to establish “Aryan” rule over the world and thinks that killing my enemies is my moral duty? Hmmm. Ordinarily, I would find your accusation highly offensive. In your case, however, I find
your notions about me pitiful. Have you considered seeing a psychiatrist. If you are a disabled veteran, you can get free psychiatirc treatment from the Dept. of Veterans Affairs.
You state you are a disabled veteran who served in the US Navy from 1972-76. How did you get injured, by falling down a ladder? Obviously, it wasn’t in combat. Or are you psychologically disabled? And what’s your rating? Mine is 60%.
Finally, you go on to babble about hate mail, Columbia making people fear for their lives and my desire to have others shut up. I don’t know what to make of that. It does seem to indicate paranoia on your part. In my case, I certainly don’t want to silence people, particularly those who are so badly informed they amuse me. (I know. That’s a sin against charity and I’m not proud of that weakness.)Finally, two more points. Where did you get the idea that Marines had anything to do with Lexington and Concord? Those encounters took place in April 1775. The US Marine Corps wasn’t founded until the following November. You think that I hate America and want my country to suffer harm? Gee, I didn’t know that. Neither does the government. I worked for the Defense Department for many years, had a TS/SCI clearance, helped plan the 1991 war against Iraq as a member of the Institute for National Strategic Studies at National Defense University and did a few other things about which I am not at liberty to reveal. Have you thought about writing to the FBI about your suspicions in my regard? Moron!
Dear Mr. Hansen, If you don’t believe what I have stated about myself, blog me your mailing address. In return, I’ll send you copies of my DD 214, my citations, my various diplomas, my discharge papers and any other proof of my bona fides you wish. Furthermore, you can look me up on the internet, on which I have a number of biographical entries. If you want a list of my books and articles, I can send them to you, as well. As for your nonsensical threats, please do turn my name in to the FBI. They’ll have no trouble locating me if they see evidence I have broken any federal law. But I must say that you don’t seem to have the vaguest idea what freedom of speech entails nor the protections enjoyed by all American citizens. What you have shown is that you have a totalitarian personality. That is, that you think that you can silence someone whose opinions and ideas offend you. But as for your orders to me about what I should or should not do – “the AIM site is closed to you and your criminal rants” – you actually amuse me. You state that I have gone too far? Who gave you the right to make such a nonsensical statement? Well, I beleive that God did and the Constitution protects your right to make a fool of yourself. But I have the same right to annoy you with my opinions and to state the truth as I see it. Perhaps that offends you. Well, have you considered living in another country? By the way, how have I convinced you that I am a hater? Please feel free to look at anything I have written, either in these blogs or in any of my published writings. I am very curious to learn how your mind works in that regard. And aren’t you embarrassed to reveal yourself as an ignorant fool?
Your ideas I may disagree with, but it is your threats and your belligerence that concerns me. I will be contacting the FBI at this point. Free Speech DOES NOT allow you to make threats and want to know where people live so you can confront them. And you better check out the history of the USMC as they do consider that the minutemen at Lexington and Concord were the real founded of the Corps.
I would ask that Mr Woods make contact with me so that we can make a joint complaint. And Sullivan, I am also going to contact the Marine Corps, even though they may not do anything, I want there to be a report in their files of your hate and threatening behavior.
You may not believe it but you did more for OUR side with your criminal threats and rants than you may believe – I will bet, except for your fellow hate crime babes that rant on this site that not one other person that comments here will NOW even think one good thing about Obama ever again – if you represent his supporters, and I believe you do, then no one on this site would want him as Dog Catcher.
And since this site is unmoderated as comments are made, I suspect that when Cliff Kincaid reviews posts tomorrow morning when he returns from the weekend that even he will agree that you have overstepped reasonable bahavior and have gone into the criminal.
Expect to hear from the FBI, Sullivan. I want you in jail where you belong.
Dear Mr. Woods, I am quite familar with the political writings of Hobbes and Locke. In fact, I taught Leviathan and the most important treatises of Locke in the Directed Studies program at Yale from 1984 to 1988, before leaving to take a position in the Strategy and Policy Dept. at the Naval War College. Thus, I am baffled by your statements in their and my regard. I’ll respond after trying to figure out what you mean. I must admit that my first impression is that you are both confused and ignorant about the idea of both thinkers. But I will try to see through the fog that appears tofill your mind.
Dear Mr. Hansen, I am beginning to worry very seriously about your mental health. In particular, I am worred about how you will react when representatives of the FBI and the Marine Corps respond to your insane accusations. Of course, they will reject them. What is going to happen to your mind then? Will you assume the FBI and the Marine Corps are controlled by Communists?
Everything I have written is completely within the law and protected by the Constitution. I realize that you don’t think so. But you will find out that I am right and you are very wrong.
As to your erroneous factual ideas: 1) I am very familiar with the history of the US Marine Corps. Among other things, I have been friends with Allan Millett for over 25 years. Among my Marine Corps Reserve duties, I myself served as a Marine historian. No Marine Corps historian considers the Minutemen as forebears. Instead, they are considered precursors to the Army National Guard. (After all, what did the American combatants at Lexington and Concord have to do with amphibious warfare?) 2) Why do you think that the Marine Corps has any jurisdiction over a retired Marine or that it has any police or judicial powers over a civilian? You really don’t understand how the American legal system works, do you? 3) You may consider me belligerent. (“hostile, warlike, addicted to war, bellicose”) So what? That’s my right as an American citizen. It’s also a trait that the Marine Corps encourages in its members. 4) As for making threats, what nonsense. I will repeat what I have stated before. I find people who write insults about me or any other person, but to refuse to reveal their identity or address, to be cowards. That makes it very difficult to sue them for libel. As for my right to confront such a person face-to-face, that is also guaranteed to me under the Constitution. How you got the idea that represents an attempt on my part to injure anybody is beyond me. It does suggest paranoia on your part. And you’re warning me about guns. What guns? You seem to have a screw loose, to put it bluntly. 5) I also sense that you are suffering from megalomania, which often accompanies paranoia. How could you possibly know what attitudes my blogs have generated? All you know is what feelings have passed through your troubled mind. You may or may not be correct but you are in no position to have any evidence on the matter. More to the point (megalomania), you seem to believe that you have some influence over others in the political process and that there is such a thing as your side – the side of truth and right – and my side – the side of lies and evil. That is totalitarian nonsense, akin to McCarthyism and pathetic. By the way, how are you going to deal with a victory by Obama this November? He will win, if only because of what Bush and Cheney have done over the past 7 plus years and because it’s becoming clear that McCain is in the early stages of Alzheimer’s. You don’t believe the latter? Don’t take my word for it, see for yourself.Follow him around for a few days as he makes speeches. He can’t remember names and facts. He confuses information. He states one thing, then the opposite an hour later. He forgets both, then denies he said either. These frequent and increasing misstatements are on tape and video recordings. He is a good man and certainly served his country well. But he suffers from the horrible psychological injuries he suffered in N. Vietnam and the mental effects of melanoma. He has a wonderful wife and she loves him dearly. But they are going to live through a terrible tragedy, like the Reagans did during the ex-president’s last years. I suppose in your tortured psyche yu think that this represents hate on my part, don’t you? Alas!
Julie O:
I apologize for frustrating you, Julie, but Kincaid’s expert on Frank Marshall Davis, Edgar Tidwell, was apparently speaking of people like you when he wrote “Further, to those attempting to make the specious stand for the concrete, there is NO evidence that he instructed Barack Obama in communist ideology.”
Hopefully, you accept expert testimony, but apparently you are unaware of the meaning of specious:
“spe·cious –adjective
1. apparently good or right though lacking real merit; superficially pleasing or plausible: specious arguments.
2. pleasing to the eye but deceptive.”
Hopefully, you know the meaning of “concrete.” There is concrete evidence:
a. That Frank Marshall Davis is “Frank” from Obama’s book (various sources)
b. That Davis advised Obama regarding ethnic matters (Obama’s book)
c.. That Davis was mentioned in Berman’s testimony to Congress (America’s Survival pdf file)
d. That Davis joined the CPUSA during WWII (see Tidwell’s intro to Davis’s writing)
But there is no evidence that Davis instructed Obama in communist ideology. Just as Tidwell advised, people like you are attempting to make the specious stand for the concrete with your speculation that Davis instructed Obama in communist ideology. You have no evidence. There is no evidence, only conjecture (“the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof”).
BTW: You may be unaware that some people worked with and joined the CPUSA for reasons OTHER than ideology, since it provided the only institutional support for African-American writers in the 1930’s and 1940’s. Membership had its privileges. Recommend you read Kincaid’s source “The New Red Negro.” Recommend you dispense with the personal attacks and do some research. You might learn something. When you are ready to debate, please provides evidence for your arguments. Sorry, but just the facts, ma’am!
Brian R. Sullivan, if you think I’m either impressed or intimidated by your hubris and ignorance, you’re mistaken. As with other posters you seem to have a need to resort to a show of arrogance by resorting to ad hominem attacks, which is sad considering your aliteracy. Your claim that I know little of about economics is ludicrous as I didn’t mention economics in my post to you. That’s why I refer to you as aliterate.
That the US hasn’t repudiated its national debt, that ten million people have come here in the past decade, or that we’ve the highest percentage of people incarcerated has nothing to do with the practical effects of the SCOTUS Kelo Decision. So whether or not I believe it, I do, is irrelevant.
As for what I’ve done about Kay SCOTUS, the answer is nothing as I’ve never heard of it and neither have you. I doubt you even know what you’re talking about. As for the supreme Court of the United States’ (SCOTUS) Kelo Decision, it was the ruling that ended property rights in the US by ruling that a political subdivision could condemn and take private property to give to other private individuals or corporations if the result were to increase the tax base of that political subdivision. Such an interpretation of taking for public use was never envisioned by our Founding Fathers. As to my many legal ways to challenge the SCOTUS decision, please name them. I can’t do so in court as I don’t have legal standing. Do you understand the precept? However, I have contacted my state representative and a number of grassroots organizations about Congress correcting the situation thru a bill and thru a constitutional amendment. But I suppose you’ll claim doing that is whining. Do you believe that we should accept the SCOTUS Kelo Decision?
As for citing any British MP convicted of a crime, how about Ms. Fiona Jones who was convicted and expelled from the House of Commons for election fraud? In France the Far-right politician Jean-Marie Le Pen was convicted of a crime this year. Also Alain Juppé, a former Prime Minister, was convicted of corruption charges. But what those cases or the cases of corruption of US politicians have to do with the issue of property rights is beyond me.
Let me ask, do you believe that anyone who raises an issue about the number of cases of pedophile priests and the failure of the Bishops to take quick and decisive action is anti-Catholic? And tell me, has there been a equal rash of ministers, rabbis or imams who have been accused of such as in the case of Catholic priests? Or is it a matter of MSM anti-Catholic bias? Also, just what was snide about my question? As you had made a number of pointed references to your Catholicism and the requirements to attend services to other posters, it’s more than fair to compare Obama’s sitting thru 20 years of Wright’s conduct without leaving and Catholics sitting thru misconduct by priests without leaving a particular Parish. Had my minister preached anti-Americanism as Wright did or had he molested children and wasn’t removed by the elders I would have left my local church and found another congregation to fellowship and worship with. Furthermore, as you made quite a bit about your religion and its requirements, I certainly have a right to question you on that. However, it’s you that seems to confuse the Constitution and US and Canon law. While I’m no expert on Canon law nor do I suspect you are, it doesn’t protect from the court system priests who commit crimes such as pedophilia. Nor does the Constitution protect churches or priests from prosecution for crimes whether it be Catholic pedophile priests, Mormon polygamist leaders, Pentecostal tax evaders, or Jewish Rabies who commit murder. Or do you believe otherwise? I doubt you really understand what the Constitution says.
As for Sen. Obama, I specifically said in my post to you “Sen. Obama’s liberal/socialist agenda…” But I guess you believe all of us who believe that Sen. Obama is one of the most liberal members of the Senate are making bazaar claims. Nor did I call him a communist although he has had quite a few close associations with communists. Oh, I forgot, past associations just as character don’t count, do they? By the way, what is the definition of is? Your attempt at defining liberalism versus socialism is quite feeble. Classical liberalism was indeed founded on the concept of liberty. But modern liberalism if better described as founded on the concept of the social welfare state and the word libertine. As you point out, yet seem not to understand that you point it out, is that both the Democratic and Republican Parties have pursued varying degrees of liberal socialist policies for some decades, at least from the time of FDR if not before. However I didn’t equate that to communism. Nor did I delve into economics as related to other politicians or parties as I was discussing Sen. Obama. If you think I did please prove it rather than resort to innuendoes. I try not to rationalize the issue of a candidate’s positions by pointing out other candidates’ positions.
By the way, I claim to be Pentecostal. You claim you’re a Catholic. Yes, I dared state what you claimed. Like most partisan demagogues, you resort to name calling, innuendoes, and expressing contempt for others. You’ve admitted as such on posts to others. By your intolerance you make me doubt your Christianity. Have I called you a swine, a coward, ignorant, or semi-illiterate? Have I told you I have nothing but contempt for you? Did I make a veiled death threat against you? Yet you have no hesitation in doing so against others. I suppose being a Ph.D. doesn’t give you wisdom or being a Major doesn’t make you a gentleman. Maybe you imagine otherwise.
I do have one final question, although I doubt you can answer it. What did my post to you have to do with practicing what I preach with regard to the Bill of Rights? Do you really understand the purpose of the Bill of Rights? Oh, one other question, what is your Doctorate in? Surely it can’t be in English grammar, composition or logic.
Mr. Sullivan –
1) When I was younger, nearly my entire family was Catholic. I was baptized Catholic. My military dog tags listed me as Roman Catholic. Although I’m no expert in Catholic church law, I know whereof I write, because the truth is, in the end, The Lord doesn’t care what the Catholic Church believes about me or you, or what you or I believe about the Catholic church, He cares what I believe about Him, and what you believe about Him. He cares did I follow His will? You can recite Canon Law all you’d like in futile gymnastics exercises to justify your support for clearly abhorrent policies. [You wrote that Obama said something akin to, “I personally do not like abortion, but I support the right of women to choose.” That really means: I personally don’t think it’s right to kill a baby, but if someone else wants to, who am I to stop them? Talk about cowardice!!] It is nonetheless plain to see: Your words testify to your hypocrisy. Killing babies is and always will be against His will. If you need to see proof in writing, then God help you.
2) How can I know what is in your heart? You have written what is in your heart, you big dummy. Have you not heard, “It is not what goes in your mouth, but what comes out…”? Therefore, I can know your heart by your words.
3) FDR and LBJ didn’t have the company of modern liberals. Otherwise, especially with regard to FDR, who knows what might have occurred? Thank goodness Congresses-past still had their governing morals firmly anchored on solid ground and thank goodness they, FDR and LBJ had some working understanding of the evils of communism, despite their progressive socialism (I mean that as in “becoming more severe”). Look, liberals no longer exercise the internal checks and balances that ought to govern a free society. That is what we conservatives are pointing out. Obama is a modern liberal’s most modern liberal. He has become the ideal for liberals. And so he feels comfortable saying that, with his nomination, the oceans will stop their rise.
4) Allow me to describe what it is Obama wants by playing on his words a little: A rising tide floats all boats. When the tide is high enough, the boat’s owners take them out and use them as they see fit – enjoying them for whatever purpose they decide. That’s bad news to liberals, because some boats are bigger than others. Some boats fish better. Some boats are faster. Some boats are more pleasurable. That’s bad news. That’s bad, bad news for liberals, because then not all boats are equal. They prefer the water to be low. Very low; so low that no boats float. That way, they’re all equal. None can do or be no more than any other. They’re just there. When one is needed, the government will decide which one. Then the government will come and take that boat to the water, thus defining the purpose of the boat. The government will put its crew on the boat and monitor its operation. Don’t think that’s true? Ask Maxine Waters what she hopes for in a “President Obama”. Ask what the NEA expects from a “President Obama”. Ask what the UN anticipates from a “President Obama”.
5) Obviously Supreme Court justices aren’t named to their positions by presidential fiat. You have let it be known that you extend no courtesies. Humph.
6) Scalia and Kennedy are both older than Souter and Breyer, and they have served longer, as well. Now, earlier I alluded to the replacement of 2-3 Justices, but perhaps I should amend that to 3-4, instead. Who knows what health conditions exist in these nine people? Man knows not his time. Therefore, let us exercise wisdom and prudence, nonetheless.
You are quite entertaining. I can imagine a rather fit, older man becoming more and more animated and more and more red. You are passionate! But I suspect your passion on this blog has two sources: 1) Your apparent accomplishments [USMC Major, Retired; PhD; instructor at Yale as well as at the NWC]. Well done! Those accomplishments do not, however, permit your condescendence and derision, nor do they allow threatening verbiage. You think yourself better than others because you are accomplished. But, really, many here can see that you are, at heart, merely a braggart and a blowhard. 2) You support political beliefs that are counter to your church. You support politicians who advance policies which are counter to the teachings of your church. Naturally, you’ve got to puff yourself up and make all sorts of blustery comments to self-justify.
Mark,
I have met many people like you in my long years on this planet. I am grateful for most of them, because without the experience my skin would be way too thin for comfort. It is a pity that one with so much intelligence has trained himself to argue with condesension. You make assumptions of my knowledge and intellect sir. Assumptions that belie your conjecture argument on Davis and Obama. You are just as guilty as I on conjecture. You are basing your trust and precious vote on your conjecture that there was no mentoring of Obama in the ways of Communism. What a foolish man you are. Using all of your intellect to sustain an argument on a scientific method instead of common sense. I never studied the scientific method until my science studies, not poly sci. If one studies Saul Alinsky, Marx, etc. with all seriousness and is mentored by a known Communist, one should be able to assume intent. I assume intent with Barrys Marxist promises of Government programs, government jobs, government control over private business, and much much higher taxation. 2 + 2 = 4 Common sense. Go ahead Mark. Use all of your vicious professorial attacks you want. I see you for what you really are. A blowhard. And by the way, I am not frustrated. Amused would be a better word. Everytime I answer you, you make yourself look much like the fool.
There are too many unanswered questions about this man (Obama). We need a “war time” president with broader experience and world wide contacts to lead U.S. right now. I don’t really want McCain for president but at least we know for sure that he Was BORN a U.S. Citizen and that he does not have any Commies, Radical muslims or “hate of white people religious training” in his background. If he can’t prove that he was born an American Citizen, then why isn’t the media and the American People demanding his withdrawal, in disgrace!? I might just vote third party anyway. Obama is NOT the right choice for America. Our country is in grave danger…
Julie O: Your argument is based on the premise that “one is mentored by a known communist.” That premise is unsupported by Obama or Davis. It is conjecture. When you use conjecture as a premise for other statements, your argument suffers.
What conjecture am I using? Please specify the statements, as I have done for you (“one is mentored by a known communist”). Like they say on CSI, I try to follow the evidence. Unfounded presumption and assumption are obstacles to rational thought.
Do you believe that your judgment regarding Frank Marshall Davis is superior to Edgar Tidwell’s judgment? If not, then you should accept his judgment in this regard. If so, then upon what basis do you hold this belief?
Do you accept some African-American writers wrote in CPUSA publications during the 1930’s and 1940’s, without accepting CPUSA ideology, because only the CPUSA provided institutional support? If not, have you read The New Red Negro? If so, please advise.
Once again, I am concerned ONLY with their relationship in Hawaii, not Obama’s subsequent activities.
Re: Condescension. I believe you made this personal in your post #63 when you called me a “dim bulb,” “little man,” and being without “one lick of common sense.” If we could maintain a civil discussion and stick to the issues, it would benefit all involved.
Julie O,
One more thing regarding Tidwell’s statement. The evidence is clear to me that you rejected his statement, but you may consider my conclusion to be unfounded conjecture. Do you reject his statement?
I could see only two possible reasons that you would reject it: lack of understanding or presumption of superior judgment. I assumed neither. That’s the reason I took pains to define his terms, so that we could overcome the potential “lack of understanding.”
That leaves “presumption of superior judgment.” Is this the reason, or is there another reason for rejecting his statement?
On the other hand, if you accept his statement regarding Davis and Obama, please accept my apologies for such conjecture.
Mark:
Why are you now commenting here as simply “Mark” and “MKD” instead of as “Mark Kaleokualoha Davis?” Got tired of typing all that or are you trying to avoid something? What’s your agenda? Frankly your cut n paste obfuscating comments are really tiresome. (Yeah, I know, I’m free to ignore them.)
Julie O.:
This “Mark” is Frank Marshall Davis’ son. He is on some kind of “mission” regarding his imagined family honor being sullied or something. It’s hard to tell what his agenda is other than attacking Kincaid and others who point out that his father was a communist sympathizer and member of the Communist Party of the USA and who had some influence on a young, impressionable Barry Obama.
John…after his last post I looked around the aim site at the other articles. I found the Mark Kaleokualoha Davis and his continued arguments. I also saw where you had faced him with Frank Davis being his father. I don’t grow frustrated with his beligerence and obfuscating, but weary. I figured there was a frantic need in his bullying tactics. Thats why I wandered around looking for the answer.
Sorry Mark if Dad being a Communist upsets you. I really do not care how many useful idiots the CPUSA was successful in rounding up in the 30’s and 40’s for their programs, I care that they meddled at all in our populace for their injection of the Communist virus in our Country. Maxine Waters is a fine example of their meddling.
John,
Sometimes my comments may be inexplicably blocked by a “spam filter,” but accepted when resubmitted with a different name. Such was the case with “MKD.” I actually started as “Mark” on the “Obama’s Communist Mentor” thread.
My agenda is simple: The truth. I have no problem with people pointing out that my father “had some influence on a young, impressionable Barry Obama.” I believe he had a positive influence on young Obama. He had a positive influence on me.
I have problems with people exaggerating his radical character or influence, however. This is the reason that I have devoted countless hours to identifying such specific misrepresentation, outlined on my blog. I invite everyone to refute the specific points I have identified. Please. It will help me tighten up my position for future reference.
I also have problems with laymen rejecting the judgment of experts because it conflicts with their “common sense.”
Thanks for asking.
BTW: What “obfuscating comments”? I believe all of my comments pertain to the issue of my father’s “radical” character. Please identify any that do not. Thanks!
I also have problems with laymen rejecting the judgment of experts because it conflicts with their “common sense.”
What is determined a “layman” Mark? I earn a living and don’t spend my day copying and pasting from the works of so called experts. Who made them an expert? I am talking about something very simple, and very proven to be an ideology that does not work and lends itself to tyranny…and that is Communism. There is nothing kind to Communism Mark…maybe they helped some blacks out when they needed it, but it was for a purpose. They get their pound of flesh Mark. Like I said in an earlier post. Maxine Waters. What an example of CPUSA generosity. And by the way…lately I have found that the experts just don’t have any answer but the wrong answer. The people with common sense sail through without a bit of trouble. Think real hard Mark. Move yourself into the real world. Think like a real person. You will find an example. Have a nice day.
Julie O asked: What is determined a “layman” Mark?
Response: A “layman” is a person who is not a member of a given profession. In “Obama’s Communist Mentor,” Cliff Kincaid, Editor of Accuracy in Media, said “Tidwell is an expert on the life and writings of Davis.” What made him an expert? He is a professor, with extensive research and writing on Davis’s life, including three books.
I agree with your statements that:
I am talking about something very simple, and very proven to be an ideology that does not work and lends itself to tyranny…and that is Communism. There is nothing kind to Communism Mark…maybe they helped some blacks out when they needed it, but it was for a purpose. They get their pound of flesh Mark.communism does not work
[END QUOTE]But none of those are points of contention. Those are all red herrings to the subject of my father’s interaction with Barack Obama. The point of contention is Frank Marshall Davis “corrupting” Barack Obama with communist ideology. If we focus exclusively on this relationship, I’m sure you can present no evidence that my father corrupted Obama.
Then, perhaps, we can more on to other specific issues of mutual concern.
Dear Mr. Benitez, I had forgotten to get back to you about your no. 73 of 18 August. I must admit, however, I am finding it increasingly tedious to point out your inability to read with understanding, your ignorance and your evasions of my answers and my questions. Nonetheless, I will deal with your points one-by-one. What does “aliteracy” and “aliterate” mean? Did you mean “illiteracy” and “illiterate”? That’s really funny, even though you didn’t intend it that way. That you so display your gnorance is astounding. Do you own a dictionary? (While I’m on this subject: “Jewish Rabies”! Do you mean “Rabbis”? “bazaar claims”! Do you mean “bizarre”? THESE are examples of why I describe you and others unable to spell correctly as semi-literate and ignorant. That’s not name calling. It’s an accurate description of the facts. Where did you learn to write?) As for me, I’m hardly illiterate. In fact, I can read six languages besides English: Latin, Attic Greek, French, German, Italian and Castilian. And I know how to spell their vocabulary correctly and use proper syntax and grammar. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you can’t even do that with English. I presume you are an adult. But you don’t even reach the expected level of an 8th grader – judging by the No Child Left Behind Act – in these regards. Now do you understand that what you consider name-calling is, in fact, an honest response to your ignorance?
But getting back to American property rights: Why you don’t think that property pertains to economics leaves me dumbfounded. But to the point, I noted that property rights are quite safe in the US, far more secure than elsewhere. I
then gave you evidence: 1) That the majority of the millions of recent immigrants to the US have come in search of economic betterment because they know that property rights are more protected here than in their homelands. 2) That it’s virtually unheard of for a member of the British parliament or the French national assembly to be prosecuted, let alone convicted, of crimes against property – unlike here. 3) That what Robert Maxwell and Conrad Black got away with in Britain and Canada in regard to property rights abuses would not likely occur here. (Remember Black was tried and convicted in an American court, even though most of his victims were non-US citizens.)4) That the numbers and percentage of people incarcerated in the US for crimes against PROPERTY RIGHTS is another indication of the protection of such rights in this country. (Are you really so unable to understand written English? Your problem seems to extend far beyond spelling.) 5)I raised the issue of members of Congress being convicted and/or indicted for crimes against property to make a distinction between the enforcement of property laws here, as opposed to elsewhere.
As to “Kay SCOTUS” you are quite right. I was extremely tired when I wrote that, for which I apologize. But yes, I do support that decision. After all, it does not amount to authority to seize property without fair compensation. Furthermore, I do so applaud the decision – among other reasons – precisely because of arguments laid down by some of the Founding Fathers. You claim they didn’t weigh in on the issue in a way that favors the SCOTUS Kelso decision? Nonsense! Read Federalist Papers nos. 12, 13, 16, 20, 21, 22, 30-36. The problem I envision for you, however, is that if you do read those arguments, you won’t understand them. Nor do I think you will realize their implications in regard to SCOTUS Kelso. But to try to help you, let me put it succinctly, even if crudely: the greater good. And in response to another one of your misguided statements, I’m not only well versed in the meaning of the clauses in the Constitution, but in the arguments made at and after the Philadelphia Convention in those regards. You seem to think that because I don’t agree with benighted misunderstanding of our fundamental laws, that I lack knowledge thereof. What a presumptuous ass you are. And, again, that’s not so much an insult as a reasonable description of one of your many intellectual failings.
I certainly did not indicate your attempts to overturn the decision as whining. (Do you confuse me with Phil Gramm? Save me!) I applaud your exercise of your rights. Best of luck, although I don’t think you will prevail.
As for pedophila within the Catholic priesthood, how could I have made myself more clear? Again, you seem to be unable to read with comprehension. As I wrote, such sins cry out to God for vengeance. Nor do I consider it anti-Catholic to raise such questions. But If you were to do research on the question, you would discover that the prevalence of such crimes is spread rather equally across all religions. Why? Because of the nature of pedophiles. They seek positions of trust in the care for children to carry out their horrendous crimes. Think of recent cases involving nursery school teachers here and abroad. Rabbis, ministers, imams have much the same role in the care of children, hence the same problem in the same proportion. Otherwise, one would come to a bizarre – note the spelling – conclusion: that certain ethnic groups are more likely to contain pedophiles than others.
As for your statements about the reasons why you might leave your own church, youhave touched on one of the fundamental differences between Catholics and Protestants. We have a hierarchical system of Church leadership. In order: the laity, preist, pastors, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, patriarchs and primates and, at the top, the pope. Protestants broke with that system during the Reformation, giving the leadership of national churches to kings. As time passed, the tyranny imposed by the union of church and state, gave rise to what the English called Dissenters, groups like the Anabaptists, the Puritans, the Quakers and others. In such religions, individual freedom of conscience, personal freedom to interpret scripture, freedom to join or leave a particular church as one pleased became established. Is that better than the Catholic system? Well, that is a matter of conscience and personal belief, isn’t it? But it is precisely why we cannot and should not legislate morality in this country. We have separation of church and state to avoid religious groups fighting over laws that do or don’t conform to each ones concept of good and evil. What I find troubling in cases of people like you, is that you want to legislate morality. I find that repugnant in the extreme. You have every right to believe what yu want. But you have no right to impose your beliefs on me. Yet you claim that I am the one who doesn’t understand the Constitution and its guarantees. Here I will put other names upon you: intolerant, ignorant of other religions, morally confused and an enemy of the American system of intellectual freedom. As far as I can tell from your own words, those words are completely accurate.
As for Obama’s church attendance, it’s simply none of your business. He has the right to worship as he pleases. His pastor has the complete freedom to preach as he pleases. Did Wright break the law? Of course not. So,go somewhere else if you find American religious freedom obnoxious. And how do you think you would feel if you were an African-American whose ancestors were enslaved by Christians and by some of the Founding Fathers? Do you think that you would just brush that off? You demand of others what you would never tolerate – at least I hope not. Would you accept to be a slave or to forget that your forebears were kidnapped, beaten, raped, had their families torn apart at slave auctions? Then, consider a group that after being officially given its freedom and made full US citizen between 1863 and 1870, been denied your rights, subject to humiliation, discrimination, lynching, rape, branding, abuse and poverty? It is these blindnesses on your part to the historical and personal experiences of others, how such torment affects them, that I find so vicious and repugnant. How do you think Jesus would act and feel about these issues?
I hardly consider myself to be wise, although I strive to be insofar as my limitations allow. I do know, however, that I am far more knowledgeable than most other people, including you. That comes not only from formal education, but my travels to over 100 countries, my knowledge of foreign languages, my experiences in war and in government service, my 40 years of research and writing, and the learned friends I have. Is that hubris? Like it or not, that’s just the facts. Do you think I that I think that I am better than other people? No, not at all. But I am increasingly horrified by your displays of ignorance and intolernce for views with which you disagree. As for being a “gentleman,” I despise the notion. I come from a long line of Irish Republicans. On his death bed, my grandfather. looking back over his life and the reasons he fled from British rule rather than face imprisonment in Dartmoor, said: “I swore for the Republic and I would live under no other law.” God bless and keep him. By the way, you don’t seem to realize that the Constitution makes it illegal to be a gentleman and also an American citizen. If you mean by the word the incorrect contemporary notion that being a gentlemen means being polite and courteous, I am so to those I respect. But I dont respect you, only your rights.
As for my education, google me. As for my time, I have tried my best to throw some light into your darkened mind. E ora, basta! Adieu.
“… It is these blindnesses on your part to the historical and personal experiences of others, how such torment affects them, that I find so vicious and repugnant. How do you think Jesus would act and feel about these issues? …”
Certainly blacks were screwed for a long time in this country (predominately by Southern Democrats, BTW), but Jesus would “turn the other cheek” and forgive rather than ranting about it bitterly and imposing his hatred of whites on his children and followers.
Dear Mr. Galt, your moral blindness is despicable and your opinions those of a moronic fool. What DID Jesus do to the money-changers in the temple? How could you possibly know what Jesus would have done in the face of American slavery? Do you think he would have tolerated such abominable crime by people who called themselves Christians? “Turn the other cheek” is his advice to individuals, not to a group of millions.
“Blacks were screwed for a long time”? Are you kidding me? You think that trivialization describes their torment? You display the morality of a toad. Blacks were murdered, raped, lynched, degraded, deprived of basic rights and treated like animals. Yes, by Southern Democrats… who became Southern Republicans in 1968. What amazing moral insight you display! One of our two parties is good and the other is evil? That’s the kind of thinking that leads to civil war. You want another? Keep on thinking and writing like that and you’ll get one.
Well, well, Major.
I certainly don’t attempt to trivialize slavery or any of the immoral treatment blacks and others have suffered and continue to suffer both here in the US and elsewhere on the planet. I decry, despise, and condemn any violation of individuals’ rights, especially slavery.
I simply wished to point out that the typical passive Christian (i.e., follower of Jesus) response is to attempt forgiveness and that “turning the other cheek” is frequently preached in Christian churches. I will concede that many or most people including people of faith (including Catholics—I used to be one) tend toward hypocritical vindictiveness and bitterness but rather than acting out attempt to satisfy themselves that their oppressors will “get what’s coming to them” in some imagined fantasy life after death.
Doesn’t a group of millions comprise millions of individuals? Does not the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution explicitly demand the protection of the inalienable rights of individuals? How can one morality or set of advice apply to individuals and another apply to a group of individuals as you imply above?
Please don’t launch into another screed about Jefferson and the hypocrisy and compromises of that principle we’ve seen in both past and present. Pointing to shameful behavior is no excuse for other shameful behavior. In another post you indicated that our shared objective is to improve this great nation, so lets work on that through civil debate instead of judgmental attacks.
Dear Mr. Galt, You asked me to explain how there can be one set of laws, rules or morality for individuals and another for groups. You seem to have passed through life with blinders on. Consider the following: 1) The RICO act; 2) The way states wage war, including the US. (It is illegal for an individual soldier to kill an unarmed civilan. But it is legal for aircrews to drop bombs on unarmed civilians and kill thousands of them. Yes, it is illegal to deliberately target unarmed civilians. But, in reality, that type of killing is excused as “collateral damage.”) 3) American laws regarding political donations by corporations and labor unions, as opposed to the laws governing individual donations from corporate executives and union members; 4) The US laws governing how the police or the military (acting under martial law) are allowed to deal with mobs, as opposed to individuals; 5) Between 1919 and 1933, the Prohibition laws outlawed many practises for individuals in regard to liquor. But such laws did not apply to the Catholic and Orthodox churches or to American Judaism regarding the use of wine in religious services. In the case of Orthodox Christians and Jews, the differences did not only extend to priests and rabbis but to groups of worshippers. Unlike Christians, the Orthodox faithful receive not only a sacramental object made from bread but also wine. Jews drink wine at seders. But the police were not empowered to conduct raids on masses celebrated in Orthodox churches, nor to bust in on a family at the Passover meal. 6) The Uniform Code of Military Justice, which governs the US military, contains numerous articles which differ significantly from laws governing civilian individuals. I could cite numerous other cases of such distinctions between laws governing individuals and groups. But I think that I have answered your question already.
Sullivan:
No, you did not answer my question. You veered off into some discourse designed to impress me with discussions about various laws. My question was regarding the implied morals and advice you claim Jesus made.
You display an urgent, indeed pathological, need to display the wide range of your reading and your “superiority.” It must be frustrating to discover at 63 that your accumulation of knowledge and long years of study brought you not fame or fortune, but irrelevance.
Your anger at facing your mortality having contributed nothing more than a couple of obscure books, articles, and book reviews has destroyed your personal relationships to the point that you find yourself alone and ostracized by those who were once close to you. Your only “gratification” comes from prancing your “superiority” around fora like this one and perhaps from reading French S&M;novels.
You really are a pathetic and pathological old bastard. Get over yourself and live some before you go to the grave.
John Gait, you’re being a little harsh with Major Professor Brian Robert Sullivan, PhD, author of books and articles, who speaks half a dozen languages, and taught at a military war college. Unfortunately you’re quite correct about his behavior.
It seems he’s unable to hold a cogent and civil discussion with those who disagree with him. Rather it seems he’s quite aliterate (and despite a PhD doesn’t even understand the word)and goes off into tangents so as to obfuscate discussions claiming strange definitions and laws to avoid facing facts. Of course he’s admitted that he has no respect for those who disagree with him and feels he has a perfect right to lie and resort to ad hominem attacks. And after all the bombast he resorts to saying “E ora, basta! Adieu.” In other word, for now, “For now, that’s enough! Bye.” My colloquial translation is “That’s enough, so shut up and get off the forum!” Maybe I’m reading more into it but I think not for his all too common tenor.
Dear Mr. Galt, I must disappoint you. I have both fame and fortune. Admittedly, fame is a trivial thing. (After all, isn’t one of the criticisms of Obama is that he’s only a “celebrity”?) But I have quite a wide reputation among people in several fields of endeavor. Some must remain secret. But the reason why I was concerned about being home when the FBI was supposedly going to visit me, is that I have to be in Italy from late September to late October. I’ve been invited by the consortium of Italian Universities that have military history courses to deliver a paper at a meeting in Turin. My topic is scholarship by Americans on Italian military history over the past 25 years, about which I’m considered an expert. (Am I boasting? Well, it’s the truth.) After that, I’m going to Rome to give another paper to the leadership of the Carabinieri. It will be on the book I’m working on now: the history of intelligence opeerations during the Fascist Regime. In addition, if you look at a copy of the New York Times Book Review of 2 May 1993, you will find that a book I co-authored has a review on the front page. Do you know anything about the Institute for National Strategic Studies at National Defense University? If not, you can find another source of my fame, if you’re willing to do a small amount of research. Finally, if you want a complete notion of what I have accomplished, send me a mailing address and I’ll send you back my C.V. (Use a post office box, if – as Mr. Hansen fears – you worry that I might come to murder you.) It’s up to you to decide if I’m irrelevant as far as you’re concerned. I could hardly care less, however, about your opinions. But relevant or irrelevant to what? Relevancy has nothing to do with celebrity.
As for fortune, I made enough to allow me to retire from money-making in 1993, at age 52. I have a very comfortable life, enjoy the best wine and food, travel overseas quite frequently, drive a BMW 500 series and do as I please – mostly writing.
But you don’t seem to remember what you asked me. That was: “Doesn’t a group of millions comprise millions of individuals? Does not the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution explicitly demand the protection of the inalienable rights of individuals? How can one morality or set of advice apply to individuals and another apply to a group of individuals as you imply above?” That I answered as fully as I could. From my point of view, I think I answered your question as posed above quite thorougly.
As for my supposed sense of superiority, that’s your impression based, I suppose, on jealousy. DON’T BE JEALOUS. The only superiority that has any value is in matters completely extraneous to what you know or could know about me. What is that? Well, to put it in theological terms, I don’t want to spend too many billions of years in Purgatory. However vain it may be, my hope is to get off with a few thousand. After that, I hope to get as close to the Divine Presence as I can. that the only superiority that matters.
As for me discussing my reading, I have two purposes. To suggest what bloggers might look at to correct their ignorance and to refute some of the nonsensical political opinions being expressed. Other than that, why should I bother to mention any books at all?
As for your other points, I’ve never read any French S&M;novels, or any in other languages. If you are referring to my mention of The Story of O, you will have to wait until I write to Ms.O to explain my point. It does seem that neither you nor her were able to grasp my point. But I promise to make it as clear as possible so that you can understand.
What makes you think that I’m angry about my mortality? You think that I’m angry at God? Now THAT woudl be extraordinary! Of course, I fear death but not for any reason you could understand, I don’t think. I’ve gone “looking for trouble” and found it so often that I’ve gotten used to feeling the terror of dying. I don’t enjoy feeling frightened out of my wits but I keep putting myself in the position to do so. One of my biggest weaknesses is a deep desire for adventure. that has led me into some serious predicaments, such as nearly being killed by a lion in Ngorogoro in Kenya in 1972 and being swept a fair way out to sea off the coast of Bali in 1994. But, of course, these anecdotes must annoy you. Sorry.
What personal relationships have I destroyed? That leaves me mystified. Even if I had done so, how would you know, in any case? As for my supposed pathos and pathology, that’s in the eye of the beholder, isn’t it?
If you want to ask me a question about the teaching of Jesus, feel free. But up to know, you haven’t. And why do you think I’m trying to impress you? Of what possible benefit to me would that be? It does suggest, however, that you have a mighty high opinion of yourself and consider yourself someone I would like to so influence? It may be that such a high opinion of yourself is deserved. But how would I know? Care to enlighten me?
As for me being an “old bastard,” well, being 63 years old these days is hardly as bad as it used to be. If you eat and exercise properly, and don’t smoke or drink alcohol to excess, a person with good medical care is roughly in the condition of a man in his forties would have been a generation ago. As I mentioned to Mr. Hansen, rated 60% disabled. But that’s from being hit pretty badly in my right foot by mortar fragments in August 1968 inside the Northern Artillery Cantonment a few miles northwest of Danang (those wounds do hurt in cold, wet weather) and losing the hearing in my right ear from an RPG explosion on Hill 364 due west of Danang in February 1969 (I kept that to myself, so no second Purple Heart).
As for living some before I go into the grave – wow! First of all, I’m not going to have a grave. I’ll be cremated. “Living some”? You’ve got to be kidding. I’ve been doing thatto the fullest for over 50 years. And, based on the curent state of my health and the age of my parents, I fully expect to live into my nineties. With the medical research now being conducted, I may even live past 100. “Bastard”? Shame upon you. My parents were married at the time of my conception and my birth. But I suggest what you really mean is that you think you don’t like me. Why should I care?
Finally, you think that I’m unhappy? Certainly a number of things bother me, such as your ignorance and inability to think clearly. But I wake up almost every morning after a restful night’s sleep – although sometimes I have bad dreams, especially what happened to me in Mozambique back in the late 1970s. Thereafter, after a good breakfast and a glance at the papers, I get down to writing. Writing, at least good writing, is hard work. But I really love that way to spend my days. After a good dinner and half a bottle of good wine, I usually watch a DVD with my wife. Finally, even though I’m a pathetic pathological old bastard, we often make love. My wife is quite a bit younger than me and, I think, gorgeous. Even though we’ve been married for a number of years, the fire stil burns.
If I’m that busy, why am I blogging so much? Because I finished a chapter a few days ago and need a break. I decided to drop in on you right-wing morons to amuse myself (this HAS been fun!)and for a larger purpose, which I’ll soon reveal and explain. I’ll get to your next blog soon.
Dear Mr. Benitez, I don’t claim to speak half a dozen languages but I CAN READ that many. I did not teach at a military war college, I taught at the Naval War College. If you don’t understand the difference, ask me to explain it to you.(Still, it grows increasingly tedious to point out that you don’t seem to enjoy much reading comprehension and even less recall.) I hold civil and cogent conversations with people with whom I disagree quite often. But you really don’t get it, do you? My attitude toward you has nothing to do with disagreement but with your ignorance and, I’m beginning to think, you stupidity. I have answered every question you have posed to me as clearly and completely as I could. But you seem to be unable to understand (as indicated by “strange definitions and laws.” Just what on earth is a “strange” law?) And why haven’t you answered MY questions? If, you think civility a virtue – which I don’t with you, in any case – that’s not being very polite, is it. Come on. What are you afraid of?
As for ad hominem attacks, that’s unintentionally hilarious. These blogs are filled with ad hominem attacks on Obama, his wife and others held in disdain by right-wing morons. But I don’t make ad hominem attacks. Have I called you “an old bastard,” for example? Or any such? What I have done is to point out your ignorance and confusion, and that of others. When people hold firm to such attitudes, when they are desperate to believe morbid nonsense and modern fairy tales, they grow offended when the facts are pointed out to them. Their deeply cherished illusions are threatened. But that hardly constitutes an ad hominem attack. And my “lies”? What do you mean? That I am stating as true things that I know are false? Whether or not that might be true – for argument’s sake – how could you possibly know that? You claim the omnipotence of God? If you mean you think that I’m asserting something that is false out of ignorance – the way you do – that’s not a lie. I have never called you a liar but rather an ignorant fool. I mean that sincerely and literally. And I have pointed out why in considerable detail. Beyond that, I cannot go. I have no power to raise your intelligence.
Two minor points: 1) I have failed to find the word “aliterate” in any dictionary, including Webster’s Unabridged and the OED. Would you please direct me to a dictionary that contains the word? I am beginning to think you invent vocabulary. That, of course, is your right. But it makes it quite difficult to understand you. 2) No, “adieu” does not mean “bye,” although many French speakers use it as such. It is a shortened version of “Go with God.”
@Julie O, Wysiwyg, Jack H. Hansen: Just so we’re clear—i’m not the one being the bully here. Unlike the ‘DailyKos people’ with whom you have presumptuously lumped me, i’m not interested in participating in a discussion where everyone is unanimously in agreement. In these situations, any semblance of discourse quickly devolves to resemble frat-boys backslapping one another ‘round the keg—essentially, talking very excitedly about nothing at all.
My purpose in being here is to engage in debate as a means toward genuine insight into how ‘the other side,’ sees things. Thus, i’ve endeavoured that my past comments remain consistently objective, on-topic, earnest, and free of ad-hominem (read: personal attacks).
However, it seems any semblance of debate lasts only a short time before someone fails to maintain adequate separation between politics and emotion, and fires off a volley of ad hominem attacks, hasty, impertinent generalisations, or (more commonly) polarisations stretching the facts so ridiculously thin that their credibility completely disintegrates.
As an example, Dr. Brian Sullivan got a raw deal when, after articulately laying out a statement of objective, historical fact, his religion came under fire, rather than the issues at hand. Now, i’m rather disappointed in his having recently stooped to name-calling himself, however, the initial attacks were directed at him, and i must concede that the indignity of others makes fools of many.
@Julie O.: Your presumptuous assessment of my intentions speaks to your apparently narrow, polarised view of the world. To characterise me as “…the keeper of the key at the re-education camps,” is a bit extreme, don’t you think? Considering you don’t know me, and i don’t believe i’ve made any statements advocating authoritarianism, where do you get off accusing me as such? i have no interest in being your jailer, and even less interest in changing your mind. You’re quite mistaken on a great many points—mostly because you entertain gross exaggerations of fact (which, incidentally, is a trait shared with extremists of all stripes), and seem to prefer this to more rational considerations, however, you’re entitled to your opinion, and far be it from me to make assumptions as to your character. Don’t confuse my attacking your logic for an attack on you, personally.
This goes for Jack Hansen, as well. “…my indoctrination camps,” eh? First, you allude to something that doesn’t exist (where exactly are these ‘gulags’ you speak of?), and second, you make assumptions about my character that, frankly, are way out of line. i implore you to show me a post i’ve made here that substantiates your characterisation of me as “hateful,” or interested in “putting down” or “cow[ing]” people on this forum. In point of fact, i don’t “…hate the commenters disagree with.”
Let’s at least make an attempt to remain civilised here, shall we?
Well old Blackhat – Mr J Brandon Loberg – is back!
I don’t know about you Julie O, and you Wysiwyg, but I am so very grateful for BlackHat. Hasn’t he been really nice to take of his time, to teach us idiot or I guess the PC term is: Ignorant-Americans how the other side thinks. I guess I missed something though, I haven’t heard a word from you in days, can only remember two short posts from you, and the only one talking down to us has been your Dr Sullivan (is he your room mate?)
Since you say you have been trying to educate us, and I have heard hardly a peep from you, perhaps we should educate you. Your buddy, Dr Sullivan, is certainly the person that started the derisive talk – perhaps if you and he treated other human beings as having perhaps just a couple extra rocks in their heads above Goober, us Ignorant-Americans (I wonder how we even have enough brains to figure out you are talking to us as if we are shiet on your shoes????) would not take offense at your drivel.
Coming from 5 generations of Democrats, and being a Democrat myself until about 35, I learned about how your side thinks – it is why, like Reagan, I got the heck out and run for my life. And then I got a really good dose in YES your indoctrination camps/gulags when I went back to school (you call them colleges and universities – but they are definitely indoctrination camps), and that rot has spiraled down that now even our high schools, junior highs, and even elementary schools are just indoctrination centers for the VERY liberal left.
We idiots on the Right understand fully what is your thinking – you will not be happy until your totalitarian ways have Americans having to raise their hands and asking your permission to go potty!
So now that you have accomplished your education of us ignorant arses, you can rest assured that you may move on to the poor bast**ds at another Conservative leaning comments site and educate them, too. One favor PLEASE – take your room mate, Dr Sullivan, and any other manifestation under which the two of you operate with you???
Have a Great Day
Jumping to conclusions seems to be quite common in AIM-land. When asked to substantiate their conclusions, we may encounter bluster, red herrings, and ad hominem attacks more often than rational, focused answers. Military Intelligence students are quickly disabused of such behavior, and learn the value of supporting every conclusion they proffer. Researchers at the Rand Corporation and other highly-regarded research institutions often come from such rigorous backgrounds, where conclusions are based on empirical evidence, rather than wishful thinking.
It’s a pity that blogosphere researchers and commentators are not held to similarly high standards of accuracy. It’s a pity that their fans consider clearly documented misrepresentation to be insignificant as long as it confirms their biases. It’s a pity that such predisposition to believing disinformation can be exploited just as easily by Cliff Kincaid as it was by the Bush administration in selling the Iraqi threat. Even today, when all of the false evidence supporting Iraqi WMD stockpiles has been clearly debunked, Bush loyalists may insist their conclusions were true despite the lack of evidence.
Sure, Saddam used WMD in the 1980s, but the claim that he was an actual threat to the United States in the 21st century was based on false evidence. It was a deliberate misrepresentation (i.e., a lie). Sure, Frank Marshall Davis joined the CPUSA during WWII, but the claim that “his values, passed on to Obama, were those of a Soviet agent who pledged allegiance to Stalin” is based on false evidence. It is deliberate misrepresentation (i.e., a lie). It is clearly repudiated by Cliff Kincaid’s expert, Edgar Tidwell.
Yet many right-wingers persist in this fantasy despite the debunking of Kincaid’s deliberate misrepresentation, just as many right-wingers persist in the fantasy of the Iraqi threat despite the debunking of Bush administration deliberate misrepresentation. Rational conclusions depend on evidence. This is fantasy. Such unsubstantiated poppycock, especially when submitted with demonstrably false evidence, would be summarily dismissed by any serious research organization, and would merit a failing grade for even an undergraduate journalist. Cliff Kincaid would do well to heed the lessons of Stephen Glass’s journalistic career at the The New Republic magazine during the mid-1990s when his serial journalistic fraud was exposed. But then again, Accuracy In Media is not TRULY dedicated to accuracy in media, is it?
(Oops! Sorry if you consider this to be another “tiresome” tirade. But the truth IS tiresome in fantasyland, ladies and gentlemen.)
“It’s a pity that such predisposition to believing
disinformation can be exploited ” Mark
That warranted a spew alert Mark. My keyboard hates coffee.
Why was Hillary Clinton honored by the Chinese in the ninetys for her adeptness at propaganda?
Could it be its because she is a Democrat and they do it so well. You know Mark….go play rubics cube with your buddy Sullivan and troll the Liberal sites. You can even spend a week bugging the daylights out of the other conservative sites. But, with all due respect…you bore the dickens out of me.
I’m disappointed in you Mark. While hearing the same from you over and over again, has been tiresome, I have always believed in your right to do so, and considering that you have stated you are the son of Frank, I would be disappointed in you if you did not stand up for your dad. BUT you have almost always been mostly respectful and kind – and very few on this site have attacked you because of that.
Your last post though almost didn’t sound like it came from you as you have always been on the subject of your dad, and now out of the blue you run off onto a completely new subject, and frankly, sounded like Sullivan a little bit. I get the comments in my email, but it does not tell the author. So thinking it was Sullivan ranting but wondering why he was not quite as hateful as normal, I came on site – and surprise, THIS came from you.
I am surprised and disappointed – I thought better of you!
I think you have it pegged Jack. Sullivan is posing as Mark. The one tell tale sentence…..
Military Intelligence students are quickly disabused of such behavior, and learn the value of supporting every conclusion they proffer.
Go back and read Marks other posts. I am working on a project before I leave town tomorrow…don’t have time. Post something so I will know. I think those other posts of Marks holds the key.
[...] that this had to be Davis, a poet who had indeed joined the Communist Party USA. Obama later confirmed the relationship with Davis while attempting to distance himself from [...]
The arrogant ass doesn’t believe he has to deny anything. He is so sure of himself he doesn’t believe the American people are smart enough to see through the false image he is portraying. The masses are looking for change and he is promising change. It’s strange how a civilization spiraling into the abyss of darkness seem to welcome it. How they are blind to the horrors of the darkness. They often bite the hand that is extended to save them. I still believe there are more good people than bad. The good will reach deep into their roots and vote for McCain.