Nothing new, but evidently needed to be posted - Trackchampion Handicapping Contests For Horse Bettors

a1timer · 06-20-2008, 10:01 PM

....there is so much more

Barack Obama's Marxist Ties

Wednesday, June 4, 2008

Rick Moran, in his post, "Obama's Alliance with Marxists," wonders, "Are we about to elect a president who has made common political cause with Marxists?"

Moran's questioning Obama's ties to the "New Party," an electoral vehicle formed in the 1990s to elect extreme left-wing candidates to office:

Co-founded in 1992 by Daniel Cantor (a former staffer for Jesse Jackson's 1988 presidential campaign) and Joel Rogers (a sociology and law professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison), the New Party was a Marxist political coalition whose objective was to endorse and elect leftist public officials -- most often Democrats. The New Party's short-term objective was to move the Democratic Party leftward, thereby setting the stage for the eventual rise of new Marxist third party.

Most New Party members hailed from the Democratic Socialists of America and the militant organization ACORN. The party's Chicago chapter also included a large contingent from the Committees of Correspondence, a Marxist coalition of former Maoists, Trotskyists, and Communist Party USA members.

The New Party's modus operandi included the political strategy of "electoral fusion," where it would nominate, for various political offices, candidates from other parties (usually Democrats), thereby enabling each of those candidates to occupy more than one ballot line in the voting booth. By so doing, the New Party often was able to influence candidates' platforms. (Fusion of this type is permitted in seven states -- Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Mississippi, New York, South Carolina, and Vermont -- but is common only in New York.)

Though Illinois was not one of the states that permitted electoral fusion, in 1995 Barack Obama nonetheless sought the New Party's endorsement for his 1996 state senate run. He was successful in obtaining that endorsement, and he used a number of New Party volunteers as campaign workers.

jimmyb · 06-20-2008, 10:23 PM

Conservatives live by pollyanna principle or if it's easier (listen up G.W.) blind faith. Below are true examples of American history.

1776 to 1890 Innumerable 'Indian wars': In which the western frontier was pushed through the territories of one Indian confederation after another, all the way to the Pacific. An early and definitive example is George Washington's post-revolutionary conquest of the Ohio Valley, where the Washington Family held deeds to immense tracts of prime real estate never actually ceded by the Indians. The lore that George was a "surveyor" is a populist distortion; he was no blue collar grunt, laying out property lines to earn a living. He was in fact the most ambitious of an elite family of 'land speculators' -- the colonial equivalent of venture capitalists -- and his toils were in the service of his own family fortune. Already one of the richest people in post-revolutionary America, he was determined to get even richer through the sale of his Ohio holdings, and wasn't about to be stopped by 'two-legged vermin' like the Shawnees and Miamis. To this end, he abused his dominance of the early federal government, arranging for Revolutionary War veterans (a battle-hardened militia) to be compensated with "land warrants" deep in Ohio's wilderness, far beyond his own holdings. He also encouraged the issuance of large bounties, equivalent to several months' income, for Indian scalps along the upper Ohio River. These were essentially open murder contracts that targeted ALL Indians, regardless of age, gender, or tribal affiliation. By this means, genocide was openly subsidized for decades wherever intact Indian cultures presented an obstacle to "progress." Primitive as media was, its role in all this was crude but sufficient: posting the bounties while inflaming the settlers' hatred with tales of Indian atrocities, real and imagined. In the Ohio Territory, these tactics rapidly progressed to open war, orchestrated by Washington against Tecumseh's Shawnee Confederation, and then to the total extermination and westward displacement of the Ohio tribes.

1846 to '48 The Mexican War: Beginning in 1818, when the Oregon Territory was acquired, American imperialists developed an intense interest in California. Simply adding it piecemeal to their territorial inventory wouldn't have worked, however: it was too isolated, too defensible by the Mexicans. To take California, all of northern Mexico -- what is now California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and portions of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Colorado -- would have to be taken, requiring the invention of some PRETEXT for doing so. In 1836, American "adventurers" (freelance political operatives) instigated a regional coup in the Mexican province of Texas, splitting it off to form an independent country, the Republic of Texas. Nine years later, this nation was annexed as the 28th state. Immediately afterward, President Polk made the predictable move of sending belligerent military incursions into disputed lands along the new border with Mexico. The Mexicans replied with patrols of their own, and then clashes developed, leading to the "spilling of American blood on American soil." Or so the press told it (their bias could be summed up in a phrase they coined around this time: "Manifest Destiny"). In fact, the soil in question was situated between the Nueces and Rio Grande rivers, an area both governments held equal claim to. But no matter -- the people eagerly accepted this distortion, Polk got his dirty little war, and then proceeded to steal something like 650,000 square miles of territory from our next-door neighbor. Add to this the previous criminal acquisition of territory from Mexico, i.e. the "Lone Star State," and the area usurped approaches one-third of the contiguous 48 states, or HALF of what was originally Mexico.

1917 to '18 World War I: Three years into the "Great War," it looked as though Germany would defeat Britain and France, our primary capitalist hosts in Europe. Big financiers like J. P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, who between them had billions invested "over there," weren't about to just sit back and watch this happen. They barked orders to their underling, Woodrow Wilson, who then declared war, using German interference with US shipping activities as a feeble pretext. Leading up to this, the media minions whipped the public into a war frenzy, basing their wildly manipulative propaganda on incidents such as the sinking of the Lusitania, two years earlier. Funny thing about the Lusitania: it's hold contained a secret, illegal, and massive cargo of ammunition and other materiel bound for Liverpool, and its passengers were used as unwitting human shields for this cargo by the US government, which is why they died. Neither Wilson nor the media of the day ever admitted any of this.

Looks like history repeating in Iraq. If you find those pesky WMD's let me be the first to know. I know, blind faith

P.S. And lets not forget Prescott Bush, chief financier of Hitlers rise to power.

bigrun · 06-21-2008, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmyb

P.S. And lets not forget Prescott Bush, chief financier of Hitlers rise to power.

Bush book: Chapter -2-

jimmyb · 06-21-2008, 10:53 AM

Who continues to support the Bushes and Hitler's Appeasement?

The irony of George W. Bush going before the Knesset and mocking the late Sen. William Borah for expressing surprise at Adolf Hitler’s 1939 invasion of Poland is that Bush’s own family played a much bigger role assisting the Nazis.

If Borah, an isolationist Republican from Idaho, sounded naïve saying “Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided,” then what should be said about Bush’s grandfather and other members of his family providing banking and industrial assistance to the Nazis as they built their war machine in the 1930s?
Not lost is the continual support the Bush family enjoys, showing that the aryan brotherhood is alive and well.

The archival evidence is now clear that Prescott Bush, the president’s grandfather, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from and collaborated with key financial backers of Nazi Germany.

That business relationship continued after Hitler invaded Poland in 1939 and even after Germany declared war on the United States following Japan’s bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941. It stopped only when the U.S. government seized assets of Bush-connected companies in late 1942 under the “Trading with the Enemy Act.”

So, perhaps instead of holding up Sen. Borah to ridicule, Bush might have acknowledged in his May 15 speech that his forebears also were blind to the dangers of Hitler.

Bush might have noted that his family’s wealth, which fueled his own political rise, was partly derived from Nazi collaboration and possibly from slave labor provided by Auschwitz and other concentration camps.

A few questions would be raised, but Democrat Averell Harriman would not be stopped from becoming federal mutual security administrator in 1951 or winning election as governor of New York in 1954. … Nor would Republican Prescott Bush (who was elected senator from Connecticut in 1952) and his presidential descendants be hurt in any of their future elections.”

Indeed, the quick dissipation of the Nazi financial scandal was only a portent of the Bush family’s future. Unlike politicians of lower classes, the Bushes seemed to travel in a bubble impervious to accusations of impropriety, since the Eastern Establishment doesn’t like to think badly of its own. [For details, see Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege.]

To this day – as President Bush showed by mocking the long-forgotten Sen. Borah and then wielding the Nazi “appeasement” club against Barack Obama and other Democrats – the assumption remains that the bubble will continue to protect the Bush family name.

The evidence from dusty archives suggests that the Bush family went way beyond appeasement of Adolf Hitler to aiding and abetting the Nazis.

a1timer · 09-06-2008, 08:06 PM

Now that they have tried so hard to break Sarah Palin with anything and everything regardless of truth, when are they going to get around to investigating the factual associations of B. Hussein Obama?

If the associations are not true, they will be put to rest, and make BHO look good. So let's go.

jimmyb · 09-06-2008, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a1timer

Now that they have tried so hard to break Sarah Palin with anything and everything regardless of truth, when are they going to get around to investigating the factual associations of B. Hussein Obama?

If the associations are not true, they will be put to rest, and make BHO look good. So let's go.

I already posted regarding said associations. You can dig through the archives and find it if you like.

Breakage · 09-07-2008, 08:19 AM

A1 the scariest thing is I have never heard him or anyone associated with him,

act8ually deny that he is a marxist.

I reaad some excerpts from one of his books,

and I am not really sure why the guy doesn't proudly run as a Marxist,
it is obviously what he beleives in.

Clay13 · 09-07-2008, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a1timer

Now that they have tried so hard to break Sarah Palin with anything and everything regardless of truth, when are they going to get around to investigating the factual associations of B. Hussein Obama?

If the associations are not true, they will be put to rest, and make BHO look good. So let's go.

A1, like many of us have never heard of much less had a look at her, so how can I person such as yourself be so high on her, when most likely you yourself never knew her until the announcement was made about her bing McCain's running mate????????????????

All i've heard about her, is just hear say nothing more than her being a bulldog. If she's a bulldog i'd like to be around when she comes back in season..........

Afleet · 09-07-2008, 06:47 PM

no one will vote for a muslim

Afleet · 09-07-2008, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Afleet

no one will vote for a muslim

besides Oprah

a1timer · 09-07-2008, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clay13

A1, like many of us have never heard of much less had a look at her, so how can I person such as yourself be so high on her, when most likely you yourself never knew her until the announcement was made about her bing McCain's running mate????????????????

All i've heard about her, is just hear say nothing more than her being a bulldog. If she's a bulldog i'd like to be around when she comes back in season..........

Sorry, Clay13. You should know me better by now.

I had been discussing Sarah with others for a few weeks before the announcement. I thought for sure it would be Romney, but you should have seen me that Friday morning, smiling like a butcher's dog.

"I already posted regarding said associations. You can dig through the archives and find it if you like." -jimmyb

I mean the MSM.

a1timer · 09-07-2008, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Breakage

A1 the scariest thing is I have never heard him or anyone associated with him,

act8ually deny that he is a marxist.

I reaad some excerpts from one of his books,

and I am not really sure why the guy doesn't proudly run as a Marxist,
it is obviously what he beleives in.

He knows he can't say it out loud.

06-20-2008, 10:01 PM	#1 (permalink)
a1timer Status: Grade I Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Buckeye land Posts: 2,150	Nothing new, but evidently needed to be posted ....there is so much more Barack Obama's Marxist Ties Wednesday, June 4, 2008 Rick Moran, in his post, "Obama's Alliance with Marxists," wonders, "Are we about to elect a president who has made common political cause with Marxists?" Moran's questioning Obama's ties to the "New Party," an electoral vehicle formed in the 1990s to elect extreme left-wing candidates to office: Co-founded in 1992 by Daniel Cantor (a former staffer for Jesse Jackson's 1988 presidential campaign) and Joel Rogers (a sociology and law professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison), the New Party was a Marxist political coalition whose objective was to endorse and elect leftist public officials -- most often Democrats. The New Party's short-term objective was to move the Democratic Party leftward, thereby setting the stage for the eventual rise of new Marxist third party. Most New Party members hailed from the Democratic Socialists of America and the militant organization ACORN. The party's Chicago chapter also included a large contingent from the Committees of Correspondence, a Marxist coalition of former Maoists, Trotskyists, and Communist Party USA members. The New Party's modus operandi included the political strategy of "electoral fusion," where it would nominate, for various political offices, candidates from other parties (usually Democrats), thereby enabling each of those candidates to occupy more than one ballot line in the voting booth. By so doing, the New Party often was able to influence candidates' platforms. (Fusion of this type is permitted in seven states -- Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Mississippi, New York, South Carolina, and Vermont -- but is common only in New York.) Though Illinois was not one of the states that permitted electoral fusion, in 1995 Barack Obama nonetheless sought the New Party's endorsement for his 1996 state senate run. He was successful in obtaining that endorsement, and he used a number of New Party volunteers as campaign workers. __________________ “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.-Patrick Henry Last edited by a1timer : 06-20-2008 at 10:02 PM. Reason: forgot something

06-20-2008, 10:23 PM	#2 (permalink)
jimmyb Status: Grade I Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Trash Can Posts: 2,678	facist imperialism Conservatives live by pollyanna principle or if it's easier (listen up G.W.) blind faith. Below are true examples of American history. 1776 to 1890 Innumerable 'Indian wars': In which the western frontier was pushed through the territories of one Indian confederation after another, all the way to the Pacific. An early and definitive example is George Washington's post-revolutionary conquest of the Ohio Valley, where the Washington Family held deeds to immense tracts of prime real estate never actually ceded by the Indians. The lore that George was a "surveyor" is a populist distortion; he was no blue collar grunt, laying out property lines to earn a living. He was in fact the most ambitious of an elite family of 'land speculators' -- the colonial equivalent of venture capitalists -- and his toils were in the service of his own family fortune. Already one of the richest people in post-revolutionary America, he was determined to get even richer through the sale of his Ohio holdings, and wasn't about to be stopped by 'two-legged vermin' like the Shawnees and Miamis. To this end, he abused his dominance of the early federal government, arranging for Revolutionary War veterans (a battle-hardened militia) to be compensated with "land warrants" deep in Ohio's wilderness, far beyond his own holdings. He also encouraged the issuance of large bounties, equivalent to several months' income, for Indian scalps along the upper Ohio River. These were essentially open murder contracts that targeted ALL Indians, regardless of age, gender, or tribal affiliation. By this means, genocide was openly subsidized for decades wherever intact Indian cultures presented an obstacle to "progress." Primitive as media was, its role in all this was crude but sufficient: posting the bounties while inflaming the settlers' hatred with tales of Indian atrocities, real and imagined. In the Ohio Territory, these tactics rapidly progressed to open war, orchestrated by Washington against Tecumseh's Shawnee Confederation, and then to the total extermination and westward displacement of the Ohio tribes. 1846 to '48 The Mexican War: Beginning in 1818, when the Oregon Territory was acquired, American imperialists developed an intense interest in California. Simply adding it piecemeal to their territorial inventory wouldn't have worked, however: it was too isolated, too defensible by the Mexicans. To take California, all of northern Mexico -- what is now California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and portions of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Colorado -- would have to be taken, requiring the invention of some PRETEXT for doing so. In 1836, American "adventurers" (freelance political operatives) instigated a regional coup in the Mexican province of Texas, splitting it off to form an independent country, the Republic of Texas. Nine years later, this nation was annexed as the 28th state. Immediately afterward, President Polk made the predictable move of sending belligerent military incursions into disputed lands along the new border with Mexico. The Mexicans replied with patrols of their own, and then clashes developed, leading to the "spilling of American blood on American soil." Or so the press told it (their bias could be summed up in a phrase they coined around this time: "Manifest Destiny"). In fact, the soil in question was situated between the Nueces and Rio Grande rivers, an area both governments held equal claim to. But no matter -- the people eagerly accepted this distortion, Polk got his dirty little war, and then proceeded to steal something like 650,000 square miles of territory from our next-door neighbor. Add to this the previous criminal acquisition of territory from Mexico, i.e. the "Lone Star State," and the area usurped approaches one-third of the contiguous 48 states, or HALF of what was originally Mexico. 1917 to '18 World War I: Three years into the "Great War," it looked as though Germany would defeat Britain and France, our primary capitalist hosts in Europe. Big financiers like J. P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, who between them had billions invested "over there," weren't about to just sit back and watch this happen. They barked orders to their underling, Woodrow Wilson, who then declared war, using German interference with US shipping activities as a feeble pretext. Leading up to this, the media minions whipped the public into a war frenzy, basing their wildly manipulative propaganda on incidents such as the sinking of the Lusitania, two years earlier. Funny thing about the Lusitania: it's hold contained a secret, illegal, and massive cargo of ammunition and other materiel bound for Liverpool, and its passengers were used as unwitting human shields for this cargo by the US government, which is why they died. Neither Wilson nor the media of the day ever admitted any of this. Looks like history repeating in Iraq. If you find those pesky WMD's let me be the first to know. I know, blind faith P.S. And lets not forget Prescott Bush, chief financier of Hitlers rise to power.

09-06-2008, 08:06 PM	#5 (permalink)
a1timer Status: Grade I Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Buckeye land Posts: 2,150	Now that they have tried so hard to break Sarah Palin with anything and everything regardless of truth, when are they going to get around to investigating the factual associations of B. Hussein Obama? If the associations are not true, they will be put to rest, and make BHO look good. So let's go. __________________ “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.-Patrick Henry

09-07-2008, 08:19 AM	#7 (permalink)
Breakage Status: Super Horse Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 5,887	A1 the scariest thing is I have never heard him or anyone associated with him, act8ually deny that he is a marxist. I reaad some excerpts from one of his books, and I am not really sure why the guy doesn't proudly run as a Marxist, it is obviously what he beleives in. __________________ "An inexhaustible good nature is one of the most precious gifts of heaven, spreading itself like oil over the troubled sea of thought, and keeping the mind smooth and equable in the roughest weather." Washington Irving

06-21-2008, 10:53 AM	#4 (permalink)
jimmyb Status: Grade I Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Trash Can Posts: 2,678	Who continues to support the Bushes and Hitler's Appeasement? The irony of George W. Bush going before the Knesset and mocking the late Sen. William Borah for expressing surprise at Adolf Hitler’s 1939 invasion of Poland is that Bush’s own family played a much bigger role assisting the Nazis. If Borah, an isolationist Republican from Idaho, sounded naïve saying “Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided,” then what should be said about Bush’s grandfather and other members of his family providing banking and industrial assistance to the Nazis as they built their war machine in the 1930s? Not lost is the continual support the Bush family enjoys, showing that the aryan brotherhood is alive and well. The archival evidence is now clear that Prescott Bush, the president’s grandfather, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from and collaborated with key financial backers of Nazi Germany. That business relationship continued after Hitler invaded Poland in 1939 and even after Germany declared war on the United States following Japan’s bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941. It stopped only when the U.S. government seized assets of Bush-connected companies in late 1942 under the “Trading with the Enemy Act.” So, perhaps instead of holding up Sen. Borah to ridicule, Bush might have acknowledged in his May 15 speech that his forebears also were blind to the dangers of Hitler. Bush might have noted that his family’s wealth, which fueled his own political rise, was partly derived from Nazi collaboration and possibly from slave labor provided by Auschwitz and other concentration camps. A few questions would be raised, but Democrat Averell Harriman would not be stopped from becoming federal mutual security administrator in 1951 or winning election as governor of New York in 1954. … Nor would Republican Prescott Bush (who was elected senator from Connecticut in 1952) and his presidential descendants be hurt in any of their future elections.” Indeed, the quick dissipation of the Nazi financial scandal was only a portent of the Bush family’s future. Unlike politicians of lower classes, the Bushes seemed to travel in a bubble impervious to accusations of impropriety, since the Eastern Establishment doesn’t like to think badly of its own. [For details, see Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege.] To this day – as President Bush showed by mocking the long-forgotten Sen. Borah and then wielding the Nazi “appeasement” club against Barack Obama and other Democrats – the assumption remains that the bubble will continue to protect the Bush family name. The evidence from dusty archives suggests that the Bush family went way beyond appeasement of Adolf Hitler to aiding and abetting the Nazis.

09-07-2008, 06:47 PM	#9 (permalink)
Afleet Status: Grade II Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: prison Posts: 1,567	no one will vote for a muslim