Thursday, January 19, 2012

Can someone please refute any of this? I'd really REALLY appreciate it


John Drew, Ph.D. is a former Marxist-Leninist who met Barack Obama when he was a sophomore at Occidental College in California.  He gave an interview to Andrea Lafferty, who wrote a long article which includes this:

As more and more information is uncovered about Obama’s childhood and his path into politics and power, it is evident that he was mentored and helped along the way by Islamists and by hard-core Marxists.
His own mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, had embraced Marxist ideology as a high school student in Washington state. She had been taught by Marxist teachers and was a proud atheist.
In Hawaii, he lived with his grandfather and grandmother while his mother stayed in Indonesia doing anthropological work. His grandfather introduced teenage Obama to Frank Marshall Davis, a black Communist, as a mentor. Davis had come out of the radical black Marxist movement in Chicago, which began flourishing during the 1930s.
According to John Drew, Ph.D., the Marxist-Leninists he attended school with at Occidental all either went into college professorships or became community organizers. Drew became a college professor; Obama became a community organizer and later a college professor.
Obama’s entrance into Harvard Law School was aided by two radical Marxist-Black Muslims. One of these men was Khalid al-Mansour, who has served as an advisor to a Saudi billionaire. (Mansour’s real name is Don Warden.) Al-Mansour was a mentor of Black Panther Party members Huey Newton and Bobby Seale, both criminals.
The other man who helped Obama get into Harvard was Percy Sutton, who was a lawyer for Black Muslim Malcolm X.
Obama’s spiritual advisor for 20 years was Pastor Jeremiah Wright, a Black Liberation theology advocate. Black Liberation theology is based on the Marxist ideology proposed by black racist Professor James Cone.
Obama’s political career was launched in Chicago with the help of Alice Palmer, a state senator who was also known to be a hard-core Communist.
Obama’s campaign for the U.S. Senate was started in the home of Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, both violent founders of the Weather Underground. Ayers had been involved in bombing a New York City police department, Capitol Building and the Pentagon in the 1970s.
In summary, from the very beginning of his life, Barack Obama has been imbued with Marxist thinking – from his mother, Frank Marshall Davis, his college professor at Occidental, and his Pastor Jeremiah Wright.

Z:  I'm hoping someone can refute any of the above...I'd feel a whole lot better  if someone can.  But, I've read stories about each of these situations above and it really gives me pause.  When I say "What do we expect Barack Obama to be like?", this is what I mean.  How could he not be very different than the typical American president who loves this country, respects it, believes in Capitalism, etc etc.........??



Ed Bonderenka said...


Kid said...

ALl true. He has the support of a lot of people today, because they are just like him.

Life of handouts, no accomplishments, no real education, etc. He is one of them. They love him.

net observer said...

I hate to break this to you, Z =)

But back in the 1980s, if you were young, black, from the city, politically inclined and college-bound, the chances of you being close and friendly with real left-wing radicals was extremely high.

Always understand that The Million Man March of '96 had to have a basis to build from. That basis included people like "us".

And, at the risk of adding to my reputation as your blog's resident "liberal apologist" =), the history you've outlined here doesn't bother me, as strange as that might sound.

As long as he didn't do anything criminal, so what?

Z, I don't think I've ever told you just how far left my friends and I used to be. We were kinda "out there". We weren't "violent, crazy, mean" versions of the left (like the young David Horowitz, wink/nod), but we were definitely "one of them".

And the saddest part is we just weren't that unusual, esp. among artists & entertainment types, as well as "political activists".

Z said...

Ed..I was afraid of that :-)

Kid...I know. Our kids in colleges are expected to go a little left leaning then, like net says below your comment,and have for years, but the indoctrination I'm hearing first-hand these days is absolutely astonishing.
Journalists and profs of 30 years ago would have freaked out at the lack of facts and the changing of history and every effort to stomp on America instead of understand its greatness and try to make it even greater.

net, I hate to break this to you, but you and your friends aren't president.

Also, if you were "young, WHITE, from the city, ...etc., you were also inclined to go Left" was almost your 'job'...expected.

I've often said here at geeeez to people who complain about the leftwing stuff our poor WH is suffering under, "what do you expect? Do you know what Obama was weaned on?" This proves it, that's all.

Winston Churchill; 'when you're young and liberal, you have a heart, when you're old and liberal, you have no brain'.

Obama waxes sentimentally and warmly about his communist best friend/mentor Frank Davis. Maybe that doesn't bother you, but I'm wondering what in his background prepared him to be a patriotic, fair, centrist man...a president.

this just shows WHY he's like he is, appeasing, apologizing, borrowing, giving, .....
hard to describe when you're addressing people who don't see there's a problem.

Chuck said...

Z, quite frankly I don't care where he came from. I worry about where he is trying to take us. Solution? Get him out of office.

Sadly I see nothing in your post that is surprising.

Z said...

Chuck, nobody cares where he came from, really, but this does show WHY he's like he is, no doubt about it.

Z said...

CHuck, by the way, I like your solution! :-)

net observer said...

Interesting point, Z.

But let's take that a step further. Clarence Thomas had a radical, "black power" past, although he didn't go very far with it. But, believe me, he could have, and still have eventually ended up as the same conservative stalwart that he is today.

My guess is that you're pleased about this formerly angry ethnocentric leftist who currently sits on the Supreme Court.

I don't see why it's such a "jump" to have a president with such a history. Ultimately it's about our current beliefs and not our earliest ones.

Kid said...

Net, fwiw, I don't believe that obama has gone through any transformation. I think it is obvious with his Arrogant America Apology Tour; his unwillingness to display any kind of patriotism, finally settling on wearing a flag pin on the lapel on occasion; and his obvious belief that America is the root of the problem for countries that are doing poorly.

I believe his inability to speak in flowing complete sentences ad lib is because he is constantly stopping to filter his words so that his true self doesn't appear as it did ala Joe the plumber.

And isn't that interesting in itself. All Joe did was ask him a question, had no follow up comment and after obama revealed that his intention was to go full bore socialism, they attacked Joe from every angle they could come up with. Thing like this speak. As in a picture is worth 1000 words - imo.

Ducky's here said...

I wish.

They Say/We Say said...

Sedition: A stirring up of rebellion against the government.
Seditious: 1. of or constituting sedition. 2. stirring up rebellion.
We The People, Are The Government, only governed by our consent.
Obama, Pelosie, Reid, Franks, Dodd,and others are not governing according to our consent!
The Un-American Activities Act was abolished by the Dems. in the `60's. Now, we know why!
[The Uncovered Pumkin Files and other charges made by McCarthy came to light, later, after McCarthy was humiliated.]
There would be a harsh blemish on ones political aspirations with any of these labels, with any upstanding Statesman=Senators or Representatives in the Congress With A Back Bone.
That is why none of these stories were vetted before Obama's election!

Kid said...

I couldn't say this any better, so I won't try, I'll just Point you to the opinion piece.

And if the creek don't rise and the above link gets discombobulated, here it is in raw form -

Anonymous said...

"As long as he didn't do anything criminal, so what?"

You're not serious are you?

Anonymous said...


Thanks....for that Link. It should be in every Op Ed in the country.

Z said...

Gad, net, the point is he's not changed. WHat the heck do I care about a history?

And I read Clarence Thomas's book; he toyed with liberality for ten minutes. I also wrote him a note, very uncharacteristic of me, telling him how much I respect and admire me and he sent me a handwritten letter on Supreme Ct. stationery...I'll never forget that. But, mostly, I admire the heck out of that man...I wish every college student would read his autobio.

Z said...

Kid, oh GAD is that an excellent piece (American Thinker really has some of the best writers in the conservative field these days, doesn't it?)

net, I hope you read Kid's's important.

I met Pat Caddell about 3 years ago....he's a very fair guy, very interesting......and a friend of Brietbart's! Yes, the Dem operative is a friend of Andrew's..go figure.

Anonymous said...

BTW...that picture of Obummer...looks like the wily little pimp he pretended to be. He should have auditioned for Boogie Nights.

So tell nasty little marxist babes like Dohrn types or a Judith Clark ( mad bombers both ) didn't get hustled or charmed into BO's boudoir? Or any other rich, pimply, escapees from mom and dads trust fund in the Hamptons? Not a peep from the real radicals?

Z said...

Imp, radicals protect their own and that includes some in the media.

I actually just heard Lawrence O'Donnell say "so it's Santorum over Romney now....the vote was FOUR TIMES what was thought..."

I thought "FOUR TIMES"...8 to that really big enough to suggest anything is FOUR TIMES..sure, it IS, but REALLY?! The way he said it was like "How'd they get it wrong, when there were four million votes difference?"

So funny!!

FairWitness said...

Hi Z, this report is absolutely nothing NEW. All of the information in this column was known before the 2008 election. No one listened then. Will anyone listen now? NO!

They will vote with their wallets and Barack Obama will lose. Thank God!

KP said...

net ... thanks for your perspective.

Z: the man was elected Prez as the most liberal senator in America. If you (we) are not satisfied, vote him out on his record not his family ties and mentors.

Please understand: if a family makes under $75,000 and you are qualify for acceptance to Stanford or Harvard, or many other of the top private institutions of higher education in America, you pay ZERO dollars. Full ride. We need to stop the "how did he pay for it" questions.

Understand, our country provides for the brightest and those who are also needy to go to university. Obama is bright and could not afford Harvard. The school PAID HIS WAY. Just like private high schools do for needy kids in our country. This should be something conservatives are proud of! How the heck can anyone complain about this? They are private universities with private endowments. C'mon!

Z said...

KP, actually I'm not sure that's the case at Harvard, but if it is, all he has to do is say it. He's been asked enough times. And the article I quote does have peoples' names who paid for him.

This article is posted here because of Obama's MOTIVATION, WHY he's like he is, nothing more, nothing less..that's why I posted it...well, plus a little of the unfairness in our media for NOT having demanded answers on this stuff like they are doing to the Republican candidates....

There's nothing new here, FW, you're right.......As I've said here and said before, this is about UNFAIRNESS, COVER UPS OF INFORMATION...and MOTIVATION, WHY Obama's like he is when so many conservatives come here and expect him to be some kind of patriot based on the wonderful nurturing patriotism he got ...that nurturing we all got. It didn't happen for him, my question is HOW DO WE EXPECT HIM TO BE DIFFERENT THAN HE IS?

Jan said...

Z..I wish none of that to be true, but so far I haven't seen anything that convinces me that it isn't.

I used to blog about all of it, and did a lot of reading, and researching everything I could find, and it all points to it being the truth.

You know, of course, why I stopped blogging about any of it.

What I don't understand, is that if anything at all like what has been suggested pertaining to Obama, was even hinted at pertaining to any other person running for office, the media would have not stopped, or rested for a moment, until they had found out every scrap of evidence, pro or con.

It seems that they have put forth that same effort in not reporting anything negative about him, and covering, and making excuse for anything that might bring any kind of criticism against him, or cause anyone to question anything that he does.

I thought that any journalist worth his salt was supposed to be neutral in their reporting, but now they don't even try to hide their obvious admiration of him, and their disdain of anyone who doesn't view him in the same light.

There was another book written about him, but everything possible was done to keep it out of public view, including harassing the author, his family, friends, and associates, and discrediting every word...even though there was much proof that was put forth by the author. The Secret Service was involved, and according to the author, Vice President Biden's son, , Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden.

The author sent a copy of the book to the First Lady, and posted documents which showed that it was delivered, and signed for, yet I haven't seen any news reports about that, either...and, I'm sure that she would have been more upset about the things portrayed in that book, than she was about being portrayed, as she said, an "angry Black woman."

So, clearly, there is a double standard when it comes to reporting about Obama, and other candidates, which assures us that all the things mentioned in your post will probably never be investigated enough to obtain, and expose any real truth concerning them...but every bit of anything unsavory found in the backgrounds of the others will be shouted from the roof tops!

When the book mentioned above first became available, I purchased it from Barnes and Noble, but upon checking, just now, I find that it is no longer available.

It can still be purchased through this website:

I won't put the title of the book on here, but you'll see it on the side bar at that website.

If the things written about in the book are true--and the author certainly presents some pretty good evidence--they are much worse than any rumor of an extramarital affair, or unwelcome sexual advances, or accusations of being a racist.

In my personal opinion, anyway.

KP said...

It looks to me like the far left and far right think firing up the base is the way to 2012 victory. In my view, that is mistaken.

Changing opinion of the undecided is the way to win. Of course, if you think nobody undecided reads your blog that is idea is lost.

Divine Theatre said...

I just have to mention that Barack was never a law professor at the University of Chicago. He was a senior lecturer. Not the same thing.

net observer said...

Anybody who knows me here probably knows I don't like to fight, esp. over politics. But I love to engage.

More specifically, I like to urge everybody, including myself, to explain themselves. Mainly, for my own selfish edification.

Having said that, let's accept the premise that Barack Obama is exactly who you say he is. Why would someone so "anti-American" (still, in my view, a rather nebulous term) want to be president in the first place? Why would he put himself in a position of directing American military strength on those other nations/cultures that clearly "hate America"; supposedly, just like him?

Why would he put himself in a position where he has to constantly travel to America's heartlands, rubbing elbows with all those God-forsaken, gun-totin' "America-lovin' yahoo's"?

Also, don't you find it odd when you read individuals like Ducky, a proud and admitted "member" of the left (not hatin', Duck; just tryin' to make a point here), who consistently states that he is NOT in any way a fan of Obama? If Obama is the leftist anti-patriotic miscreant you think he is, why wouldn't someone like Ducky be a fan? Is he incapable of knowing an ideal ally when he sees one?

Hardcore black bigots on the far left don't like Obama either. Why not? Are they like Ducky?

And what do you think about people like me? (Allow me to briefly explain what I mean)

I genuinely appreciate that some of the readers of this blog appreciate my input and feel that I, at times =), have intelligent things to say. But you all know what I think about Obama. It is, let's say, not what most of you think.

I'm not a fan by any definition of the word. As I have said before, I'm pretty neutral about all our politicians. Yes, I think Obama comes from a professorial, left-leaning point of view, and oftentimes that reality reflects. Thus, it's no shock to me that solid GOP-ers hate him.

However, I personally reject this notion that Obama hates America or is unpatriotic, and so forth.

So what am I? What are people like me? Have we been totally hoodwinked? If so, by whom? And why?

Or do you think people like me secretly hate America, too?

I swear I'm not trying to be cute or funny, or anything else. Just curious.

Z said...

KP, what do you mean by this?....

"Changing opinion of the undecided is the way to win. Of course, if you think nobody undecided reads your blog that is idea is lost." ??

I'm pretty sure that only about 10% of the people who read my blog don't want Obama out of office.
You seem a little hot and cold on Obama, but mostly hot...even protective. What things do you like about him? I'd like to know.

Divine Theatre...thanks, you're absolutely right on that.

net, you ask very good questions.
No, I don't think anybody thinks you're unAmerican.

I don't think some people can imagine that there's any group of people working to change this country and that they're not literally sitting in the WH but pulling strings. Until one accepts that concept, all your questions are difficult to answer.

Ducky and Black leftists, like you suggest, don't like Obama because he's not going far enough quickly enough. He also has to play the political game and not be TOO extreme right now so he can STAY in office; our media and schools might be working on the constant promotion of anti-Conservativism, anti-capitalism, etc., but we still have a lot of older Americans who still do want to adhere to the Constitution, keep Americans self reliant instead of depending on entitlements, who still actually think America deserves nukes and Iran doesn't, for example (and all the background that entails)....
Democrats of all colors are included in that description and he needs to get their votes, etc., so he can't move quite so fast.
he will.

Have you been hoodwinked? I think all of has have been? WHy? I don't know? WHo?...if you read my blog or any other, for that matter, you know a lot of us think George Soros has been behind a lot of really difficult changes in our country...why? I'd love to know.

I'm hoping someone else answers your question here........I'm pooped tonight and, frankly, come to think of it, my blog really answers a lot of those questions almost every other day for 4 years.

net observer said...

Okay, I read the article. For the record, anyone who says Obama has been an ineffective president never gets an argument from me. Again, I'm not a fan (nor a hater) of any politician.

But for me, it continues to beg the question: Besides healthcare (a huge issue, no question there), how different do you think a McCain administration would be? Or better yet, how much better would the overall result be?

Honestly, I'm not so sure. TARP began under Bush. Prescription B, the Education Dept.'s budget darn near doubled under Bush.

The floodgates were already open. And Americans were growing tired of nation-building missions. What would McCain, a sometimes unpredictable cat, have done? I don't know.

But anyway, as for some of the other issues in the piece:

Since I'm a true free market person who doesn't look to gov't to "solve" the unemployment problem or "fix" gas prices, I typically don't blame or credit Dems OR GOP-ers for such things. It's just not my nature.

Maybe I would feel differently if I dug deeper. But truthfully, I'm in business for myself. Clearly, the economy is recovering right now. I'm happy to see that and who's president just isn't the issue for me.

Probably sucks if you're an unemployed GOP operative looking for an appointment in 2012/2013, but as for the rest of us? Glad to see it.

No, I don't credit Obama for the recovering economy. But I didn't blame him for my very sluggish year in 2011. Again, it's not in my nature.

"the black community"

This whole thing about Obama not caring about "the black community", as far as I'm concerned, totally falls under "Who cares?" As a libertarian-type, nothing irks me more than politicians feeling compelled to "care" for so-called disadvantaged minorities. It's paternalistic b.s. and not much more.

Frankly, I like knowing that the first black president has a reputation of "uselessness" in the opinions of the Maxine Waters of the world. That's a good thing.

'Cuz we're all Americans, right?

"Peace Prize"

I absolutely agree about the Nobel Peace Prize. Obama received it after only a few months (or less?) in office. Anyway, yeah, it was quite silly and served as proof that the world got carried away with the romanticism at the time.

Which happens every once in a while. We're only human.

But more importantly, the Nobel Peace Prize is basically a European thing, right? So it's their choice anyway, right? Is that Obama's fault?

Should he have thrown the prize back at them? Would his haters hate him less if he did? I don't know.

"Stable Middle East"

I don't even know what that is.

"Obama's intelligence"

Interesting what they said about the Harvard Law Review. If true, it's a classic example of the failure of affirmative action policies on college campuses -- esp. back then.

Having said that, "smart" is a relative term. If Obama is not smart by any objective definition, if I may ask, was Bush "smart"? Are any of the current GOP candidates "smart"?

In any event, it's kind of a moot point. Obama's appeal to the center, and even a few typically right-leaning voters, was that he sounded sane and reasonable. And regardless of who agrees or disagrees, the right has/had developed a reputation in the eyes of many centrists of NOT sounding particularly sane or reasonable.

It led to a huge political opening for someone like Obama.

And fwiw, how "smart" does one need to be to govern as president effectively? I wonder sometimes.

I could go on. My point, I guess, remains the same. Is Obama the devil or just somebody GOP-ers can't stand? I say, the latter.

Joe said...

KP: "Why would someone so "anti-American" (still, in my view, a rather nebulous term) want to be president in the first place?"

He actually has explained that in his campaign and since taking office: he hopes to change America into what HE thinks it should be, and he wants to be its president for life.

He has the mind of a despot.

Ticker said...

You can't refute the truth. He is nothing more than another affirmative action, freeloading, ghetto bunny. He is a shame and disgrace to the country. He is a traitorous socialist doing his best to destroy the country while hiding behind the office of Commander in Chief. His intent of destruction of the military speaks volumes. His constant apologies to the enemies of this country is nothing but weakness and his weakness undermines the strength of this country. Given some of his actions such as showing up a hour late for a scheduled interview and then looking disheveled raises questions as to just what the hell he was doing. His incoherent replies in that short appearance were certainly not those of an individual who was operating on a full tank. I think the fool is still smoking something or injecting something. Why not, he did it for years so what is to say he has not continued.
After 2012 the fool can do all the crack he wants to do and no one will give a crap.

Z said...

Joe, it's interesting to see Obama put our presidency on a sort of 'par' with Chavez, Ahmedinejad, etc......there are libs who actually think that "if America has nukes, why shouldn't Iran?" I believe Obama seems to see things that way.
That sentiment in itself speaks volumes about so many on the left including but not limited to...

-an inability to trust US

-an ability to trust those who threaten us

Z said...

Ticker, I don't know what you're talking about here.......what interview, etc? Is there a link to that I could see?


leaving for much of the day...see you all later.

Lisa said...

That is one smug dude Z,he fits right n with the rest of his ilk.

"I believe his inability to speak in flowing complete sentences ad lib is because he is constantly stopping to filter his words so that his true self doesn't appear as it did ala Joe the plumber."

Kid you come up with the darnedest things. Spot on!

Elmers Brother said...

I wish

Peter Keating: But it's a humanitarian project. Think of the people who live in slums. If you can give them decent housing, you can perform a noble deed. Would you do it just for their sake?

Howard Roark: No! A man who works for others without payment is a slave! I do no believe that slavery is noble. Not in any form, nor for any purpose, whatsoever!

LibertyAtStake said...

@net observer says: "Ultimately it's about our current beliefs and not our earliest ones."

Governs domestically as community-agitator-in-chief. Foreign policy pursued as appeaser-in-chief.

Case closed.

“Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”

Leticia said...

I don't believe I can refute any of it. Sorry, Z.

Z said...

Elbro, FOUNTAINHEAD was just on this morning on TCM before I went to work!

good quotes..thanks.

LibertyatStake...when our current beliefs so echo our earlier ones, there isn't much to talk about, is there...except how bad this all is!

Leticia, I wish you COULD!...I'd like to not know this stuff about Obama.
Or I LIKE to think Dems who voted for him didn't know......

Liberalmann said...

It's all wingnut crap. As usual.

Kid said...

Inpertinent, Z, Lisa,
Welcome and Thanks :)

John C. Drew, Ph.D. said...

I can report that young Obama was a Marxist when I met him in 1980. He was a sophomore at Occidental College and I was a grad student at Cornell at the time. In my case, I have a conversion story which shows how and why I stopped being a Marxist-Leninist. My queston is where is Obama's conversion story?

Z said...

Dr Drew, I'm so proud to have you here, it's an honor.
No conversion story from Mr. Obama, that's for sure......but he's busy converting Americans to Marxist Leninist thinking, too.

Z said...

Dr Drew, have you written why you changed your ideology? I quickly looked at your blog but it doesn't seem to be a blog where you'd write about this.
Anything I can print here at geeeeZ by you available?

KP said...

"KP, what do you mean by this?...."

<< "Changing opinion of the undecided is the way to win. Of course, if you think nobody undecided reads your blog that is idea is lost." ?? >>

Let me explain: I am a registered Republican. I have never voted anything other than Republican for President in over 38 years and you can be certain I will not vote for Obama in 2012. I hope that clears up my political voting record to date.

To your question:

<< Changing opinion of the undecided is the way to win. >>

Everybody knows the election will be won by swaying the middle. More importantly, that control of the Senate will be won the same way. If that is a goal then I wonder why all the theories.

Net is far more eloquent than I and it sounds like he will vote Obama. But I appreciate his broad view of things. He is gently sharing his opinion that the far right is over reacting. I agree.

Not because of the far right goal is to recapture The Prez and Congress, but because the right does not have to resort to conspiracy theory. Doing so turns off the very people the right might want to influence.

<< Of course, if you think nobody undecided reads your blog that is idea is lost." ?? >>

Like I said, my view is that the thoughtful people in the middle who need to be swayed are turned off by the red meat from either side. But I don't write a blog and you do; a darn good one; so I try to be careful making suggestions when I read things that I think are unfair and make it harder to vote Obama out of office.

If most of your readers already agree with you and the other 10% will never agree then you are not trying to sway opinion; but have a darn entertaining blog thanks to the left who will disagree with and your heartfelt and respectful life story.

I am on blogs for a couple reasons: I am trying to change political opinion. As well, I dig the life story parts of the blogosphere and the brilliant people that post on thoughtful opinion.

Kid said...

KP, fwiw. The conservatives I know who would be perceived as 'over-reacting' are that way because they know 4 more years of democrat rule will put us solidly into full blown socialism with no return path.

And no, voting for the likely repub nominee surely offers no guarantee of anything more than having that delayed by 4 or 8 years.

KP said...

Kid, accept that I agree with much of what you say. Then, imagine, or recall, being a parent of an intelligent 14-18 year old and wanting to make a point or sway opinion.

Not the opinion of your neighbor who also has a teeenager that is freaking them out. Nor another kid on the block that is a heroine addict.

Your message, you duty, is to mentor. To try and change opinion. To help him or her see your view.

My view: bringing others to see your (our) point of view is work. It is a thoughtful, reasonable process.

KP said...

net observer: if you have a blog, or a book, I would like to read it. Let me know because I think I could learn from you.

Kid said...

KP, I Couldn't agree more.

A sincere Good luck. It's a challenge in today's America.

KP said...

Rock on, Kid.

I know you get it.


They Say/We Say said...

Liberty is something that is fought for; like Patric Henry so clearly stated. After securing liberty there is time to teach by living the example of exercising that jewel.
When the frustration and despair cause the core voters to stay home and not vote is why the conservatives lose elections. The core gets out and votes because they see their own fighting for that jewel, then the undecided who join in is icing on the cake. The undecided are not needed if the core is motivated by a good fighting rally---but the undecided are sure Welcome.

Z said...

KP..thanks, butwhere is the conspiracy theory in any of this piece and what would you refute?

By the way, we ALL 'get it'...and Kid's right; we are very needful of changing who's in the presidency now and must inform people.
Everything in this piece is true; Obama speaks of much of it in his books, as a matter of fact.

I think Dr Drew had every right and every responsibility to discuss his conversations with Obama as youths and the piece is posted, as I say, to show WHY Mr. Obama simply cannot stand for the things most of us stand for. (See Dr. Drew's comments above, that surprised and pleased me).

KP, holding down conspiracy theories, mellowing the rhetoric, that all has to happen to sway voters. In person, I am good at knowing my audience and adjusting my tone to sway and I do get people thinking, I know that.

Conspiracy theories aren't always fake; we need to inform when there's enough smoke to show there might be fire.

KP said...

TheySay/WeSay: "The undecided are not needed if the core is motivated by a good fighting rally"

I wish you were correct. That would be true if the people voted but history tells us they do not. And the apathetic are not reading left and right powered blogs. They are watching Jimmy Fallon and John Stewart for political news.

I have been voting in national federal elections since 1974 and there has never been over 57% turnout in that time. We did hit over 63, 62 and 61% in the three Presidential elections of the 1960s. And in 2008 Obama was elected with 56.8%. I think it is safe to say that swing voters won the election for him. And I think they will defeat him in 2012 if he loses.

I am guessing we will see over 60% turnout in 2012.

KP said...

GeeZ, Z, I know you get it :-)

KP said...

Z said: "You seem a little hot and cold on Obama, but mostly hot...even protective. What things do you like about him? I'd like to know."

I don't know why you would say that. I am not hot and cold about the politics of President Obama. I am cold, very cold; and even colder when it comes to his governing style. I work in medicine and think The Affordable Health Care Act is one of the worst bills I have ever seen. I loathe the way it was passed and the giggles from the left afterward. I have never been more mad at political leaders than I was when Pelosi walked that big gavel around DC and she, Obama and Reid lied to America. They brought the wrath of the right down on themselves. They helped polarize America.

Maybe what you mistake for Obama support is that I do not attack him personally, even though there are things about him that irritate me. Color is not one of them; nor is the fact that he plays basketball, loves to golf and vacations with his family.

KP said...

I am not suggesting anyone here dislikes Obama because of color or that he plays basketball, golf and loves his family.

My point is, like net, I don't think Obama hates America. I just have a different style from some on the far right. I'm not even saying I am right. My goal is to win over the undecided in 2012 so that the White House and Congress are Republican.

Z said...

KP...I agree with you about the undecideds...that's why I've said so often here at my blog (maybe even up in the comment thread here? I don't remember) that this blog is mostly Conservatives who'd not DREAM of voting someone like Obama into office (no matter what color he was), so I can say how I feel.
I am very, very measured when talking to undecideds or Democrats in my 'real life'...and I have swayed many that way. Calm, informative, and, believe it or not; noncombative.

I don't think you can know Obama's background or read his books, hear who he admired most in the world all these years, and still think he loves America as we know it. Sure, he might like a socialist America; I'm not saying he wouldn't.
The race thing is OVER, a moot point. When Republicans would vote for Alan West or Herman Cain yesterday, we're the only party who knows it's NOT about race when we criticize Obama.
No offense to net observer, but I don't even really think of peoples' color when I'm considering who they are or what they are in their hearts and souls.

Z said...

by the way, I remember I wept the night Obama was nominated.. (and got trounced by most commenters here for having said so the next morning in a post, believe it or not "you LIKE that guy?" Of course I didn't...but I absolutely saw how important it was to Black Americans..
I saw those black kids in the audience with tears streaming down their faces and I so got that they were thrilled and full of a kind of 'completion'....the first black man.

Even I had hopes he wouldn't be quite as he is now.

So, I can't blame those Republicans or Dems who voted for Obama too much.... though I will at the next election, now that we see what's happened.

KP said...

I had the same experience. We want to hold hands and love our neighbor. However, in life, (my view) we must apply common sense conservative views that we hold on finance and parenting to politics.

That is; short term gratification is an illusion. All of the best things in life are the result of long term (sometimes uncomfortable) work. We separate what is right from what is easy. Then we weep about it and feel sorry for ourselves until harvest.

KP said...

"short term gratification is an illusion. All of the best things in life are the result of long term (sometimes uncomfortable) work."

Most importantly -- I would add love to the analogy.

As M. Scott Peck said "Life is difficult".

Z said...

KP, trust me, I didn't for a second think Obama had any conservative leanings that I could admire.. I just hoped for better than I thought he'd be and I didn't get it, and neither did America, sadly.

tell me how you went from Obama's nomination to "short term gratification"...I'm interested.

KP said...

<< tell me how you went from Obama's nomination to "short term gratification"...I'm interested >>

Back in the 70s I bought a product called the Ginsu knife. It was too good to be true. But I had no money and the sales technique was powerful.

The "amazing" Ginsu knife ads asked "How much would you pay? Don't answer!", urged viewers to "Call now! Operators are standing by!"

That reminds me of Obama, and Obamacare specifically. As a chef you know that the message he was selling was that you and I would get Chicago or J.A. Henckels cutlery, but that is not what he was selling.

Another example; the products that promise to change the behavior of young children that act out? My view: a max dose of parental behavior modification would work well.

Elmers Brother said...

Those who lead aesthetic lives (seeking pleasure and instant gratification) live for themselves and are not in control of their existence. The Aesthetic lives for the moment, prompted by pleasure and follows a certain path only as long as it appeals. The Aesthetic relies upon the external and ultimately upon the accidental. The purely aesthetic life is inadequate and eventually leads to despair.

A synopsis of Kierkegaards Either/Or

Elmers Brother said...

The former was in response to KPs comments about instant gratification

Z said...

Elbro, thanks for that...

KP, that's perfectly explained; I had a hunch that's what you meant but it was a little too vague for me and I wanted to make sure.
THanks. excellent, and agreed.

beakerkin said...

Net Observer

As a person who has dealt with the Duck for seven years his world boils down to the Jews. Anyone familiar with the brain impaired ranting of the Duck would expect him to go postal on Ron Paul. If you do not believe me read his rants at the blog of a traditional Liberterian Patriot Jason Pappas.

The Duck and Code Pink have their candidate who shares their warped foriegn policy Ron Paul. Any trip to OWS flea jamborees will show plenty of Paultards usually ranting about Jews. I actually had to walk away before hearing the evil Abe Lincoln rant from Paultards.

On my blog we do take plenty of shots at Ron Paul and his band of populist bigots who make a mockery of the values and traditions of the GOP. Conservatives, have zero patience for KKK nuts who have also endorsed Ron Paul and OWS.

The fact that Commies, Nazis and the KKK all have united in backing a single foul candidate should let you grasp how central the Jewish Obsessions are with political extremists. The fact that Israel exists and Obama hasn't eliminated the Jewish State is too much for the Duck.

Anonymous said...

Wow, nice post,there are many person searching about that now they will find enough resources by your post.Thank you for sharing to us.Please one more post about that..Corporate Entertainment