Chains He Can Deceive In…..

A week ago President Obama said to a group of fundraisers and supporters  “we are not even half way there folks”.  At the time I wondered half way to where exactly?   Then I remembered all the research on Obama’s formative ideology, his youth, and his background.   Perhaps today is a good day to refresh ourselves….

(Via Trevor Loudon) Henry Wallace’s Progressive Party of the 1940s was nothing but a tool  the Communist Party USA – and by extension, the Soviet Union.  Today’s Democratic Party is also heavily infiltrated by the now pro-Chinese Communist Party USA and their almost as equally extreme comrades from Democratic Socialists of America.  Here’s an interesting picture from the 1940s. Henry Wallace chatting with Chicago journalist and Progressive Party supporter Vernon Jarrett.

It turns out that around this time, Vernon Jarrett was a leader of the Chicago chapter of American Youth for Democracy – the youth wing of the Communist Party.  Chicago communist journalist Frank Marshall Davis was a national sponsor of American Youth for Democracy, as well as being a Progressive Party supporter.  Both Davis and Jarrett worked on the radical Chicago Defender newspaper and in 1948, both served on the publicity committee of the Citizens’ Committee to Aid Packing-House Workers.

Citizens’ Committee to Aid Packing-House Workers letter, April 12, 1948

Communist Party leader, Frank Marshall Davis

Later that year, Frank Marshall Davis moved to Hawaii, where he met and mentored a young boy named Barack Obama.

Vernon Jarrett stayed in Chicago, where he became a prominent columnist. Coincidentally he used this column in 2004 to urge black voters to vote in the 2004 Senate primaries for Barack Obama.

Vernon Jarrett, was also the father-in-law of a friend of the Obama family named Valerie Jarrett, who now serves as the president’s most trusted adviser in the White House.

This program that we are “half way toward” has been underway for a very long time folks.

So how would The Progressive Party of the 1940’s (The Communist Party), Vernon Jarrett and then Frank Marshall Davis fit into the understanding of the Obama ideology; and how did young Barack Obama just happen to come under the influence of such progressives/ideologues.   Well for that lets turn to Bill Whittle to help explain where Obama’s ideology came from, more specifically where his mothers ideology came from and how it has led him to his own ideological way of thinking.

So now you have an understanding for the formative ideology of Obama, you can see where Valerie Jarrett comes into the picture from Chicago, and why she maintains such a key advisory role within his administration.   Let’s take a look at what his campaign manager sees as the direction for his next election:

The Obama Campaign has stated the type of campaign needed for 2012 will be an “insurgent” type of campaign. So lets think about that “in·sur·gent” a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially: a rebel not recognized as a belligerent: one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one’s own political party. Other Government and Politics Terms: agent provocateur, agitprop, autarky, cabal, egalitarianism, federalism, hegemony, plenipotentiary, popular sovereignty, socialism. OK, Got it? This is the type of campaign they are coordinating.

President Obama’s campaign manager stressed Monday April 25th 2011 that Democrats couldn’t rely on their 2008 game plan to win a second term for Obama in 2012. Jim Messina, Obama’s former deputy chief of staff-turned-campaign manager, released a strategy video to supporters outlining the campaign’s initial steps toward securing victory next fall. And the key takeaway from Messina was that he intended to throw out the 2008 model and rethink Obama’s strategy for 2012. . . .

“The 2008 campaign was the most special thing a lot of us have ever been a part of,” Messina said in a Web video. “But if we just run that same campaign, we stand a good chance of losing. We’ve got to run a new campaign.”

“This is not 2008. We’ve got to assume every single day that we’ve got to build something new, better, faster and sleeker,” Messina said. “Republicans are going to be fired up to take on President Obama, and so we all and all of you out there have to take the reins and help build this thing.”

“We ought not act like an incumbent, we’ve got to act like an insurgent campaign that wakes up every single day, trying to get every single vote we can,”

Messina adds in the video:

So who exactly are these “insurgent campaign” supporters going to be?   For that let’s look at The Communist Party USA and their endorsement of President Obama this year.

(People’s World) – It is obvious that there is a growing feeling of frustration and even anger among supporters of the Democratic Party with its performance over the past two years. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, speaking for the labor movement, strongly expressed this unhappiness in some recent speeches. I am disappointed too with some aspects of the Obama administration’s domestic and foreign policy.

But I don’t forget that this administration governs in a very hostile political environment in which the right is laboring overtime to wreck its initiatives at every step of the way.

In addition, there are the structural pressures of governing in a capitalist economy and state.

Then there are conservative pressures coming from some congressional Democrats and members of the administration.

But the main question from a strategic point of view is this: Does it make any difference, from the standpoint of the class and democratic struggles, which party gains political ascendency?

Apple don't fall far......

Some – though not the labor movement nor other mass organizations of the American people – say no, it doesn’t.

Some even go a step further and say a Democratic victory creates popular illusions, which in turn weaken the people’s struggles. And the only way out of this vise is to form a third party now.

Communists don’t agree with either one of these views. In our view, the differences between the two parties of capitalism are of consequence to class and democratic struggles.

. . .As for the wisdom of a third party, we have always advocated the formation of an independent people’s party at the core of which are the working class and labor, racially and nationally oppressed people, women, youth, immigrants, seniors, gay and straight, etc. It is essential for any deep-going social change. But its realization depends on more than our desire, more than our political-ideological attitude. Millions who have to be at the core of this party still operate under the umbrella of the Democratic Party, albeit increasingly in an independent fashion.

Moreover, to separate ourselves at this moment from these forces would be contrary to our strategic policy of building maximum unity against right-wing extremism now and in next year’s elections. (read more)

So CPUSA is fully behind Obama, and Obama’s Mother was an avowed communist, his grandparents litterally moved their home to be within the geography of more communist friendly social circles and send their daughter, his mother, to a sympathetic school.   All of which leads up to him spending his formative youth with Communist Party leader Frank Marshall Davis.   You connecting all this?…… 

As an adolescent, Obama did have a very strong relationship with Frank Marshall Davis the friend of Vernon Jarrett.   Davis was a Communist and pornographer but also a skilled writer.   “I could see Frank sitting in his overstuffed chair,” Obama remembers in his autobiography Dreams of My Father;  “a book of poetry in his lap, his reading glasses slipping down his nose.”  Obama continues, “[Frank] would read us his poetry whenever we stopped by his house, sharing whiskey with Gramps out of an emptied jelly jar.”

Davis appears several times in Obama’s book “Dreams of my Father.”   In the latter part of the book Obama recalls meeting Davis shortly before leaving for college on the mainland.  At that meeting, Davis scolded Obama for his listless attitude toward college and warned him not to leave his race behind, which he called “the real price of admission” to higher education.

“Leaving your race at the door. Leaving your people behind…. You’re not going to college to get educated. You’re going to get trained…. They’ll train you to forget what you already know. They’ll train you so good, you’ll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that shit.”

And then Frank pronounces the modern version of the one key concept which the Democratic Party, under slavery, segregation, and civil rights, has sought to ingrain in the mind of every black person:

”You may be a well-trained, well-paid nigger, but you’re a nigger just the same.”

A few days later Obama left Hawaii for Occidental College in Los Angeles on the way to the White House.

“…. It’s been a long, tough journey. But we have made some incredible strides together. Yes, we have. But the thing that we all ought to remember is that as much as good as we have done, precisely because the challenges were so daunting, precisely because we we were inheriting so many challenges, that we’re not even halfway there yet. When I said ‘change we can believe in,’ I didn’t say ‘change we could believe in tomorrow.’ Not change we can believe in next week. We knew this was going to take time because we’ve got this big, messy, tough democracy,”…..

Yikes.   I think I don’t want to go any further toward this “there” of which he speaks.   Especially if that “messy, tough democracy” is in the way.   Taking it all into context it  becomes obvious where the “there” is.Change Chains he can decieve in !

This entry was posted in Bill Whittle, Obama Research/Discovery, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

59 Responses to Chains He Can Deceive In…..

  1. Auntie Lib says:

    So, the choice in 2012 comes down to… (wait for it)


    Liked by 1 person

  2. Damn the media for not reporting on this stuff in 2008’…. A pox on all their houses. !!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ad rem says:

      (Psst….your video is ready.)


    • Elvis Chupacabra says:

      They’re IN on it. I was a proud, upcoming member of the Fourth Estate, but after Watergate, so many people entered the profession, for the wrong reasons that unless you had daddy’s money to survive, you had to leave and go do something else. Those newcomers of the early to mind 70s are now the strident, ideologically-driven editors, news directors and writers.

      Sadly, the Fourth Estate has now become a willing Fifth Column for the Progressocrats.

      Liked by 1 person

      • So you used to be in news, Elvis? Will you admit to what paper and city, roughly?


        • I’ll just say that it was at a better-than-average daily in a mid-sized Texas city. I suffered through the indentured servitude of both intern and entry-level writer (re-writer). I mailed it in in 1974 and went back to the oil bidness, which was booming at the time.

          Old-school Journalism was tough and prepared me to take merciless criticism in writing. This was in the era before self-esteem was king, a news story was still driven by the objective pursuit of who, what, where, when, why and how, and “opinion” was for the OP-Ed page and Sports columns. 🙂


          • garnette says:

            I get so frustrated when I read articles by so called journalists when I have to read and then reread the article to understand it. I miss the days when you could actually gain information from an article and not have it be an article to push a political view, even if the topic appears to not be political whatsoever.


  3. And we’ve known almost ALL THIS STUFF all this time. How do the decent journalists at the alphabet networks, and I know there are a few, sleep at night? Honestly. I hate ’em for what they’ve done to us. If I had a dinner at the Grunt ranch, and I found out one of the guests worked for the MSM, I would not wait for their jacket before physically throwing them out onto the street. They bear 75% responsibility for what happened in 2008. Congress 20%, and the last 5% the voters for just being ignorant and stupid.


  4. Kaleokualoha says:

    Why do you post that Frank Marshall Davis was Obama’s “mentor”? Because conservative firebrand Cliff Kincaid said so? “Dreams From My Father” belies that urban myth. It’s a pity Americans are so easily hoodwinked by this right-wing disinformation, just like we were duped regarding the Iraqi threat. But even today, some Americans would rather believe fully discredited lies than admit they were duped. They don’t have the courage to admit their mistakes. For everyone else: “Follow the evidence.”

    Although Obama’s book indicates “Frank” was a family friend who offered him advice on racial issues, Obama wrote that Davis “fell short” and his views were “incurable.” Obama’s book proves that Obama did not consider Davis to be a “wise and trusted counselor,” which is the standard definition of “mentor.” By what creative definition can Davis be considered his “mentor”?

    Further, according to “Dreams,” Obama visited Davis only twice on his own after visiting with Gramps: once to discuss his grandmother’s bus stop incident, and three years later before leaving for college. When could any “communist” training occur?

    By exaggerating evidence that Davis advised Obama, yet ignoring evidence from the same source that Obama did NOT Frank to be a wise and trusted advisor, those who spread the urban myth Davis was Obama’s “mentor” are as dishonest as ex-D.A. Mike Nifong. The “Nifong Syndrome” is the stacking of evidence by ignoring evidence that does not fit one’s agenda. By portraying Davis as Obama’s mentor, despite conclusive evidence to the contrary, fraudulent “opposition research” by Cliff Kincaid and others permeates the blogosphere. Their travesty of journalistic ethics, like their “AIM Reports,” demonstrates that they are unreliable sources of information on the Davis-Obama relationship. As the epitome of contemporary propaganda, Cliff Kincaid may be a worthy successor to Reich Minister Joseph Goebbels.

    “Truth is generally the best vindication against slander.”
    – Abraham Lincoln


    • I suggest you do more research, including the friends and associations of Obama’s mom. She was very close to Davis and was introduced to Barack Obama Sr. by Davis. Including the continued relationship she shared with Davis throughout the time that she and young Obama lived in Hawaii. Frank Marshall Davis and Barack’s family continued a close friendship with Davis throughout Obama’s childhood and school years. While Obama only pulls particular instances into his book to describe, or paint a picture of Davis, that does not dismiss the depth of the relationship that is blatently obvious.

      Your argument is disingenuous at best, and more appropriately a well scripted diversionary tactic.

      Nice try though.


    • Sharon says:

      The truth is a nightmare for Mr. Obama because he’s not being slandered. The Lincoln quote is irrelevant to his predicament.


  5. Kaleokualoha says:

    What evidence do you have that Obama’s mother or father ever met Davis?
    “Dreams From My Father” contains no such evidence.


    • Did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night? Do your own friggin research. One book does not a learned scholar of you make.

      You might start by reading the actual substance of the thread moron. Maybe actually use the internal links, watch the videos, you know… read. Insufferable liberal prog. What’s with you idiots that you must have everything spoon fed to you.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Kaleokualoha says:

    Rather than slinging insults, how about a responsive answer? The “substance of the thread” does not contain any evidence that Obama’s mother or father ever met Davis. I have done extensive research on Obama’s days in Hawaii.

    Once again: What evidence do you have that Obama’s mother or father ever met Davis? Such a simple question deserves a direct answer. Continued evasion suggests you have no such evidence.


    • WeeWeed says:

      I’m turning you in to #attackwatch. You’re questioning HIS parentage. Raaaacissss.


    • You are so full of (insert picture of cow poop here). There is enormous historical evidence of Obama’s mom and her associations with Frank Davis. In fact it was at the expressed introduction by Grandma and Grandpa that she became friends with Davis. Obviously you are cognitively dissonant from reality. Watch Bill Whittle’s video for some “substance”. Then you can use the drop down research box on this site to research Obama with fact based information.

      Again, do your own research. All the resource materials are provided.

      Now, lets cut to the heart of the matter. Given the overwhelming evidence that specifically contradicts your statements and false positions, your continued questioning for specifics outlines and frames a questionable interest. It appears the only reason you continue to ask the same questions is to determine the level of knowlege that others have of the false premise. Why are you so interested to know what level of fraud has been discovered? Obviously you have some vested interest……

      As previously stated, the facts are the facts. Despite your trying to obfuscate them, they stand on their own merits. You can claim it’s not raining while standing outside as water flows from the sky and soaks you, but unfortunately for you everyone else can factually see that it is indeed raining.

      This is the last response from me to your insane positioning. You are tiring….. stupid, and tiring.


    • Look, Mark, the details of Obama’s relationship with Frank are controversial. You know that. It’s true that most of the writers, like Corsi, Kincaid and Horne, insisting on a political influence are conservative. That doesn’t make them liars. The simple truth is that no one knows the exact details of that relationship, right? Even you. Truth is, even if Frank was your father, you didn’t know him very well, did you? And your research into Obama’s life in Hawaii relied on many liberal sources, did it not? You say that the “Fathers” book “proves” that there was no relationship, but you’re fully aware that even the AUTHORSHIP of that book is in question by conservatives. Here’s a simple question for you: Why should we trust your sources and not the conservative ones? Why are the conservative writers all mis-informers, and the liberal ones all truth-tellers? Sundance is right. Your question is disingenuous in the extreme. Clearly there was a relationship. Stop wasting our time.


  7. G8rMom7 says:

    You guys all got da mad skilz at this darn intraweb thingy. :-0


    • No, only Puddy got da mad skillz. 😉 But you so funny!

      It’s just a curiosity thing with me about the whole Obama history in HI. It’s got the makings of one of the most intriguing mystery stories of our time. It’s got mysterious government-industry connections (the Ford Foundation). Missing documents. unexplained affluence and means. Coverups. International intrigue. And nobody seems to know any of the answers. It’s weird beyond belief.


      • Ad rem says:

        Yeah…..we know what Bush’s grades were in the second grade, but Obama is a complete cipher.


      • G8rMom7 says:

        Yeah, I sometimes wonder if our great grandkids will finally actually get to the bottom of it all and it will become part of the US History curriculum where we will hopefully see how we cannot allow this to ever happen again! Like how they learn about the Civil Rights movement and can’t even imagine having separate bathrooms and such now. They will look back at us and think “man, our ancestors were dumbasses for not figuring all that out before he got elected.”


  8. Kaleokualoha says:

    “You say that the “Fathers” book “proves” that there was no relationship, but you’re fully aware that even the AUTHORSHIP of that book is in question by conservatives.”

    RESPONSE: Wrong. I never said the book proves there was no relationship. The book clearly sais that Gramps was a friend and that Barack visited him twice on his own.

    “You are so full of (insert picture of cow poop here). There is enormous historical evidence of Obama’s mom and her associations with Frank Davis.”

    RESPONSE: I have repeatedly asked for any evidence, yet evasion is the only response. Jumping to conclusions seems to be quite common in the fantasyland of the right-wing blogosphere. Such conclusions are drawn despite other likely explanations for the evidence presented. In the world of disinformation, speculation is misrepresented as fact.

    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 similar high standards of accuracy.

    Once again: What evidence do you have that Obama’s mother or father ever met Davis?


  9. Kaleokualoha says:

    “What evidence do you have that Obama ever attended classes as a student at Occidental and/or Columbia? What evidence do you have that Obama received “Magna Cum Laude” at Harvard as the result of good grades, rather than as a result of having won the election for Editor of the Harvard Law Review? What evidence do you have (that would qualify as “Acceptable Documentation” for a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification) that the Obama birth narrative is true? Note that URLs, JPGs, and PDFs are not on the list of “Acceptable documentation”.”

    RESPONSE: I have no evidence to support those claims. But, then again, since I never MADE those claims, I am under NO obligation to support them. On the other hand, the above claims about Obama’s parents and my father WERE made in this forum. The burden of proof is always upon those making claims. Therefore, it is the obligation of the author to support them. Once again: What evidence do you have that Obama’s mother or father ever met Davis?

    “He mentions how right-wing misinformers went through 3 steps to link Obama to people like Frank and Bill Ayers. Step 1: Inflate the radicalness of the associates.”

    Really? Where? I recall no such statement regarding Ayers. In the case of my father, however, so-called “Accuracy In Media” and other propagandists grossly exaggerated my fathers “radical” influence on Obama.

    The AIM disinformation campaign consisted of a series of small lies fabricated to support the big lie that “His values, passed on to Obama, were those of a communist agent who pledged allegiance to Stalin” (see

    As a fair-minded thinker, you may be interested in this cordial exchange between myself and Max Friedman, Cliff Kincaid’s researcher: . Only the last few comments pertain to this situation. Please note that Max agreed to follow through with Cliff Kincaid regarding the specific misrepresentation I had identified in June 2009. Not a peep was heard from him since then.

    “Truth is generally the best vindication against slander.”
    – Abraham Lincoln


    • Frank Marshall Davis was your father? Sheeesh, no wonder. nuf said 😦

      sucks to be you….

      ps. did you watch the Bill Whittle video ?


      • Sundance,
        Let’s show Christ’s love to Mark, and treat him the way we would want to be treated. No one wants to be told “sucks to be you…”, and no one has any control over who their father is/was.


        • RedPill, we diverge on this issue. The commentator we are all responding to brings no information to the table. He neither advocates, substanciates, not quantifies his position. Instead, his approach is the typical approach of a rabid prog. He questions your position by demanding you present evidence.

          This is ridiculous and insufferable for many reasons. Not the least of which is the shere air of superiority within the approach…… “I don’t have to frame anything, I just have to question your framing”… etc. and on, and on, and on…..

          It is what progs do? It is their primary MO. It is their preferred approach. Rather than present a perspective, or state a position, they will disingenuously claim your position is wrong and then demand you prove it. You can run yourself in circles around this ideological refusal to accept anything other than what they have committed themselves, and their identity to believe. It is tiring, and futile to engage in this endless chase to no-where.

          Think of the prog lawyer who accuses you of theft. You have never stolen anything, yet you are put into a position of trying to prove it. How can you? It’s impossible to prove that you have not done something, only that you have. Then the lawyer uses your inability as evidence to “prove” his erroneous position.

          This is what this insufferable idiot is doing here and you are all engaging him. Nyet, let him back up his claim, let him do his own work if he is so perfunctory with his intellect.

          So if it hurts his fee fees to be told “it sucks to be you” then so be it. That is the reality. “IF” FMD was his father it really does suck to be him. The communist guy was a total loser on every level and never amounted to squat. One can only imagine how he would have treated his children…. and that explains why this guy “Mark” is unstable and, well, honestly whacko.


    • Hey, wait a minute…. If Frank Davis was your dad, then there is a better than 50/50 possibility you and Obama are half brothers. Was your mom caucasian too?


      • Mark’s mother is/was Helen Canfield Davis, and yes, she is/was caucasian.

        I don’t know what the odds are, (I have no way of saying if the odds are “better than 50/50 possibility”), but it did occur to me yesterday that if Frank Marshall Davis were the one who impregnated Stanley Ann Dunham, then Mark would indeed be the half-brother of Barry.


      • RP, you’re right about Helen, but I’m sure SD was just slamming Mark about that in jest, although I think it was too much. I don’t think this is the kind of forum where we go around insulting people’s mothers and parentage, even if they are intolerable pricks spewing endless irrelevant, academic questions. Am I wrong?

        But you guys bring up a good point. Mark has ties to the O campaign and is active in conservative “misinformation suppression.” He’s FMD’s son with an almost identical family background to Barack’s, except that Mark’s was intact for longer. Mark may be like the closest thing Barack has to a brother! And here we’ve been insulting him! I’d be checking the streets out in front of our houses folks. The SWAT teams may be just minutes away! 😉


        • Are you suggesting that Mark has already reported us to Ataaack Waaaaaaaatch? 😉


        • zmalfoy says:

          My, my, such gentlemen we have around here! Why, it just sets a girl’s heart all a-flutter! *swoons*

          Seriously , though, I do appreciate the effort displayed by all toward Christian Charity. Far too rare in many places, these days . . .


          • Sharon says:

            Appreciate both RP’s and SD’s comments above….and am reminded that Jesus, the Christ cut liars off at the knees without ever violating His perfect-presentation-of-the-Father. Our problem, always, is figuring out how to do one without messing up the other: Being human….we may end up with unpleasant confrontation. Desiring to be Christlke….we may end up compromising with deception. The fact is, “be nice,” “be conciliatory” MAY sometimes be a strawman.

            I’m talking about myself now, not either SD or RP: we make a huge mistake when we see the issue as “we have to strike a balance between confrontation and love.” Absolutely not. The minute we try to do that, we have left the truth because truth as embodied in Jesus Christ was always confrontive and was always love. He never thought He had to choose between the two.

            When you have two truths (we want to hold to the truth and we want to be Christlike, those are both true) and somehow you see the solution to internal conflict as “striking a balance between the two” or choosing one over the other) you have immediately carved off some of both truths. When two truths are present, what you have in “truth in tension.” Stand in both truths, and deal with the resulting tension. Then neither truth is compromised.

            Jesus lived truth in tension: God is holy and God is merciful. Another: God is love and God hates sin. Another: God forgives sin–and God wlll never forgive the sin against the Holy Spirit.


          • Sharon, you are exactly right about everything you said. Bravo. But I’m still struggling with Sundance’s approach here, and I do not appreciate it or approve of it. Sorry, SD. I MUCH preferred the obscenity-laced rant that originally occupied SD’s comment box above (at 10:45pm on the 14th) to his subsequent comments about Mark’s parentage. That first rant was brutal but honest and true. Davis deserved every bit of it. It was not nice at all, and it was quite obscene; perhaps that’s why SD deleted it. But it was honest and deserved and straightforward. I don’t think RP was criticizing what you DID, SD. I think he had a problem with HOW you did it. And so do I. It’s not Christ-like to say something purposely hurtful about someone’s birth, especially since it WASN’T EVEN TRUE. Mark is actually Frank’s son. You can see it in his face. Implying otherwise is despicable. If you’re going to delete anything, how about you delete that? And if it were me, I’d apologize to the asshole. 😉


            • Sorry, I drifted there. You didn’t accuse Frank of not being Mark’s father. My bad. You were actually accusing Frank of fathering Barack. But I honestly don’t think that is true either. Apologize for twisting the facts…


              • Sharon says:

                Grunt was this perhaps a reply to SD above? For clarification, I was not primarily responding to anything you said to SD….I was intending to respond to the thought that we often see a false choice: “Should I be nice or should I let him have it in the chops”…..carry on. 🙂


              • Sorry if I’m wedging myself in here, but I was replying to all 3 of you. I’m agreeing with your comment, Sharon, but taking issue with your “appreciation of SD’s comment.” I’m defending RP, since he didn’t clarify himself yesterday. But primarily, you’re right about my comment being directed at SD. Respectfully. 🙂


                • Sharon says:

                  Ah! ok….gotcha…..I was appreciating the overall discussion of SD’s comment and had not read all the up-thread back and forth ’cause I woke up with a headache this morning so brain is not completely available! We’re good…. 😉 Disagreeing and clarifying is quite an exercise, and I appreciate getting to do it and hope I’m learning from it.


                • Sorry about the headache! I shouldn’t even be speaking up; it’s not that big a deal. I just see a difference between anonymous trolls, who are COMPLETELY fair game, and real people, like Mark, who require some Christian charity. Oh well.


  10. Pingback: The 4th Media » John Brennan- The CIA -Zbigniew Brzezinski- Columbia University and Obama

  11. Al Dziukiewicz says:

    I know there are no conservative,liberals, socialist. these are just word that hide the true meaning. There are only two meaning to those words. Capitalist or communist and and I want to know what you are?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s