"It is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran's leaders will be. We respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran."

CIA Director Leon Panetta, rather than having the integrity, balls, or both, to stand up and tell Obama that he agrees with Cheney's warnings, is now taking the tact of blaming Cheney, in case of further attacks, as WISHING them upon America.

This is a shill and further highlights the level to which Democrats and liberals will stoop to vilify anyone who dares object to the destructive and dangerous, unqualified, and astonishingly naive Islamic appeaser we are now suffering in the nation's White House.

All CIA Director Leon Panetta is revealing is that he himself is a COWARD!

It won't be Cheney's WISHING that will result in another attack, and Panetta knows that as well as anyone. If ANYTHING, it will be Panetta's ineptitude and cowardice in failing to tell Obama the truth about the calamitous direction his appeasement policies are taking; in having CIA agents, FBI agents, and soldiers on the battlefield to treat enemy combatants by reading them Miranda rights! Can you imagine a Marine or soldier telling an Islamic terrorist combatant caught setting a roadside bomb in Afghanistan "You have the right to remain silent?"

All Panetta is providing is his tacit admission that there will likely be more terrorist attacks down the road with the course Obama is leading us on; make no mistake about it.

If all the undermining of President Bush and our troops on the battlefield under the Democrats and liberals during his administration didn't cause any terrorist attacks, how in the world is Vice-president Cheney's support for stronger measures for protecting the American people, and keeping dangerous Islamic terrorist suspects in Guantanamo and off American soil, WISHING for an attack?

If one would take into account all the rantings and press releases heard around the world of Jack Murtha, John Kerry, Dick Durbin, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and all the other Democrats in Congress calling our soldiers and Marines "Nazis," "Murderers," "terrorizing women and children in the dark of night," saying "the war is lost," calling Gen. Petraeus a "liar," calling our troops actions as being the same as the actions of Pol Pot in Cambodia, and calling Pres. Bush and vice-Pres. Cheney "war criminals" at the height of the war in Iraq; how would that NOT be considered, by Panetta's reasoning, their WISHING for another terrorist attack, OR WORSE, that we suffered a complete defeat at the hands of the Islamic terrorists and Al Qaeda that we were fighting?

Did the previous Director of CIA, under Bush, George Tenet, go crying to the media to say that these "leaders" were almost WISHING for another terrorist attack with THEIR comments condemning, not only the President's policies, but the TROOPS themselves who were risking their lives on the battlefield?

Vice-president Cheney is simply voicing the opinion that many Americans share, and history has PROVEN to be true! You cannot reason with people who hold it as their destiny and duty to bring about your annihilation!

It won't be Dick Cheney's WISHING for another attack that will be the cause of the next one...

...it will be the cowardice, moral weakness, ignorance, and ineptitude of Barack Hussein Obama and the idiots and pretenders (Leon Panetta being prominent among them) he has surrounded himself with that will result in emboldening the enemy to attack a weakened America, and lead to the additional losses of American lives.

Barack Hussein Obama'a policies of appeasement and Muslim-love are paving the way for Iran, Al Qaeda, and every America-hating group on the planet to challenge and attack the American people...and Barack Hussein "Goddamn America" Obama is taking the first shots at sowing the seeds and paving the road of our destruction.

CIA Director Leon Panetta would do well to focus on the policies of his Commander-in-chief, not engaging in stupid and childish attacks on Cheney's warnings of their sure to be failure at succeeding in protecting us from what is sure to be the end result of their stupidity.

"Panetta told The New Yorker for an article in its June 22 issue that Cheney "smells some blood in the water" on the issue of national security"
_______________________________________________

QUESTION: If, as Panetta says, Vice-president Cheney "smells some blood in the water on the issue of national security," isn't Panetta then admitting that there is "blood in the water on the issue of national security" to be smelled?

QUESTION: If Cheney "smells blood in the water on the issue of national security," wouldn't it follow that Al Qaeda also smells some "blood in the water on the issue of national security"?

QUESTION: If Cheney, as an American who knows how to effectively fight terrorists as his record proves, "smells some blood in the water," doesn't it make more sense to enlist his support and to mine his wealth of knowledge in order to find the means to staunch the flow of "blood" rather than to make the asinine statement of childish accusation, rejection and whining that Panetta has chosen in response to those warnings?

Upon reading these comments coming from the Director of the CIA, Panetta ought to know that he is do nothing to staunch the flow of the smell of "some blood in the water," he is only signalling to the terrorists that they ought to be sniffing around too.

"Last month the former vice president offered a withering critique of Obama's policies and a defense of the Bush administration on the same day that Obama made a major speech about national security."

DELIBERATELY SKEWED CONTEXT?

Cheney's speech was scheduled for at least 3 weeks before Obama made the decision to give a rebuttal speech of his own ON THE SAME DAY that Cheney had already scheduled his!  Not the other way around as this AP writer would skew the context.

Vice-president Cheney didn't (as the propagandist who wrote this article suggests) offer his "withering critique" "on the same day that Obama made a major speech about national security"...Barack Obama chose to make his speech on the same day that Vice-president Cheney was already and beforehand scheduled to make his speech!  Barack Obama's entire speech was a pitiful and staged attempt at trying to offset the damage and embarrassment the White House realized that  was sure to result from Cheney's speech, and  to take the sting out of Cheney's "withering critique" of Obama's inane policies of Muslim terrorist @$$ki$$ing as a result of Obama's failed attempt to empty Guantanamo's terrorist prison camp and allow terrorist suspects to run free in American neighborhoods, while "relocating" here on the American taxpayer's dime.

Further (as if he has not humiliated himself enough):"Panetta said of Cheney's remarks:

"It's almost, a little bit, gallows politics. When you read behind it, it's almost as if he's wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point. I think that's dangerous politics."

This, on its face, is the most telling remark from Panetta: "gallows politics""dangerous politics"? Is this what the Director of Central Intelligence thinks Vice-president Cheney's concerns about national security are: "politics"?

More alarmingly THAT comment coming from Panetta (who is, after all, a POLITICIAN) PROVES that he is unfit to set aside HIS politics and fealty to the Democrat Party and its agenda, and to focus on concentrating his attentions on the national security of this nation.

Such remarks as were made by Panetta are equivalent to my characterizing someone's warnings to me to "Hey, don't go down into that neighborhood because the gangs are out, I know, I've dealt with them before, and you're likely to be hurt or killed," as that person's wishing I be shot; and "gallows politics!"

And my reply to his warnings would be: "Oh...duh...the only reason he's telling me that is because he wants me to get shot."

This is LUDICROUS, and by the time that magazine hits the newsstands, Panetta ought to have done us all a favor by resigning his position as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency...

...WISHING that would be in the best interest of America's national security and might contribute to there being a little less of the smell of some blood in the water.

THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE COME TO UNDER THE PRESIDENCY OF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA.

The overwhelming majority of, once, traditional Democrats have little or no knowledge of the philosophies of the people they have been duped into unleashing upon America and it's free-market system. Whipped up in a frenzy of hatred for any and all moral underpinnings of our society, they were tricked under the slogan of "Change" to unwittingly elect a Marxist administration in the purest sense of the word.

Our liberal arts colleges and universities, aided by such individuals as William Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn and others of their ilk, have been indoctrinating our sons and daughters into policies which constantly bombard them with the notion of the failure to attain success in a capitalist society, such as ours, as to have nothing to do with the individual's poor choices and failure to avail his or herself of the opportunities that freedom and free-market capitalism only makes possible; but that the free-market competitive system of governance, itself, is structured in such a way as to cheat them of the lifestyle to which they are entitled.

This entitlement mentality has been carefully nurtured and tested, first with the black community over the past 40+ years, and has proven to be effective in coercing an entire segment of the population [black people] to accept this notion of themselves as victims of a structural barrier to their ever having a chance to become unghettoized under their own volition and without the largess of the Democrat Party system of a social welfare state. As a result of their allowing themselves to “religiously” support the notion that the Democrat Party view that black Americans are restricted in their achievement of the “American Dream” by a slavery-induced pathological retardation of their ability to succeed, Democrats have themselves become slaves of their own ideology that perpetuates and necessitates the continuing enslavement of blacks to a reliance on victimhood and the welfare state to further the cause of Party power. Ignorant, poor, and angry blacks (whipped into a constant frenzy of moralistic outrage by the likes of Wright, Sharpton, and Jackson, et al.) supplies the socialists with their most loyal voting bloc. They recognize the benefit of blacks as “angry, mostly self-marginalized societal outliers.

Building upon the success of this experiment in population control and political power, the Democrats took it to the next level in 2007-2008 by elevating what they knew was a community organizer schooled in the Marxist social philosophy of Conflict Theory, to unleash their goal of the destruction of capitalism in the U.S. and to insure the ascension of a Democrat-run socialist-collectivist government-as-god type of new world order.

Sound far-fetched?

If it does, it was meant to.
That is why Barack Obama's origins in Marxist social indoctrination was carefully hidden with the collusion of the Democrat-elite MSM throughout the entire election cycle.

I am currently working as a Senior at a university in downstate Illinois seeking a BSW in Social Work, precisely for the purpose of being in a position to battle the beast from within it's own camp. This is where the battle for the hearts and minds of American youth is being fought.

One of the textbooks we are studying, "Human Behavior and the Social Environment, Macro Level, by Katherine van Wormer, Fred H. Besthorn, and Thomas Keefe (2007), in describing the "highly-regarded" social work theory of "Conflict" [of which BHO is obviously an adherent] the authors state:

"Conflict theorists Piven and Cloward (1993) utilized the functionalist analysis method borrowed from Merton (1957) to enhance our understanding of how the social welfare system serves as a societal device for "regulating the poor" in the interest of capitalism. The latent function of social services, from this perspective, thus becomes to preserve the establishment. Piven and Cloward's basic premise, based on their review of social change throughout U.S. history, was that "relief arrangements are initiated or expanded during outbreaks of civil disorder produced by mass unemployment and are then abolished or contracted when political stability is restored" (p.xv).

In other words, the elites in society can be counted on to provide only enough aid, stigmatized at that, to prevent mass disorder and regulate labor.

(Despite their use of functional analysis, Piven and Cloward's perspectives are far more closely aligned ideologically with Marxism than with Parson's functionalist writings.)"

"Payne (2005) refers to conflict theory as radical and socialist-collectivist. Feminist, empowerment, and antioppressive perspectives are included under the rubric of radical, as well as the structuralist, approaches. We discuss the structuralist approach here because it places a strong emphasis on economic and social equality among people."

"These structuralist approaches, so called because the source of social problems is located in the social structure rather than in the individual, were inspired by the radical thinking of the 1970s, but their influence waned, as Payne speculates, with the collapse of communism in the 1980s. Along with the neo-conservatism of modern times and the concordant erosion of the welfare state, there is a renewed interest within social work in effecting social change."

"Structural social work is associated today with and best articulated through the writings of Canadian social work theorist Bob Mullaly...Much like his predecessors, Mullaly (1997), in his book "Structural Social Work," espouses a conflict-oriented view of society and recognizes that one's circumstances and difficulties are connected to one's economic and social position in society (Lundy, 2005). "Structural Social Work" is described by Payne as the major statement of Marxist social work."

"Mullaly's (1997, 2002) vision of social work practice is that it must be anticapitalist. If as social workers we do nothing to bring about progressive radical change, we fail the people we serve; we become part of the problem instead of the solution."
______________________________________________

This should give you a better understanding of what "progressive" liberals in today's Socialist-Democrat Party, under an Obama administration, are trying to implement in the United States as we speak.

You see, under their adherence to these types of theories [Marxist to their core] they have as their belief, that capitalism is bad, and Marxism is the solution.

There, fortunately, are other theories being taught which are just the opposite, but this is what is being bought into by the Democrats in our society who proudly define themselves these days as "progressives."

However, this Marxists Conflict perspective is being taught, now, as the dominant philosophy in our nation’s universities, especially in departments of social work, psychology, philosophy, and sociology.

It is not limited to these disciplines either.

Children are now, thanks to the influence of Mullaly and William Ayers, who is being allowed to oversee the curriculum of our public schools systems as an unrepentant Marxist-liberationist declared enemy of capitalism and the American style of economic system, being systematically indoctrinated into a skillful and careful disdain for this country’s founding free-market principles and the entire Federalist system of government rationale.  The very pursuit of individualist freedom on which this country and capitalism were founded, is thence, being portrayed as antithema to a "superior" collectivist social order. Marxist collectivism as being more "just" than Free-market individualism.

When you realize just how pervasive Marxist ideology has been slowly used to indoctrinate our schools, you will be able to better put into context the comments of so-called university professors, like Dr. Douglas, who are completely sold, along with their professional disciplines, on the welfare state.

Thus, their fanatical support for Barack Hussein Obama, a fellow believer.

Marxism 101--Obama style.

On April 1, 2009, the Administrator of the Congregation of the Holy Cross wrote a letter from the Vatican which in part states:

"President Obama, your presence at Notre Dame, a premier Catholic institution, is regarded by many good Catholics as scandalous because of your support of abortion rights, regarded by us as an intrinsic evil. In awarding you this degree, they experience Notre Dame as undermining essential, intrinsic Catholic dogma which upholds the dignity of human life. They believe that in honoring you or in giving you a platform to speak, the University of Notre Dame is selling her soul for who knows what: perhaps, at best, for the prestige and glory of having the President of the United States on campus during his first year in office or perhaps at worst, giving an endorsement to your “anti-life policies.”

I do not believe this outrage is simply a demonstration of partisan politics. I sincerely want to rejoice in your presence at Notre Dame as President of the United States. But really, can I? In all sincerity, President Obama, how are we Catholics to deal with you, or any other government leader, who upholds what we believe to be the intrinsic evil of abortion and who is willing to sign the FOCA legislation? How are we to confront Catholic leaders in your own Administration by whom we feel so abandoned?"

Clear evidence that, although Mr. Jenkins (he’s not worthy to be called Father)  does not have the support of higher ups in the Catholic hierarchy. Yet he feels compelled to bestow his University’s highest honors on a man who not only has none of the “empathy” for unborn (or inconveniently born) children that he claims to value in a Supreme Court justice nominee; but one who when speaking at another revered Catholic University (Georgetown) required Georgetown to cover a monogram symbolizing Jesus' name in Gaston Hall, which Obama used for his speech. I wonder if Mr. Jenkins will be required to cover the image of “Touchdown Jesus” that sits behind the Notre Dame goalposts.

‘When Government outlaws God, Government becomes God.’

Jenkins has said Notre Dame does not support Obama's positions on issues regarding the protection of human life but that his appearance provides "a basis for further positive engagement." Has there been some previous “positive engagement” about Barack Hussein Obama’s views on the right to life of unborn children that everyone else is unaware of. Perhaps to “provide “a basis for further positive engagement of their own,  the  “progressive” University of Chicago and William Ayers will extend an invitation to Dick Cheney or George W. Bush to speak at their next year’s commencement address.

Some idiot on another TH thread related to this story even had the audacity to claim that the protestations against Obama speaking were meaningless since, “Notre Dame left the Roman Catholic Church in 1966.”

A bold-faced lie.

Notre Dame did not leave the Roman Catholic Church in 1966, or ever. The University of Notre Dame Board of Trustees continues to hold its annual winter meetings each year in Rome.

This is an excerpt from a letter written by Holy Cross Priests to Notre Dame on April 10, 2009:

http://www.cdobs.com/archive/featured/holy-cross-priests-ob ject-to-notre-dame-honor-of-obama,11181

Holy Cross Priests Object to Notre Dame Honor of Obama

Wilson D. Miscamble C.S.C 10 April 2009

"We write as priests of the Congregation of Holy Cross and as proud graduates of the University of Notre Dame to voice our objection to the University’s decision to honor President Barack Obama by inviting him to deliver this year’s Commencement address and by conferring on him an honorary Doctor of Laws degree.

We wish to associate ourselves with and encourage those courageous students and treasured alumni who, while deeply loving Notre Dame, vigorously oppose this sad and regrettable decision of the University administration.

It is our deep conviction that Notre Dame should lead by word and deed in upholding the Church’s fundamental teaching that human life must be respected and protected from the moment of conception. In so doing the University must take seriously the 2004 instruction of the U.S. Catholic Bishops that “Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors, or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

Surely, for Notre Dame to honor THIS president when he symbolizes the most horrendous abortion procedures that not only kill children in the womb, but would also have made it a legal REQUIREMENT for hospitals and doctors to withhold treatment from those infants having SURVIVED a failed abortion attempt is unconscionable.

Perhaps, after this sorry affair, and as a result of Mr. Jenkins' intransigence in retracted this damnable and detestable invitation to bestow one of Catholic Notre Dame's highest honors on the president of "Goddamn America" and the most heinour and evil methods of abortion, perhaps he ought also consider changing the name of his University to commemorate the event, from Notre Dame to Notre Damned.

International human rights organizations accuse the Cuban regime of systematic human rights abuses, including torture, arbitrary imprisonment, unfair trials, and extrajudicial executions (a.k.a. "El Paredón").

Cuban law harshly limits freedom of expression, association, assembly, movement, and the press. There is no due process; the judicial system is constitutionally subordinate to the government.

Censorship is extensive; Cuba ranks on the bottom of the 2008 Press Freedom Index. The few Cubans with official permissions to access Internet face Internet surveillance; the vast majority of Cubans face five-year prison sentences for connecting to Internet.

Like in many other socialist countries, emigration is illegal; even discussing emigration carries a six-month prison sentence.

Human Rights Watch states that "Although in theory the different branches of government have separate and defined areas of authority, in practice the executive retains clear control over all levers of power. The courts, which lack independence, undermine the right to fair trial by severely restricting the right to a defense." and "The government also imprisons or orders the surveillance of individuals who have committed no illegal act, relying upon provisions that penalize “dangerousness” (estado peligroso) and allow for “official warning” (advertencia oficial)."

Cuban people of African ancestry suffer from racism.

Although the population is now mainly black or mixed-race and young, its rulers are "mainly white".

Esteban Morales Dominguez has pointed to institutionalized racism in his book The Challenges of the Racial Problem in Cuba (Fundación Fernando Ortiz). Racial Politics in Post-Revolutionary Cuba discusses the racial politics prevalent in communist Cuba.

Enrique Patterson describes race as "social bomb" and says that "If the Cuban government were to permit black Cubans to organize and raise their problems before [authorities] . . . totalitarianism would fall". Carlos Moore, who has authored extensive on the issue, says that "There is an unstated threat, blacks in Cuba know that whenever you raise race in Cuba, you go to jail. Therefore the struggle in Cuba is different. There cannot be a civil rights movement. You will have instantly 10,000 black people dead.”  He says that a new generation of black Cubans are looking at politics in another way.

Jorge Luis García Pérez, who was imprisoned and tortured for 17 years, states "The authorities in my country have never tolerated that a black person oppose the regime. During the trial, the color of my skin aggravated the situation. Later when I was mistreated in prison by guards, they always referred to me as being black".

Black Cuban activist José Luis García Pérez (Antúnez) has been in hunger strike since February 17, 2009 in support of Cuban political prisoners. Antúnez's hunger strike is taking place at his home in the Cuban city of Placetas, in the Sancti Spiritus province. Cuban political police officers have taken over Placetas and have denied foreign reporters’ access to Antúnez.

Antúnez's home was attacked in the pre-dawn hours of Wednesday March 25th by State Security agents, according to the Cuban Democratic Directorate. The human rights activist has been in the house along with other Cuban members of the pro-democracy movement

Numerous opposition activists and Cubans not associated with the opposition movement have been detained as a result, including Ciro Díaz, who plays guitar in the underground punk rock band Porno para Ricardo, and photographer Claudio Fuentes on March 23.

The strike, begun on February 17 2009, demands of the Havana government that inhumane treatment end against prisoner Mario Pérez Aguilera, held at Santa Clara Provincial Prison; that Cuban citizen Caridad García Pérez be permitted to repair her home using her own means; and that the texts of the international human rights agreements signed by the Cuban government in February 2008, which the Cuban people do not know about, be published in Cuba. Joining Antúnez in this protest are fellow activists Iris Pérez Aguilera and Diosiris Santana Pérez.

http://www.contactomagazine.com/articles/cubaninhungerstrike0309.htm

Last January, the Cuban government celebrated its 50th anniversary in power after a 1959 revolution that soon became a Communist regime supported by the now defunct Soviet Union.

Even well-known so-called “progressive” leftists in American academia lament Castro’s racially-biased repressive regime.

This from Nathan Newman who is a contributing writer to such “progressive” [Socialist] propaganda rags as “The Nation” in an article dated, April 13, 2003.

“Democratic Left Against Cuban Repression”

“Below is a statement circulating among democratic left/socialist folks, largely by members of Democratic Socialists of America, condemning the recent trials and convictions of non-violent dissenters in Cuba. For those who know the left, there will be familiar names such as The Nation's Katha Pollitt, left historians like Maurice Isserman and Mel Dubofsky, 2002 NY Green Party Gubernatorial candidate Stanley Aronowitz, left journalists Doug Ireland and Ian Williams, and a host of other democratic left activists.

Many on the left will say this is the wrong time for this kind of letter by leftists who oppose the embargo and, even worse, military invasion as a wrong-headed approach to dealing with Castro's regime. I disagree. I think this is exactly the right time for the Left to act in solidarity with the Cuban people in defense of both democracy and social justice in that country. We should not force dissidents to choose between Bush's rightwing capitalist militarism and Castro's authoritarian repressive social justice policies. This is a call for leftist activists to stand up for both social justice and human rights against militarists and authoritarians of all persuasions.”

The Letter:

"We are women and men of the democratic left, united by our commitment to human rights, democratic government and social justice, in our own nations and around the world. In solidarity with the people of Cuba, we condemn the Cuban state's current repression of independent thinkers and writers, human rights activists and democrats. For "crimes" such as the authorship of essays critical of the government and meeting with delegations of foreign political leaders, some 80 non-violent political dissidents have been arrested, summarily tried in a closed court, without adequate notice or counsel, convicted, and given cruel, harsh sentences of decades of imprisonment. These are violations of the most elementary norms of due process of law, reminiscent of the Moscow trials of the Soviet Union under the rule of Stalin…

 The only conclusion that we can draw from this brute repression is that Cuban government does not trust the Cuban people to distinguish truth from falsehood, fact from disinformation. A government of the left must have the support of the people: it must guarantee human rights and champion the widest possible democracy, including the right to dissent, as well as promote social justice. By its actions, the Cuban state declares [that it is], despite its claims of social progress in education and health care, just one more dictatorship, concerned with maintaining its monopoly of power above all else.”

http://www.nathannewman.org/log/archives/000912.shtml

At the time this letter was written in 2003, it was signed by well over one hundred SOCIALISTS from all over the world!

 That these ignorant self-aggrandizing American Negroes (and as a black man myself, that the best term I can think of to call them) could go to Cuba and allow themselves to be used by a murderous butcher of black Cuban men and women, only further illustrates the degree of the insanity and soulless fealty to the basest instincts  in man a so-called “liberal” will stoop to, in order to embrace anything that is at odds with the best interests of the United States of America….even if it means the sacrifice of their own best interests. The Congressional Black Caucus is an embarrassment to, not only this country, but to me as an American who happens to have been born a black American. Made up of nothing but Democrats, it should be clarified that they do not represent a diversity of black Americans. As far as I am concerned, they only represent the fools who put them into office.

This nation is now being governed by fools…or worse, devils.

We've just witnessed what is surely a very important - I hesitate to say historic - moment in transatlantic relations. Barack Obama went further than any previous president in apologising for American behavior.

The man who has never had anything good to say about this country, and who before becoming President was a rabble-rousing "community organizer" who, along with his radical leftist America-hating buddies had as their agenda to "fight against 'the man'" and overthrow our system of government; some of them openly declaring war on America and engaging in terrorist bombings, went further to add:

Thanks to what I consider the enemies and haters of America who elected this less-than-a man to officiate over the destruction of our Constitutional government, we now have been "blessed" with a "president" that has as his mission in life to not only concede America's leadership, but one who is all too willing to spit on the graves of all the Americans who throughout the 20th century and in two world wars, liberated Europe and the world from Nazism, Soviet enslavement, and the fascism that Europe itself bred and from which it has never had the need, the courage, or the ability to save itself.

We have, thanks to the people who voted this irresponsible @$$ho!e into power, a president who the world is taking the measure of...and who find him sorely lacking in any sense honesty, integrity, intelligence, authority, leadership or character.

This is the question posed in a March 19, 2009 article written by Terence Corcoran for Canada’s Financial Post.

The opening paragraph of his article reads:

“Helicopter Ben Bernanke’s Federal Reserve is dropping trillions of fresh paper dollars on the world economy, the President of the United States is cracking jokes on late night comedy shows, his energy minister is threatening a trade war over carbon emissions, his treasury secretary is dithering over a banking reform program amid rising concerns over his competence and a monumentally dysfunctional U.S. Congress is launching another public jihad against corporations and bankers.

As an aghast world — from China to Chicago and Chihuahua — watches, the circus-like U.S. political system seems to be declining into near chaos. Through it all, stock and financial markets are paralyzed. The more the policy regime does, the worse the outlook gets. The multi-ringed spectacle raises a disturbing question in many minds: Is this the end of America?”

Going on to talk about the resiliency of Americans past, he goes on to write a little further on:

 "Past success, however, is no guarantee of future recovery, especially now when there are daily disasters and new indicators of political breakdown. All developments are not disasters in themselves. The AIG bonus firestorm is a diversion from real issues , but it puts the ghastly political classes who make U.S. law on display for what they are: ageing self-serving demagogues who have spent decades warping the U.S. political system for their own ends. We see the system up close, law-making that is riddled with slapdash, incompetence and gamesmanship.

One test of whether we are witnessing the end of America is how many more times Americans put up with congressional show trials of individual business people and their employees, slandering and vilifying them for their actions and motives. And for how long will they tolerate a President who berates business and corporations as dens of crime and malfeasance? If the majority of Americans come to accept the caricatures of business as true, then America is closer to the end of its life as a global leader, as a champion of markets and individualism."

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/ 2009/03/19/terence-corcoran-is-this-the-end-of-america.aspx

______________________________________________

Up in Connecticut this weekend, we already got one example of how mindless, easily-duped Obama Kool-aid drinking liberal stooges will react:

By turning their anger against other private citizens under the direction and finger-pointing of those "ageing self-serving demagogues who have spent decades warping the U.S. political system for their own ends," while they pridefully insist that we all continue to "tolerate a President who berates business and corporations as dens of crime and malfeasance."
_____________________________________________

"If the majority of Americans come to accept the caricatures of business as true, then America is closer to the end of its life as a global leader, as a champion of markets and individualism."
_____________________________________________

If you read the often ghoulish commentary and asinine gloating of the Obama sycophant libtards supporting any and all Democrat nonsense on these threads, and in 100% of our public school system classrooms from kindergarten to graduate school...the end of American life may be closer than you think.

Rather than protest the ineptitude and outright criminality of the den of thieves in Washington, D.C., the brainwashed minions of Obamanation allow themselves to be rounded up like sheep by ACORN brownshirts (or some other middle-aged hippie retread professor-types) and herded into charter buses,  to be shuttled to the homes of AIG employees to demonstrate against what they are told is the enemy of the poor: "rich people" (no doubt participating in a sing-along along the way to strains of “Yes we can…can…can—Yes we can…can…can”).

These people are as much culpable for the destruction of our way of life as the denizens of private demonization in high office, while never having the intelligence to realize that the only thing they are demonstrating is their ignorance and inability to see the forest for the trees. Seeing only the mote in the "rich" man's eye, they remain oblivious to the beam being shoved up their own rectums by the Demonrat –led Congress and the Obamanated White House.

The whole world's watching.

It wasn't enough that he made a complete @ss of himself on Thursday night's Jay Leno show. He's back at it tonight doing the only thing he knows how to do: Mug for the cameras.

As he makes yet another spectacle of himself on 60 Minutes tonight in what amounts to yet another campaign appearance, Barack Hussein Obama will once again show just how vacuous and unconcerned he is with doing any actual work; his overriding and primary concern being personal gratuitous celebrity.

What seems to be a sense of pride in Obamanation to some here...serves as a discomfiting and frightening embarrassment to many others.

The Election of Barack Hussein Obama...most possibly will turn out to be the greatest tragedy in the history of America.

It’s pretty much a given fact that the men and women serving on active duty in our country’s Armed Forces aren’t paid a whole lot. A large majority of them are living paycheck to paycheck, barely getting by.  Another large number of them have served more than one or two tours in Iraq or Afghanistan while back here at home, Barack Hussein Obama was claiming they were air- raiding villages and killing civilians; and under the reckless Obama administration, will soon be called to sacrifice even more.

Many of our Veterans are in the same position; some even worse off, as evidenced by the numbers of homeless veterans in our country.

Democrats in Congress and Barack Hussein Obama, up until it was obvious that we would indeed prevail against Al Qaeda Islamic Jihadis in Iraq, shown nothing but disdain for American soldiers and Marines; often making the most scurrilous, demeaning, and treasonous assaults on their character, their leaders, and their mission to protect us from these ruthless and crazed throat-cutting civilian slaughtering maniacs.

Here’s a small sampling of some of the things they said over worldwide airwaves while our soldiers and Marines were fighting for their lives:

John Kerry has accused US troops of terrorizing Iraqi women and children: “"[T]here is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children ..." (CBS' "Face The Nation," 12/4/05)

Speaking about the alleged killing of Iraqi civilians by US Marines, Rep. Jack Murtha said the Marines had, killed “. . . innocent civilians in cold blood" and further accused the Marines’ superior officers of a cover-up.

Kerry, as we all recall, was so derisive of the troops he once told a college audience, “You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t you get stuck in Iraq.”

That was after Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Il) compared US troops to Nazis: "If I ... did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners [at Guantanamo] in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their Gulags, or some mad regime, Pol Pot, or others that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners." (Sen. Richard Durbin, Congressional Record, 6/14/05 p. S6594)

But it was before Barack Obama (D-Il) said, “We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.” (“Obama: U.S. Troops In Afghanistan Must Do More Than Kill Civilians,” FoxNews.com, 08/14/07)

Reid, Kerry and Harkin sided with MoveOn.org by voting against the Senate resolution offered by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) that criticized the MoveOn ad and took the side of the troops by supporting the character of their commander, Gen. Petraeus. (Yes, gentlemen: that’s “Petraeus” with a “P”, not a “B”)

Apparently, they’re not through in waging their treasonous war against America’s finest men and women.

While Barack Hussein Obama, Peter Orzsag, and, yes, Dick “Pol Pot” Durbin are planning to take your taxpayer money to fund free Health Care to 16 year old sluts seeking abortions without mom and dad’s knowledge and the crack head down the street, one group of Americans will be paying for their Health Care benefits out-of-pocket for the first time in ever:

U.S. active duty military personnel, veterans, and even those who are suffering from service-related injuries. 

A recent report from the Congressional Budget Office details just one proposal that would increase out-of-pocket expenses for medical care for Military Families and Veterans; while others would lose their VA benefits altogether.

President Barack Hussein Obama has proposed a plan to cut military health care benefits! This will affect 99.9% Veterans and Active Duty members who are currently using health care benefits.

The Congressional Budget Office has made public a proposal stating that Veterans (you
know the men and women who have fought in wars and spent 20 plus years in the service) are now going to be paying up to 50% of their medical bill. That’s a big jump from paying nothing for the past 30 some odd years. The biggest kicker is Active Duty Military (yep, I said Active Duty) will now! Be paying 10% of their total bill. They will now be billed for their kids visiting the doctor. Again, a big jump from being free!

Another benefit subject to change is VA medical benefits. Everyone who is receiving a benefit from the VA for a service related injury will have to be re-assessed and the proposal states this will affect "90% of vets receiving VA benefits and will save the government $53 Billion dollars over 10 years".

Other proposals would raise Tricare fees, co-payments and deductibles. Veterans whose medical condition isn’t service related could end up no longer being eligible for VA medical care at all.

Isn't this the candidate that just a few months ago was preaching to get health care coverage to ALL?  Isn't it ironic, moronic and outrageous to steal $53 Billion from vets and active duty military families so the Crack Head down the street will receive free medical coverage?

While nothing has been approved at this juncture, the Congressional Budget Office director at the time [Peter Orzsag] was then President-elect Obama's choice to be his director of the Office of Management and Budget.

...and who led the work on this proposal?

Peter R. Orszag.

So it very possibly will have a very real, very devastating effect on our Troops, our Veterans, and their families.

“We are going to go through our federal budget, as I promised during the campaign, page by page, line by line, eliminating those programs we don’t need and insisting that those that we do need operate in a sensible, cost-effective way,” Obama said in November as he announced Orszag’s nomination to join his cabinet .

“We’re also going to focus on one of the biggest, long-run challenges that our budget faces, namely the rising cost of health care in both the public and private sectors,” Obama continued. “This is not just a challenge but also an opportunity to improve the health care that Americans rely on, and to bring down the costs that taxpayers, businesses and families have to pay. That is what [OMB] will do in my administration.”

Obama added, “Peter doesn’t need a map to tell him where the bodies are buried in the federal budget. He knows what works and what doesn’t, what’s worth our precious tax dollars and what is not.”¹

More "change you can believe in”.

Sources: Primary information source: http://soldiersmind.com/2009/01/07/proposed-tricare-cuts-could-cause-problems-for-military-families-and-retirees

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1285681

http://soldiersmind.com/2009/01/07/p...-and-retirees/
http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules...print&sid=4305 http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=4305

http://soldiersmind.com/2009/01/07/proposed-tricare-cuts-could-cause-problems-for-military-families-and-retirees/

YouTube video of Palestinians dancing in the streets on Sept. 11, 2001

Palestinians celebrating the fall of the twin towers.. ... 1:11. eHow. watch in normal quality watch in high quality. Rate:. 202 ratings ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrM0dAFsZ8k

____________________________________________________________________________

Posted by: Brigitte Gabriel | 02/12/2009 10:55 AM

http://www.redcounty.com/sarasota/2009/02/is-obama-opening-floodgates-to/

Two weeks ago President Obama issued a little-noticed presidential memorandum that has profound ramifications for our national security.

Under the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962, President Obama authorized $20.3 million to aid Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip, which includes aid to help them "migrate."

Given that Arab countries in the Middle East don't want the Palestinians settling in their countries, Obama's action begs an obvious question: Where will these Palestinian "refugees" migrate to? Since tens of thousands of Muslim refugees have gained expedited entry to the U.S. over the past few years under our refugee acts, it is not unreasonable to assume that at least some of these Palestinians will end up migrating...here.

Who are these people? Let's not forget that the Palestinians elected the terrorist organization Hamas to govern them. Observers of the culture of the Gaza Strip describe it as a culture of hate and a breeding ground for terrorism. You may recall the video we emailed you last month showing Palestinian children being trained to be terrorists and used as human shields.

The article below asks the question, "What security measures are in place to keep Hamas terrorists from gaining free access into the U.S.?"

We would take that a step further. What security measures could possibly be sufficient to ensure that every Palestinian "refugee" who migrates to the U.S. is not a Hamas terrorist, or at least a Hamas sympathizer?

$20.3 Million to aid refugees

Obama opening floodgates by inviting Hamas to "migrate" to the U.S.A.?

By Judi McLeod & Michael Travis Thursday, February 5, 2009

On his first official day in the White House, President Barack Obama was on the horn to President Mahmoud Abbas.

"The spokesman for President Abbas revealed that Mr. Obama had told the Palestinian leader that their conversation was his first with a foreign statesman since taking office." (TimesOnLine Jan. 22, 2009).,

Some thought that first call to the leader of the Palestinian authority was for spite. Others for statesman like reasons, still others for appeasement.

Given that a clip from Al-Jazeera televised Hamas-controlled Palestinians "burning up the phone bank from Gaza" to rally support for his presidential campaign, perhaps the telephone call was made out of gratitude.

Seven days later on January 27, President Obama signed Presidential Determination No. 2009-15, which allocates $20.3 million for Palestinian migration and refugee assistance.

Today a memo sent by President Obama to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seems to invite Hamas to "migrate" into the United States of America.

The presidential determination covers the "Unexpected Urgent Refugee and Migration Needs Related to Gaza."

"By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 2(c)(1) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 (the "Act"), as amended (22 U.S.C. 2601), I hereby determine, pursuant to section 2 (c) (1) of the Act, that it is important to the national interest to furnish assistance under the Act in an amount not to exceed $20.3 million from the United States Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund for the purpose of meeting unexpected and urgent refugee and migration needs, including by contributions to international, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations and payment of administrative expenses of Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration of the Department of State, related to humanitarian needs of Palestinian refugees and conflict victims in Gaza. (Italics CFP's).

"You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register," President Obama instructs the new Secretary of State.

Two days before Obama's inauguration, Israel began pulling its troops out of Gaza.

One week after his inauguration, President Obama designated $20.3 million to the Palestinians in Gaza.

What security measures are in place to keep Hamas terrorists from gaining free access into the U.S.?

"Is President Obama opening the floodgates and inviting Hamas to "migrate" to the U.S.A.?

__________________________________________________________________________

“.I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” –Barack Hussein Obama

All throughout his presidential campaign, a tough talking Barack Hussein Obama identified Afghanistan as the main front in the "war on terror."  WASHINGTON, Feb 17 (Reuters) – “President Barack Obama took the first step toward keeping a campaign pledge to bolster security in Afghanistan by authorizing the deployment of 17,000 fresh U.S. troops to the country where the plot for the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks was hatched. The 17,000 extra troops are likely to represent a down payment on an increased U.S. presence in Afghanistan. Obama is believed to be ultimately considering almost doubling the U.S. force in Afghanistan to more than 60,000 from the current 38,000 within 18 months. He announced that he plans to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan.  Obama's decision to deploy the troops was one of his first major national security moves on a war that began more than seven years ago and is now his. Since he took office on Jan. 20, the United States has continued firing rockets at targets from Predator drones aimed at killing militants on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. ”Complicating the challenge, Pakistan officials have lost control over large parts of their country to the Taliban, which is using Pakistan as a base to attack American forces across the border.”

Making  bold assertions and blustering comments presidential candidate Barack Obama, seeking to burnish his foreign policy credentials in advance of a trip to Europe and the Middle East [in July 2008], said that ending the war in Iraq responsibly and defeating terrorist groups in Afghanistan were his top objectives.  In one of his signature long-winded, high-faluting campaign speeches on October 22, 2008 in Richmond, Virginia, His Husseiness stated:

“Ending the war [Iraq] will help us deal with Afghanistan, which we talked about at length this morning. In 2002, I said we should focus on finishing the fight against Osama bin Laden. Throughout this campaign, I have argued that we need more troops and more resources to win the war in Afghanistan, and to confront the growing threat from al Qaeda along the Pakistani border.

Over seven years after 9/11, the situation in Afghanistan is grave. This is the most violent year of the war, with the highest number of American casualties. The Taliban is on the offensive, al Qaeda has a sanctuary across the border in Pakistan, and some experts believe that 50 percent of the Afghan economy comes from the heroin trade. As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff recently said, "The trends across the board are not going in the right direction."

Make no mistake: we are confronting an urgent crisis in Afghanistan, and we have to act. It's time to heed the call from General McKiernan and others for more troops. That's why I'd send at least two or three additional combat brigades to Afghanistan. We also need more training for Afghan Security forces, more non-military assistance to help Afghans develop alternatives to poppy farming, more safeguards to prevent corruption, and a new effort to crack down on cross-border terrorism. Only a comprehensive strategy that prioritizes Afghanistan and the fight against al Qaeda will succeed, and that's the change I'll bring to the White House.”

The presumed Democratic nominee outlined positions that separated him from his Republican challenger, John McCain, who promptly denounced Obama’s plans at a campaign stop in New Mexico.

“By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe,” [Barack Hussein] Obama said in his speech here, which continued a theme he has outlined before: Afghanistan, not Iraq, should be the centerpiece of the war on terrorism.

But now, according to reports coming out of Peshawar and Islamabad on February 17, 2009, Richard C. Holbrooke, the Barack Hussein Obama administration’s U. S. Special envoy to the region, on his recent trip to the area, may have been actually sent there for the express purpose of appeasing and surrendering concessions to the Taliban; privately agreeing with and backing Pakistan’s ‘Sharia law for peace’ deal with Taliban militants in the Swat Valley despite publicly criticizing it as a “negative development”.

The double-talking and two-faced, clueless President Barack Hussein Obama, along with the “incoming fire” ducking Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, apparently charged Holbrooke with agreeing to the Taliban appeasement deal, “under which Sharia law will be introduced in the Malakhand and Kohistan districts of Pakistan’s North West Frontier Province if Taliban militants end their armed campaign in the Swat Valley, and their cowardly and dangerous back door concession has been met with alarm by Nato chiefs and British and American [military] officials.”

Nato fears the deal would create a new “safe haven” for extremists, said a spokesman on Tuesday night, while a statement from Britain’s High Commission in Islamabad said: “Previous peace deals have not provided a comprehensive and long-term solution to Swat’s problems. We need to be confident that they will end violence, not create space for further violence.”

The simple-minded and convoluted reasoning behind this Obama regime pre-engagement surrender policy is the juvenile belief that somehow by capitulating to the Taliban and sacrificing the people of the Swat region to their brutal and oppressive rule of blood lust and Islamic madness [not to mention conceding to them a safe base of operations & training from which they can plot and launch attacks against American and Nato troops with impunity], is supposed to somehow (?) drive a wedge between Swat’s Taliban, which is focused on its demand for Sharia law, and the al-Qaeda-linked Taliban led by Baitullah Mehsud, the notorious commander who controls much of North and South Waziristan and other tribal areas along the Afghan border.

“I talked to people from Swat and they were, frankly, quite terrified,” Holbrooke said, while pretending that giving them over to the cutthroat Taliban was Pakistan’s decision and feigning alarm and concern.

Now the Barack Hussein Obama administration is engaged in a carefully-scripted media performance designed to pretend concern and worry about these “surprising” developments in which they played the key role in negotiating.

Adding to the potential catastrophic consequences of the Obama administration policy of radical Taliban and Islamic terrorists appeasement “diplomacy” is the fact that India [our greatest ally in the region] is weighing in, and they are not at all amused or charmed with an America under the leadership of Barack Hussein Obama.

According to an Indian news report, released today in response to the news coming out of Afghanistan and Pakistan:

Pakistan deal with Taliban worries India: Antony

New Delhi: Defense Minister A.K. Antony of Friday said the truce between Pakistan and the Taliban had added to India’s “worries.”

Reflecting India’s unease over the deal, Mr. Mukherjee, the External Affairs Minister has already reacted.

Reflecting India’s unease over the deal, Mr. Mukherjee had said: “The fact of the matter is that the Taliban is a terrorist organization. The Taliban believes in nothing but destruction and violence. In my assessment, the Taliban is a danger to humanity and civilisation.”

You can’t tell that to “progressive” Barack Hussein Obama and the group of fumbling retread retard Clinton and Carter era bureaucrats he has surrounded himself with in the White House .

In an attempt to spin the story to hide from the American people and the rest of the world, the Obama administration’s brokering of the Surrender Pact with the Taliban, the Associated Press has already begun its to-be-expected role in propagandizing the Obama administration’s supposed reactions to “Pakistan’s startling accord.”

The war against Taliban rule in Afghanistan seemed won seven years ago. But the Taliban is gaining ground there, U.S. and Nato forces have been unable to reverse the gains, and the outlook appears increasing bleak..

The agreement between Pakistan’s government, the Obama administration, and the growing Taliban forces will give the terrorists dominance in the Swat region by allowing the reinstallation of the same harsh regime of Islamic Sharia law that these people were liberated from by the blood of American soldiers and Marines seven years ago.

At the same time Barack Hussein Obama was negotiating the surrender of territory to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan, he was here at home using the other side of his mouth to announce plans to boost U.S. military presence in Afghanistan by 50 percent, putting our soldiers and Marines in the line of fire while dealing behind their backs with the enemy.

Sources: http://www.buffalonews.com/national/world/national/story/582958.html

            http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14859038&?vsv=TopHP1

            http://news.aol.com/story/_a/us-quiet-on-pakistan-peace-deal-with/n20090218033209990009

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hvWEqwq3CrRvaQCmt21MfoYhjZJQD96BGNJG1

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/4681480/US-privately-backs-Pakistans-Sharia-law-for-peace-deal-with-Taliban.html

http://www.hindu.com/2009/02/21/stories/2009022150070100.htm

   It's interesting that on the day following the inciteful rhetoric of our erstwhile Attorney General, that such an uproar would ensue about some perceived racism alleged to have been shown in a political cartoon which played off the rampage of a wild chimpanzee, in which police officers, after putting down the rampaging chimp, are quoted as saying, "Looks like now they'll have to get someone else to write the next stimulus bill."

The very idea that this would bring out the usual chorus of race-hustlers, race-baiters, and racism whiners; all claiming that this was a racist attack against Barack Hussein Obama, is what exemplifies the barriers blacks themselves have put up to block any serious and meaningful attempts for anyone to even attempt to broach a discussion of race with members of the so-called "black community."

Are we so thin-skinned as to not have the courage, ourselves, to make a distinction between an insult to the writers of the "stimulus" [Nancy Pelosi,Harry Reid, and Congress] and Barack Obama [who as far as what has been submitted into evidence, so far, has never written anything but two self-aggrandizing narcissistic tomes about what it was like to be conflicted as a mixed-race child]?

Are not the real cowards the group of left-leaning blacks who predictably play the race card, making an opportunity to do so, when none exists in the first place?

How can anyone broach the subject of race and responsibility when all they're ever met with is a hysterical response from black people and their so-called leaders, whenever any subject is broached which upsets our comfort-level with being perceived as perpetual victims of the very "racism" we use to excuse our own cowardice in taking a responsible approach to getting our own houses in order?

...and the biggest coward I can see in this whole argument is Barack Hussein Obama, himself, who in his own conflicted immaturity cannot reconcile himself with his bi-racial identity; having tilted so far to black radicalism as to join a racist black church, and one which panders to the very attitudes that perpetuate division; denying one-half of himself in order to assuage the basest instincts of the other.

…a narcisstic, arrogant, power-hungry demagogue who possesses neither the honesty nor the character to speak to his own responsibility and collusion in encouraging the continuation of this destructive psychosis of black racial cowardice.

The overwhelming majority of, once, traditional Democrats have little or no knowledge of the philosophies of the people they have been duped into unleashing upon America and it's free-market system. Whipped up in a frenzy of hatred for any and all moral underpinnings of our society, they were tricked under the slogan of "Change" to unwittingly elect a Marxist administration in the purest sense of the word.

Our liberal arts colleges and universities, aided by such individuals as William Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn and others of their ilk, have been indoctrinating our sons and daughters into policies which constantly bombard them with the notion of the failure to attain success in a capitalist society, such as ours, as to have nothing to do with the individual's poor choices and failure to avail his or herself of the opportunities that freedom and free-market capitalism only makes possible; but that the free-market competitive system of governance, itself, is structured in such a way as to cheat them of the lifestyle to which they are entitled.

This entitlement mentality has been carefully nurtured and tested, first with the black community over the past 40+ years, and has proven to be effective in coercing an entire segment of the population [black people] to accept this notion of themselves as victims of a structural barrier to their ever having a chance to become unghettoized under their own volition and without the largess of the Democrat Party system of a social welfare state.

Building upon the success of this experiment in population control and political power, the Democrats took it to the next level in 2007-2008 by elevating what they knew was a community organizer schooled in the Marxist social philosophy of Conflict Theory, to unleash their goal of the destruction of capitalism in the U.S. and to insure the ascension of a Democrat-run socialist-collectivist government-as-god type of new world order.

Sound far-fetched?

If it does, it was meant to. That is why Barack Obama's origins in Marxist social indoctrination was carefully hidden with the collusion of the Democrat-elite MSM throughout the entire election cycle. I am currently working as a Senior at a university in downstate Illinois seeking a BSW in Social Work.

One of the textbooks we are studying, "Human Behavior and the Social Environment, Macro Level, by Katherine van Wormer, Fred H. Besthorn, and Thomas Keefe (2007), in describing the "highly-regarded" social work theory of "Conflict" [of which BHO is obviously an adherent] the authors state:

"Conflict theorists Piven and Cloward (1993) utilized the functionalist analysis method borrowed from Merton (1957) to enhance our understanding of how the social welfare system serves as a societal device for "regulating the poor" in the interest of capitalism. The latent function of social services, from this perspective, thus becomes to preserve the establishment. Piven and Cloward's basic premise, based on their review of social change throughout U.S. history, was that "relief arrangements are initiated or expanded during outbreaks of civil disorder produced by mass unemployment and are then abolished or contracted when political stability is restored" (p.xv). In other words, the elites in society can be counted on to provide only enough aid, stigmatized at that, to prevent mass disorder and regulate labor. (Despite their use of functional analysis, Piven and Cloward's perspectives are far more closely aligned ideologically with Marxism than with Parson's funtionalist writings.)"

"Payne (2005) refers to conflict theory as radical and socialist-collectivist. Feminist, empowerment, and antioppressive perspectives are included under the rubric of radical, as well as the structuralist, approaches. We discuss the structuralist approach here because it places a strong emphasis on economic and social equality among people."

"These structuralist approaches, so called because the source of social problems is located in the social structure rather than in the individual, were inspired by the radical thinking of the 1970s, but their influence waned, as Payne speculates, with the collapse of communism in the 1980s. Along with the neoconservatism of modern times and the concordant erosion of the welfare state, there is a renewed interest within social work in effecting social change."

"Structural social work is associated today with and best articulated through the writings of Canadian social work theorist Bob Mullaly...Much like his predecessors, Mullaly (1997), in his book "Structural Social Work," espouses a conflict-oriented view of society and recognizes that one's circumstances and difficulties are connected to one's economic and social position in society (Lundy, 2005). "Structural Social Work" is described by Payne as the major statement of Marxist social work."

"Mullaly's (1997, 2002) vision of social work practice is that it must be anticapitalist. If as social workers we do nothing to bring about progressive radical change, we fail the people we serve; we become part of the problem instead of the solution."

______________________________________________

This should give you a better understanding of what "progressive" liberals in today's Socialist-Democrat Party, under an Obama administration, are trying to implement in the United States as we speak.

You see, under their adherence to these types of theories [Marxist to their core] they have as their belief, that capitalism is bad, and Marxism is the solution.

There, fortunately, are other theories being taught which are just the opposite, but this is what is being bought into by the Democrats in our society who proudly define themselves these days as "progressives."

Marxism 101--Obama style.