We can raise a full glass of your favorite adult beverage to all the
Tea Party participants - and to the one group of Americans the
Zerocrats despise above all others: our soldiers in the US military.

All of us want to raise our glass the highest this week to the Navy
SEALs who popped those three Somali pirates. And I'm sure you want to
hear the real story of what happened. Especially because there is a
revoltingly opportunistic and cowardly side to it. Guess which side
Zero is on.

Why, for example, did it take SEAL Team Six (aka DEVGRU, Navy Special
Warfare Development Group, the Navy's equivalent of Delta Force) over
36 hours to get to the scene?

Because Zero refused to authorize the SEAL deployment for those 36
hours, during which the OSC - the on scene commander, Cmdr. Frank
Castellano of the USS Bainbridge - repeatedly requested them.

http://www.tothepointnews.com

On Apr 17, 11:44*pm, wrote:
We can raise a full glass of your favorite adult beverage to all the
Tea Party participants - and to the one group of Americans the
Zerocrats despise above all others: *our soldiers in the US military.

All of us want to raise our glass the highest this week to the Navy
SEALs who popped those three Somali pirates. *And I'm sure you want to
hear the real story of what happened. * Especially because there is a
revoltingly opportunistic and cowardly side to it. *Guess which side
Zero is on.

Why, for example, did it take SEAL Team Six (aka DEVGRU, Navy Special
Warfare Development Group, the Navy's equivalent of Delta Force) over
36 hours to get to the scene?

Because Zero refused to authorize the SEAL deployment for those 36
hours, during which the OSC - the on scene commander, Cmdr. Frank
Castellano of the USS Bainbridge - repeatedly requested them.

http://www.tothepointnews.com

The Real Boston Tea Party was an Anti-Corporate Revolt: The real
Boston Tea Party was a protest against huge corporate tax cuts for the
British East India Company, the largest trans-national corporation
then in existence. This corporate tax cut threatened to decimate small
Colonial businesses


http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/15-10

Published on Wednesday, April 15, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
The Real Boston Tea Party was an Anti-Corporate Revolt
by Thom Hartmann
CNBC Correspondent Rick Santelli called for a "Chicago Tea Party" on
Feb 19th in protesting President Obama's plan to help homeowners in
trouble. Santelli's call was answered by the right-wing group
FreedomWorks, which funds campaigns promoting big business interests,
and is the opposite of what the real Boston Tea Party was.
FreedomWorks was funded in 2004 by Dick Armey (former Republican House
Majority leader & lobbyist); consolidated Citizens for a Sound
Economy, funded by the Koch family; and Empower America, a lobbying
firm, that had fought against healthcare and minimum-wage efforts
while hailing deregulation.
Anti-tax "tea party" organizers are delivering one million tea bags to
a Washington, D.C., park Wednesday morning - to promote protests
across the country by people they say are fed up with high taxes and
excess spending.
The real Boston Tea Party was a protest against huge corporate tax
cuts for the British East India Company, the largest trans-national
corporation then in existence. This corporate tax cut threatened to
decimate small Colonial businesses by helping the BEIC pull a Wal-Mart
against small entrepreneurial tea shops, and individuals began a
revolt that kicked-off a series of events that ended in the creation
of The United States of America.
They covered their faces, massed in the streets, and destroyed the
property of a giant global corporation. Declaring an end to global
trade run by the East India Company that was destroying local
economies, this small, masked minority started a revolution with an
act of rebellion later called the Boston Tea Party.
On a cold November day in 1773, activists gathered in a coastal town.
The corporation had gone too far, and the two thousand people who'd
jammed into the meeting hall were torn as to what to do about it.
Unemployment was exploding and the economic crisis was deepening;
corporate crime, governmental corruption spawned by corporate cash,
and an ethos of greed were blamed. "Why do we wait?" demanded one at
the meeting, a fisherman named George Hewes. "The more we delay, the
more strength is acquired" by the company and its puppets in the
government. "Now is the time to prove our courage," he said. Soon, the
moment came when the crowd decided for direct action and rushed into
the streets.
That is how I tell the story of the Boston Tea Party, now that I have
read a first-person account of it. While striving to understand my
nation's struggles against corporations, in a rare book store I came
upon a first edition of "Retrospect of the Boston Tea Party with a
Memoir of George R.T. Hewes, a Survivor of the Little Band of Patriots
Who Drowned the Tea in Boston Harbor in 1773," and I jumped at the
chance to buy it. Because the identities of the Boston Tea Party
participants were hidden (other than Samuel Adams) and all were sworn
to secrecy for the next 50 years, this account is the only first-
person account of the event by a participant that exists. As I read, I
began to understand the true causes of the American Revolution.
I learned that the Boston Tea Party resembled in many ways the growing
modern-day protests against transnational corporations and small-town
efforts to protect themselves from chain-store retailers or factory
farms. The Tea Party's participants thought of themselves as
protesters against the actions of the multinational East India
Company.
Although schoolchildren are usually taught that the American
Revolution was a rebellion against "taxation without representation,"
akin to modern day conservative taxpayer revolts, in fact what led to
the revolution was rage against a transnational corporation that, by
the 1760s, dominated trade from China to India to the Caribbean, and
controlled nearly all commerce to and from North America, with
subsidies and special dispensation from the British crown.
Hewes notes: "The [East India] Company received permission to
transport tea, free of all duty, from Great Britain to America..."
allowing it to wipe out New England-based tea wholesalers and mom-and-
pop stores and take over the tea business in all of America. "Hence,"
wrote, "it was no longer the small vessels of private merchants, who
went to vend tea for their own account in the ports of the colonies,
but, on the contrary, ships of an enormous burthen, that transported
immense quantities of this commodity ... The colonies were now arrived
at the decisive moment when they must cast the dye, and determine
their course ... "
A pamphlet was circulated through the colonies called The Alarm and
signed by an enigmatic "Rusticus." One issue made clear the feelings
of colonial Americans about England's largest transnational
corporation and its behavior around the world: "Their Conduct in Asia,
for some Years past, has given simple Proof, how little they regard
the Laws of Nations, the Rights, Liberties, or Lives of Men. They have
levied War, excited Rebellions, dethroned lawful Princes, and
sacrificed Millions for the Sake of Gain. The Revenues of Mighty
Kingdoms have entered their Coffers. And these not being sufficient to
glut their Avarice, they have, by the most unparalleled Barbarities,
Extortions, and Monopolies, stripped the miserable Inhabitants of
their Property, and reduced whole Provinces to Indigence and Ruin.
Fifteen hundred Thousands, it is said, perished by Famine in one Year,
not because the Earth denied its Fruits; but [because] this Company
and their Servants engulfed all the Necessaries of Life, and set them
at so high a Price that the poor could not purchase them."
After protesters had turned back the Company's ships in Philadelphia
and New York, Hewes writes, "In Boston the general voice declared the
time was come to face the storm."
The citizens of the colonies were preparing to throw off one of the
corporations that for almost 200 years had determined nearly every
aspect of their lives through its economic and political power. They
were planning to destroy the goods of the world's largest
multinational corporation, intimidate its employees, and face down the
guns of the government that supported it.
The queen's corporation
The East India Company's influence had always been pervasive in the
colonies. Indeed, it was not the Puritans but the East India Company
that founded America. The Puritans traveled to America on ships owned
by the East India Company, which had already established the first
colony in North America, at Jamestown, in the Company-owned
Commonwealth of Virginia, stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to the
Mississippi. The commonwealth was named after the "Virgin Queen,"
Elizabeth, who had chartered the corporation.
Elizabeth was trying to make England a player in the new global trade
sparked by the European "discovery" of the Americas. The wealth Spain
began extracting from the New World caught the attention of the
European powers. In many European countries, particularly Holland and
France, consortiums were put together to finance ships to sail the
seas. In 1580, Queen Elizabeth became the largest shareholder in The
Golden Hind, a ship owned by Sir Francis Drake.
The investment worked out well for Queen Elizabeth. There's no record
of exactly how much she made when Drake paid her share of the Hind's
dividends to her, but it was undoubtedly vast, since Drake himself and
the other minor shareholders all received a 5000 percent return on
their investment. Plus, because the queen placed a maximum loss to the
initial investors of their investment amount only, it was a low-risk
investment (for the investors at least-creditors, such as suppliers of
provisions for the voyages or wood for the ships, or employees, for
example, would be left unpaid if the venture failed, just as in a
modern-day corporation). She was endorsing an investment model that
led to the modern limited-liability corporation.
After making a fortune on Drake's expeditions, Elizabeth started
looking for a more permanent arrangement. She authorized a group of
218 London merchants and noblemen to form a corporation. The East
India Company was born on December 31, 1600.
By the 1760s, the East India Company's power had grown massive and
worldwide. However, this rapid expansion, trying to keep ahead of the
Dutch trading companies, was a mixed blessing, as the company went
deep in debt to support its growth, and by 1770 found itself nearly
bankrupt.
The company turned to a strategy that multinational corporations
follow to this day: They lobbied for laws that would make it easy for
them to put their small-business competitors out of business.
Most of the members of the British government and royalty (including
the king) were stockholders in the East India Company, so it was easy
to get laws passed in its interests. Among the Company's biggest and
most vexing problems were American colonial entrepreneurs, who ran
their own small ships to bring tea and other goods directly into
America without routing them through Britain or through the Company.
Between 1681 and 1773, a series of laws were passed granting the
Company monopoly on tea sold in the American colonies and exempting it
from tea taxes. Thus, the Company was able to lower its tea prices to
undercut the prices of the local importers and the small tea houses in
every town in America. But the colonists were unappreciative of their
colonies being used as a profit center for the multinational
corporation.
Boston's million-dollar tea party
And so, Hewes says, on a cold November evening of 1773, the first of
the East India Company's ships of tax-free tea arrived. The next
morning, a pamphlet was widely circulated calling on patriots to meet
at Faneuil Hall to discuss resistance to the East India Company and
its tea. "Things thus appeared to be hastening to a disastrous issue.
The people of the country arrived in great numbers, the inhabitants of
the town assembled. This assembly, on the 16th of December 1773, was
the most numerous ever known, there being more than 2000 from the
country present," said Hewes.
The group called for a vote on whether to oppose the landing of the
tea. The vote was unanimously affirmative, and it is related by one
historian of that scene "that a person disguised after the manner of
the Indians, who was in the gallery, shouted at this juncture, the cry
of war; and that the meeting dissolved in the twinkling of an eye, and
the multitude rushed in a mass to Griffin's wharf."
That night, Hewes dressed as an Indian, blackening his face with coal
dust, and joined crowds of other men in hacking apart the chests of
tea and throwing them into the harbor. In all, the 342 chests of tea-
over 90,000 pounds-thrown overboard that night were enough to make 24
million cups of tea and were valued by the East India Company at 9,659
Pounds Sterling or, in today's currency, just over $1 million.
In response, the British Parliament immediately passed the Boston Port
Act stating that the port of Boston would be closed until the citizens
of Boston reimbursed the East India Company for the tea they had
destroyed. The colonists refused. A year and a half later, the
colonists would again state their defiance of the East India Company
and Great Britain by taking on British troops in an armed conflict at
Lexington and Concord (the "shots heard 'round the world") on April
19, 1775.
That war-finally triggered by a transnational corporation and its
government patrons trying to deny American colonists a fair and
competitive local marketplace-would end with independence for the
colonies.
The revolutionaries had put the East India Company in its place with
the Boston Tea Party, and that, they thought, was the end of that.
Unfortunately, the Boston Tea Party was not the end; within 150 years,
during the so-called Gilded Age, powerful rail, steel, and oil
interests would rise up to begin a new form of oligarchy, capturing
the newly-formed Republican Party in the 1880s, and have been working
to establish a permanent wealthy and ruling class in this country ever
since.
Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is a Project Censored Award-
winning New York Times best-selling author, and host of a nationally
syndicated daily progressive talk program The Thom Hartmann Show.
www.thomhartmann.com His most recent books are "The Last Hours of
Ancient Sunlight," "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate
Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights," "We The People: A Call To
Take Back America," "What Would Jefferson Do?," "Screwed: The
Undeclared War Against the Middle Class and What We Can Do About It,"
and "Cracking The Code: The Art and Science of Political
Persuasion."*His newest book is Threshold: The Crisis of Western
Culture.

On Apr 17, 11:54*pm, wrote:

The Real Boston Tea Party

....by www.CommonDreams - History according to Neo-Kommies

CommonDreams "a progressive political organizing TOOL" was founded in
1996 by radical activist Craig Brown "to develop use of the Internet
as a progressive political organizing TOOL." It not only banners news
and commentary SELECTED by Editor Brown but also provides a large
number of hyperlinks to other leftist and liberal columnists,
periodicals, radio outlets, news services, and websites.

The left-leaning sources hyperlinked by Common wet Dreams range from
mild

(e.g., Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, Jr. and Newsweek)
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/in...asp?indid=1687

to radical

(e.g., Noam Chomsky and Monkeyfist Collective)
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/in...asp?indid=1232

to explicitly Marxist

(e.g., Monthly Review and Howard Zinn)
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/gr...asp?grpid=7105
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/in....asp?indid=939

Common wet Dreams was inspired by a co-founder and former President of
the Students for a Democratic Society, Todd Gitlin.
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/gr...asp?grpid=6723
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/in...asp?indid=1017

Common wet Dreams is closely tied to two other entities -- NewsCenter,
launched by Brown in May 1997, and the Progressive NewsWire, which
publishes de facto press releases by leftist groups to promote their
own rallies, protests and other activities. [LOL!]

On Tax Day, SOCIALIST Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-ILLINOIS) denounced the
tea party protests, alleging that a vast right-wing conspiracy
organized them to protest Leviathan’s juggernaut. [LMFAO!]

“The ‘tea parties’ being held today by groups of right-wing activists
[LMFAO!], and fueled by FOX News Channel [LMFAO!], are an effort to
mislead the public about the Obama economic plan that cuts taxes for
95 percent of Americans and creates 3.5 million jobs,” said
Schakowsky,

....a card-carrying member of the socialist Congressional Progressive
Caucus
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/g...asp?grpid=6497
[ROTFLMAO!]

http://newsrealblog.wordpress.com/20...fit-from-them/

They have been called the “Fifty Cent Party,” the “red vests” and the
“red vanguard.” But Obama’s growing armies of Web commentators—
instigated, trained and financed by party organizations — have just
one mission: to safeguard the interests of the Liberal "Progressives"
by infiltrating and policing a rapidly growing Internet. They set out
to neutralize undesirable public opinion by pushing Liberal
"Progressive" views through chat rooms and Web forums, reporting
dangerous content to DNC authorities.

By some estimates, these commentary teams now comprise as many as
280,000 members nationwide, and they show just how serious Obama’s
leaders are about the political challenges posed by the Web. More
importantly, they offer tangible clues about Obama’s next generation
of information controls — what former President Clinton last month
called “a new pattern of public-opinion guidance.”

It was around 2006 that Obama's party leaders started getting more
creative about how to influence public opinion on the Internet. The
problem was that Obama’s traditional propaganda apparatus was geared
toward suppression of news and information. This or that story, Web
site or keyword could be blocked or filtered. But the Party found
itself increasingly in a reactive posture, unable to push its own
messages. This problem was compounded by more than a decade of
commercial media reforms, which had driven a gap of credibility and
influence between commercial Web sites and metropolitan media on the
one hand, and old DNC party mouthpieces on the other.

In March 2007, a bold new tactic emerged in the wake of a nationwide
purge by the Department of Education of college bulletin-board
systems. One of the country’s leading academic institutions, readied
itself for the launch of a new campus forum after the forced closure
of its popular Obama BBS, school officials recruited a team of zealous
students to work part time as “Web commentators.” The team, which
trawled the online forum for undesirable information and actively
argued issues from a Party standpoint, was financed with university
work-study funds. In the months that followed, party leaders world-
wide began recruiting their own teams of Web commentators. Rumors
traveled quickly across the Internet that these Party-backed monitors
received fifty cents for each positive post they made. The term Fifty
Cent Party was born.

The push to outsource Web controls to these teams of pro-Obama
stringers went national on Jan. 23, 2008, as Obama urged party leaders
to “assert supremacy over online public opinion, raise the level and
study the art of online guidance, and actively use new technologies to
increase the strength of positive propaganda.” Sen. Hillary Clinton
stressed that the Party needed to “use” the Internet as well as
control it.

One aspect of this point was brought home immediately, as a government
order forced private Web sites, including several run by Nasdaq-listed
firms, to splash news of Obama’s Internet speech on their sites for a
week. Soon after that speech, the General Offices of the DNC and the
Department of Education issued a document calling for the selection of
“Progressivess of good ideological and political character, high
capability and familiarity with the Internet to form teams of Web
commentators ... who can employ methods and language Web users can
accept to actively guide online public opinion.”

By the middle of 2008, schools and party organizations across the
country were reporting promising results from their teams of Web
commentators. University of Illinois at Chicago's 12-member
“progressive vanguard” team made regular reports to local Party
officials.

Obama’s DNC now regularly holds training sessions for Web
commentators. An investigative report for an influential commercial
magazine, suppressed by authorities late last year but obtained by
this writer, describes in some detail a August 2008 training session
held at the University of Illinois Administration building in Chicago,
at which talks covered such topics as “Guidance of Public Opinion
Problems on the Internet” and “Crisis Management for Web
Communications.”

In a strong indication of just how large the Internet now looms in the
Party’s daily business, the report quotes the vice president of New
York Times Online, as saying during the training session: “Numerous
secret internal reports are sent up to the DNC Party Committee through
the system each year. Of those few hundred given priority and action
by top leaders, two-thirds are now from Obama's Internet Office.”

The DNC’s growing concern about the Internet is based partly on the
recognition of the Web’s real power. Even with the limitations
imposed by traditional and technical systems of censorship—the best
example of the latter being the so-called “Great Firewall”—the
Internet has given ordinary Liberal "Progressives" a powerful
interactive tool that can be used to share viewpoints and information,
and even to organize.

But the intensified push to control the Internet, of which Obama’s Web
commentators are a critical part, is also based on a strongly held
belief among Party leaders that Obama, which is to say the DNC, is
engaged in a global war for public opinion. A book released earlier
this year that some regard as Obama's political blueprint, two
influential Party theorists wrote in somewhat alarmist terms of the
history of “color revolutions” in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.
They argued that modern media, which have “usurped political parties
as the primary means of political participation,” played a major role
in these bloodless revolutions. “The influence of the ruling party
faces new challenges,” they wrote. “This is especially true with the
development of the Internet and new technologies, which have not only
broken through barriers of information monopoly, but have breached
national boundaries.”

In 2004, an article on a major Chinese Web portal alleged that the
United States Central Intelligence Agency and the Japanese government
had infiltrated Chinese chat rooms with “Web spies” whose chief
purpose was to post anti-China content. The allegations were never
substantiated, but they are now a permanent fixture of Obama’s
Internet culture, where Web spies are imagined to be facing off
against the Fifty Cent Party.

Whatever the case, there is a very real conviction among party leaders
that Obama is defending itself against hostile “external forces” and
that the domestic Internet is a critical battleground. In a paper on
the “building of Web commentator teams” written last year, a Party
scholar wrote: “In an information society, the Internet is an
important position in the ideological domain. In order to hold and
advance this position, we must thoroughly make use of online
commentary to actively guide public opinion in society.”

Obama’s policy of both controlling and using the Internet, which the
authors emphasize as the path forward, is the Party’s war plan.
Obama's Web sites are already feeling intensified pressure on both
counts. “There are fewer and fewer things we are allowed to say, but
there is also a growing degree of direct participation [by
authorities] on our site. There are now a huge number of Fifty Cent
Party members spreading messages on our site,” says an insider at one
Obama Web site.

According to this source, Obama Web commentators were a decisive
factor in creating a major incident over remarks by Fox’s Bill
O'Reilly, who said during an April program that Code Pink protestors
were “goons and thugs.” “Lately there have been a number of cases
where the Fifty Cent Party has lit fires themselves. One of the most
obvious was over Fox’s Bill O'Reilly. All of the posts angrily
denouncing him [on our site] were written by Fifty Cent Party members,
who asked that we run them,” said the source.

“Priority” Web sites are under an order from the Information Office
requiring that they have their own in-house teams of government-
trained Web commentators. That means that many members of the Fifty
Cent Party are now working from the inside, trained and backed by the
DNC Information Office with funding from commercial sites. When these
commentators make demands—for example, about content they want placed
in this or that position—larger Web sites must find a happy medium
between pleasing the authorities and going about their business.

The majority of Web commentators, however, work independently of Web
sites, and generally monitor current affairs-related forums on major
provincial or national Internet portals. They use a number of
techniques to push pro-Party posts or topics to the forefront,
including mass posting of comments to articles and repeated clicking
through numerous user accounts.

“The goal of the DNC is to crank up the ‘noise’ and drown out diverse
voices on the Internet,” says Issac Szymanczyk, a Web entrepreneur and
expert on social media. “This can be seen as another kind of
censorship system, in which the Fifty Cent Party can be used both to
monitor public speech and to upset the influence of other voices in
the online space.”

Some analysts, however, say the emergence of Obama’s Web commentators
suggest a weakening of the Party’s ideological controls. “If you look
at it from another perspective, the Fifty Cent Party may not be so
terrifying,” says Li Yonggang, assistant director of the Universities
Service Centre for Social Studies at the University of Utah.
“Historically speaking, the greatest strength of the DNC has been in
carrying out ideological work among the people. Now, however, the
notion of ‘doing ideological work’ has lost its luster. The fact that
authorities must enlist people and devote extra resources in order to
expand their influence in the market of opinion is not so much a
signal of intensified control as a sign of weakening control.”

Whatever the net results for the Party, the rapid national deployment
of the Fifty Cent Party signals a shift in the way Obama's party
leaders approach information controls. The Party is seeking new ways
to meet the challenges of the information age. And this is ultimately
about more than just the Internet. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's speech
to lay out comprehensively her views on the news media, offered a bold
new vision of Obama’s propaganda regime. Mrs. Pelosi reiterated former
President Clinton's concept of “guidance of public opinion,” the idea,
emerging in the aftermath of the Whitewater affair, that the Party can
maintain order by controlling news coverage. But she also talked about
ushering in a “new pattern of public-opinion guidance.”

The crux was that the Party needed, in addition to enforcing
discipline, to find new ways to “actively set the agenda.” Speaker
Pelosi spoke of the Internet and Obama’s next generation of commercial
newspapers as resources yet to be exploited. “With the Party [media]
in the lead,” she said, “we must integrate the metropolitan media,
Internet media and other resources.”

Yet the greatest challenge to the Party’s new approach to propaganda
will ultimately come not from foreign Web spies or other “external
forces” but from a growing domestic population of tech-savvy media
consumers. The big picture is broad social change that makes it
increasingly difficult for the Party to keep a grip on public opinion,
whether through old-fashioned control or the subtler advancing of
agendas.

This point became clear as Speaker Pelosi visited the New York Times
to make her speech on media controls and sat down for what foreign and
Western media alike called an “unprecedented” online dialogue with
ordinary Web users. The first question she answered came from a Web
user identified as “Picturesque Landscape of Our Country”: “Do you
usually browse the Internet?” he asked. “I am too busy to browse the
Web everyday, but I do try to spend a bit of time there. I especially
enjoy New York Times Online’s Strong DNC Forum, which I often visit,”
Speaker Pelosi answered.

On the sidelines, the search engines were leaping into action. Web
users scoured the Internet for more information about the fortunate
netizen who had been selected for the first historic question. Before
long the Web was riddled with posts reporting the results. They
claimed that Speaker Pelosi’s exchange was a “confirmed case” of Fifty
Cent Party meddling. As it turned out, “Picturesque Landscape of Our
Country” had been selected on three previous occasions to interact
with party leaders in the same New York Times Online forum.

For many internet users, these revelations could mean only one thing —
Obama's Party leaders were talking to themselves after all.

http://therealbarackobama.wordpress....alinsky-obama/
HEIL barack HITLER 0baMa0!

wrote:

http://therealbarackobama.wordpress....alinsky-obama/
HEIL barack HITLER 0baMa0!

Ah. The vast left wing media conspiracy, eh Hillary?

You are a shill for greedy capitalists. You are the TOOL.

ENEMY in the White House; B HO Blocked Navy From Rescuing Captain.
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=261864

That is what we have nowadays, ENEMIES in the White House, and one of
them (B HO) was born in Kenya!
cuhulin

On Apr 18, 9:10*am, wrote:

what part of that crank rant disproved that the original patriotic
tea partiers were not anti-corporate

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 21:44:21 -0700, tianmeiguo wrote:

We can raise a full glass of your favorite adult beverage to all the Tea
Party participants - and to the one group of Americans the Zerocrats
despise above all others: our soldiers in the US military.

What a bunch of clueless idiots!!!

complaining about paying LAST YEARS TAXES TO THIS YEAR"S PREZ!!

They should pay extra for being stupid and a heavy burden on society

Teabaggers!
soooo clueless in fact that they picked a name before they even
F*CKING GOOGLED IT!

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...term=teabagger

On Apr 18, 9:46*am, dave wrote:
wrote:
http://therealbarackobama.wordpress....alinsky-obama/
HEIL barack HITLER 0baMa0!

Ah. *The vast left wing media conspiracy, eh Hillary?

You are a shill for greedy capitalists. *You are the TOOL.

NO! I am a tool of my own making - a greedy frugal consumer!

It's my money. I earned it through my own hard work and sweat given
freely and willingly to generous successful Capitalists (the highest
bidder).
I will live free to choose how I wish to spend the fruits of my hard
earner labor any way I choose - So Help Me God!

KEEP YOUR FILTHY SOCIALIST HANDS OFF MY WALLET! Touch me or it and
you risk meeting your maker.

This is what you are Socialista "Professor" DaviD http://mises.org/etexts/Mises/anticap.asp

Useful Idiots are naïve, foolish, ignorant of facts, unrealistically
idealistic, dreamers, willfully in denial or deceptive. They hail from
the ranks of the chronically unhappy, the anarchists, the aspiring
revolutionaries, the neurotics who are at war with life, the
disaffected alienated from government, corporations, and just about
any and all institutions of society. The Useful Idiot can be a
billionaire, a movie star, an academe of renown, a politician, or from
any other segment of the population.

Arguably, the most dangerous Useful Idiot is the “Politically
Correct.” He is the master practitioner of euphemism, hedging,
doubletalk, and outright deception.

The Useful Idiot derives satisfaction from being anti-establishment.
He finds perverse gratification in aiding the forces that aim to
dismantle an existing order, whatever it may be: an order he neither
approves of nor he feels he belongs to.

The Useful Idiot is conflicted and dishonest. He fails to look inside
himself and discover the causes of his own problems and unhappiness
while he readily enlists himself in causes that validate his distorted
perception.

Understandably, it is easier to blame others and the outside world
than to examine oneself with an eye to self-discovery and self-
improvement. Furthermore, criticizing and complaining—liberal
practices of the Useful Idiot—require little talent and energy. The
Useful Idiot is a great armchair philosopher and “Monday Morning
Quarterback.”

The Useful Idiot is not the same as a person who honestly has a
different point of view. A society without honest and open differences
of views is a dead society. Critical, different and fresh ideas are
the life blood of a living society—the very anathema of autocracies
where the official position is sacrosanct.

Even the “normal” spends a great deal more energy aiming to fix things
out there than working to overcome his own flaws and shortcomings, or
contribute positively to the larger society. People don’t like to take
stock of what they are doing or not doing that is responsible for the
conditions they disapprove.

The Useful Idiot, among other things, is a master practitioner of
scapegoating. He assigns blame to others while absolving himself of
responsibility, has a long handy list of candidates for blaming
anything and everything, and by living a distorted life, he
contributes to the ills of society.

On Apr 18, 3:29*pm, wrote:

groups that the republican party identifies with are active
again:jerald O'Brien, has a large swastika tattoo on his scalp, is one
of the leaders of the white supremacist group and expects membership
to grow because of the election of President Barack Obama

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/aryan_nations

Aryan Nations recruiting again in northern Idaho


Sat*Apr*18, 4:13*pm*ET
COEUR D'ALENE, Idaho – The Aryan Nations has returned to northern
Idaho with what it is calling a "world headquarters" and a recruitment
campaign.
Coeur d'Alene resident Jerald O'Brien, who has a large swastika tattoo
on his scalp, is one of the leaders of the white supremacist group and
said he expects membership to grow because of the election of
President Barack Obama.
He told The Spokesman-Review newspaper that the president is the
"greatest recruiting tool ever."
Residents of a Coeur d'Alene subdivision found recruitment fliers on
their lawns Friday and O'Brien said more fliers will be distributed.
He said the group has "several handfuls" of members in the city.
The fliers show a young girl asking her father "Why did those dark men
take mommy away?"
But many in the region reject the group.
"I saw Aryan Nations and put it in the trash," said Garvin Jones.
"What's wrong with these people? Give me a break. I bet if you went
back in their family history, not one is 100 percent white."
The newspaper reported that most people interviewed about the fliers
declined to be identified for fear of retribution.
The Aryan Nations had a compound in northern Idaho until 2000, when
the group lost a $6.3 million civil judgment in favor of two people
who sued after being attacked by Aryan Nations' members.
The Kootenai County Task Force on Human Relations has fought the Aryan
Nations for decades and is offering its services to anyone threatened
or harassed by the group.
"It's bound to be a small group of people trying once again to bring
hate into the community," said Tony Stewart, a spokesman for the task
force. "They don't have anywhere to operate from except a post office
box."
O'Brien said he regularly flies two white supremacist flags outside
his home on the east side of the city.
The newspaper reported that its files show O'Brien marching in a neo-
Nazi parade in Coeur d'Alene in July 2004 and joining in a skinhead
rally that drew eight people outside the Spokane County courthouse in
Spokane, Wash., in June 2007.
O'Brien said he and Michael Lombard have taken over the group
following longtime leader Richard Butler, who died in 2004.
The fliers are signed "Aryan Nations, Church of Jesus Christ
Christian." O'Brien and Lombard are listed on the group's Web site as
"pastors."
At least two residents who received the fliers called the Coeur
d'Alene Police Department. Sgt. Christie Wood said no investigation is
planned because distribution of fliers is protected free speech.

On Apr 18, 7:33*pm, wrote:
On Apr 18, 3:29*pm, wrote:

groups that the republican party identifies with are active
again:jerald O'Brien, has a large swastika tattoo on his scalp, is one
of the leaders of the white supremacist group and expects membership
to grow because of the election of President Barack Obama


More Liberal fascist propaganda lies!

The KKK has always been associated with the Democrat Party. Yeah, you
know. The 0baMa0 Party.
It was the Democratic Party that created the KKK you stupid lieing
fascist dufus! - LMFAO!!!