Proud Socialists March in Left-Wing D.C. Rally
 

Ahhhh; the counter to the Pride in America, Restore Honor Glenn Beck Rally in Wash. D.C. The people who support the President's agenda out in full force aching to bring the change to this country that Obama envisions. Watch this short 1 1/2 minute video and see some of your fellow Americans (?)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wkw7n9Qagu8&feature=channel[/ame]

Thanks, Richie. Ya just gotta love them libs.:ohdear:

Consider the source.
 

The video was made by Americans for Prosperity, an astroturf front group started by oil billionaire David Koch and Richard Fink (a member of the board of directors of Koch Industries). AFP works together with the Koch family’s other conservative foundations and think tanks to disrupt Barack Obama's presidency. According to an article in the August 30, 2010 issue of The New Yorker, the Kochs (two brothers who are both among the several richest people in the country) are known for "creating slippery organizations with generic-sounding names," that "make it difficult to ascertain the extent of their influence in Washington." The Kochs have "invested" many millions of dollars in this election cycle to try to bring about results that will benefit them and their company.

Thus, the makers of this video have no reason to be objective. I was at the rally Saturday and, of the tens of thousands of attendees, saw perhaps 30 - 50 people who seemed to be connected with or promoting socialism or communism. And they were on the sidelines passing out literature, definitely not part of any of the official presentations I saw or heard.

Most of the attendees were everyday patriotic Americans out to support, jobs, a better education for our children and grandchildren, and the kind of "justice for all" we affirm every time we say the Pledge of Allegiance.

Thanks for providing "the rest of the story" by someone who was there.
Koch et al are fast becoming propagandists in their own rite (or 'right' if you prefer).

You are most welcome .
There's only so deep (shallow) you can go news-wise with Fox and The Daily Sun .

And with the utmost respect for our beloved TV bubblemates, if we stay in the know, we'll enjoy greater health and keep the bridge salesmen away!
L and L

The only problem I have with your post is that you found it necessary to stop your critique with Fox and The Daily Sun. You seem to be somewhat "up" on what is going on in the world, but that left me sort of cold.

If you are implying that MSNBC or CNN for example are funneling items to us with no spin, you are not in anyway paying attention.

I find your post which is attempting to "mock" the video just as, if not more, extreme !!!

I have posted on here for years and always wanted to post some sources of what is called "news" but realize it is a two sided coin. YOU obviously have not realized that fact !!!

C'mon, Seriously!!! 30 or 40 people? Did you look at the people? There are hundreds in view in these marches, not just handing out literature as you say, but waving communist and socialist flags and chanting and marching, at least that you can see. That means to me that there are no doubt thousands in this video alone. Get real and own up to you own party's supporters. You can't spin me. This is the base of Obama's support and the direction that is envisioned by them. You are either naive of duplicitous if you claim otherwise. I know, I know; you will now say this is a personal attack. Well I think your dismissal of what you can see with your own eyes is a personal attack on my intelligence.

The comment about Fox and our local paper was sufficient to show me the NAIVETY of the posts, and the manifestation of party control !!!!

hmmm...
 

Think I'll wait for the Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert rally on Oct. 30th. :wave:

Thanks L & L for the eyewitness account.

The "justice for all" comes after the pledge of allegiance to the Flag that represents the "Republic" for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all. Don't forget the important parts that enable Justice for all.

You can't pick and choose. Hope it isn't too deep to understand the meaning of Republic.

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZBTyTWOZCM[/ame]

If you are worried about some socialists shouldn't we be worried about this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...66-503544.html

How can a socialist be proud? By it's very nature socialism is mediocre.

Just some thoughts.

Yoda

Oh, I most certainly pick and choose.

When I recite the pledge, I leave out "under god". It was added in 1954 in reaction to the "red menace" and "godless communists" clarion calls of the day.

To be honest, I never thought about it this way but - when people start talking nostagically about going back to America's glory days, they generall seem to mean the 1950s. Interesting how the 'glory days' start ending once "under god" is added to the pledge.

For the record, I believe that religion's place is in the home, not the House or Senate.

Let's see; a huge political and social movement to change the fabric of our lives and render the Constitution of the US as obsolete, and that is apparently the direction for the country favored by the current resident of the White House, vs. the strange actions of a man running for one of the many Congressional seats this November?

Oh yeah!!, I see the correlation. NOT!!!!

what do you have against God being mentioned in the Pledge of Allegiance? After all, it was written by a Baptist Minister.

Yoda

What I don't understand... if these people want socialism so bad, why don't they just pack it up and move to Russia or some other socialist country... plain and simple!

"Many people are surprised to learn that the United States Capitol regularly served as a church building; a practice that began even before Congress officially moved into the building and lasted until well after the Civil War."

"From Jefferson through Abraham Lincoln, many presidents attended church at the Capitol; and it was common practice for Members of Congress to attend those services. For example, in his diary entry of January 9, 1803, Congressman Cutler noted: "Attended in the morning at the Capitol. . . . Very full assembly. Many of the Members present." The church was often full "so crowded, in fact, one attendee reported that since "the floor of the House offered insufficient space, the platform behind the Speaker's chair, and every spot where a chair could be wedged in was filled."

Actually the glory days ended in 1963 with the Bible and prayer was removed from the public schools. Do some research on grades, violence in schools and general education downward trends. You'll see it starts to decline right around 1963.

Seperation of church and state is a myth and it doesn't exist. Its found NO WHERE in the Constitution nor any wrightings from the founding fathers. In fact, the US government used to print Bibles for public schools.

Seperation is nothing more than a made up liberal concept put into place by liberal judges and regurgitated over the years by liberals and atheists.

Yoda, I have to be real careful how I answer that because of the odds of misinterpretation. And yeah, I get long-winded here.

As many have noticed, my public persona here has a bit of a stick-up concerning the Catholic Church. That is simply the example I've used most often as it relates to my disdain concerning *organized religion* and, more specifically the heirarchies in them.

Make no mistake, "spirituality" is a different matter to me.

But to get back to the point, let's put the words right out there:

Putting "God" into an oath puts a word with many meanings into said oath. For example, is "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea" democratic or a republic? A recent book and study showed four very distinct kinds of belief in "God" - authoritarian, benevolent, critical, and distant. (The book is at: [ame]http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Four-Gods-about-God/dp/0195341473[/ame] )

A person's belief in God is a very personal thing - and well it should be. The examples of "God in government" are disastrous. Northern Ireland, Israel/Palestine, Afghanistan, etc.

People often say "God Bless the U.S.A.". I can't bring myself to say that. Why? Because of the implications. The idea that somehow God should favor our country over other other seems to be at odds with what the gospels wrote about Christ's words. God has been used as a sword and a plough. We're threatened with everlasting torment (hell) if we don't follow someone's interpretation of "God's Will". And the problem is that there is no defination of that will. It's not just a set of moving goalposts, it's that everyone has their own goalposts.

Again, that's fine in one's private life - but to want to enforce those beliefs on me by statute of law?

Here's an example of the clash. People complain that American students are falling behind in science. Yet, there are a number of people who, while complaining about that, think that Creationism (or it's latest incarnation: Intelligent Design) should be taught as *science* even though it's clearly *religion*. These two goals are at odds with each other. To be honest, I find it funny in a tragic way that the "Creationists" are evolving their tactics in a way that sounds like an attempt as "survival of the fittest".

Now, you said "after all, it was written by a Baptist minister.". Isn't it interesting that a Baptist minister left "under God" (or any reference to God) OUT of the pledge when he wrote it in 1892 and it was CONGRESS that put it in over 60 years later.

Isn't it interesting that Thomas Jefferson, who fervently believed in God, staunchly defended the separation of Church and State?

I want my country operating on facts, not faith. Yes, I know, 'fact' is something that can be hard to find in Washington, especially with all the disguises out there. Doesn't mean I can't *want* it more than we get it.

I took an oath for my current job. For me, it was reaffirming my loyalty to this country. Here's the oath I took:

God is mentioned but it's clearly in a personal way. My country is not "following God's orders" - my country and my interpretation of God are two separate entities.

I'll chip in for their Air Fare. First class is what they deserve.

:shocked:

Good grief you could hardly be more wrong. Jefferson CONSTANTLY wrote about it and it's frequently mentioned in the Federalist Papers.

And it IS in the Constitution.

"Establishment" is a NOUN, not a verb in that sentence. It does not say "Congress shall pass no law respecting and establishment of *A* religion", but that's what most people seem to believe.

A church is an establishment of religion (kind of like how a tavern is an establishment of the owner). So is a graveyard, a Bible school, etc. That clause in the Constitution is the very basis for why Churches are tax-exempt!

You read a lot into things.

All it says is that congress shall pass no law. It says nothing about government supporting, endorsing or even practicing a certian religion. It says NOTHING about SEPERATION. All it says is congress can't pass any laws... laws meaning making someone else by law having to practice a particular religion... or not. The key phrase is "pass no law"

Then you pick out one person, Jefferson. In case you forgot there were actually 55. Read what some of them wrote.

Funny how a lot of libs will make such a stretch but then completly ignore the rest of the Constitution... aka Obama.

If in fact you are correct, Church would have never been held in congress like it was for so many years nor would the Ten Commands be hanging in the Supreme Court.

"The first clause states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Note that it places no restrictions on the states, only Congress. Amendment 10 states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Therefore the federal courts have no authority to rule in this matter. "

Wow. Just.. Wow...

The Constitution CLEARLY forbids passing such a law and you then say it can "support" and "endorse"?? How does the government do that without passing laws? I must REALLY be missing what you're saying.

And I *am* correct because every single challenge (at least the ones I've heard of when it comes to displaying the Commandments) has upheld separation. Only legal challenges can be ruled on - so has anyone brought forth a suit challenging the hanging of the Ten Commandments in the USSC?

Nobody thought about it before the challenges occurred. it didn't dawn upon THE MAJORITY that leading a class prayer was a state endorsement of an establishment of religion (specifically: prayer). Note that Catholic schools are PERFECTLY within their rights to have a prayer. Those are private schools and work under different rules. (And that covers the whole 'free exercise' clause

Yes, I picked out Jefferson, but you said NONE of the Founding Fathers advocated such separation so I chose to pick my favorite *and* to point out that it IS in the Federalist Papers.

The myth that separation is a myth IS A MYTH. I grant you that it's taken a very long time for all of the ramifications to work themselves out but it IS an ongoing process.

And, just for the record, the quote is "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - I'm guessing it was just a typo where you ended up omitting 'prohibiting'.

But it doesn't change the fact that "establishment" is a NOUN, not a VERB. The state cannot force you to pray in school in the morning, to take the school prayer example.

You are.

I can support or endorse a religion without passing a law than makes you support or endorse it.

Funny; I can't for the life of me, in reading back on this thread, find a logical beginning of the change in topic from the "Socialist Fringe" deeply involved in the new "Democrat reality" to the discussion of "establishment of religion". What am I missing?

Oh, never mind. "Red Skelton". I didn't realize at first that BK's comments precipitated DJ's comments. I just read through everything again.

Yes, dk, a *person* can support and endorse religion. Our *government* cannot. What I do on my own time is my business - but I can't do a fund-raiser for a religious cause at the office.

That's just not true. Our government did for many many years including printing Bibles for our early public schools. It wasn't until liberal actavist judges rewrote history that it changed.

The facts are there and so is our history.

Did you know the first American Bible was printed by...? Yes, Congress. I'd say that's an endorsement.

Now wait just a minute.....many here have posted about Obama's ties to Alinsky, for example. And then draw they the conclusion that Obama is a Socialist. So here is a guy shown in a picture in a Nazi uniform next to a man who was a Nazi in WW2.

If you all use guilt by association....then you should accept guilt by association. Only fair.

dk: And do you see that being done now? Of course not. There are a LOT of practices that used to be common in this country that aren't anymore.

Therein lies the problem my friend.

Again, the disconnect.

There's one man who is tutored in a ideology and has never repudiated the tutor or his beliefs, but has given evidence that this is his belief also.

Then you have another who participated in costume re-enactments, evidently in other skits involving other countries uniforms also.

I don't think having your picture taken in a Nazi uniform is good for a political career, but the comparison of the two is, pardon me, ludicrous.

C'mon... Obama IS a Socialist. The defininition of a Socialist system is an economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise! Look at what he has done with the large corporations, health care, small business, etc... and tell me he is not a Socilaist. Please explain to me how he is not!

I just got back and while catching up on TOTV political
 

I got to this line and choked:

"Interesting how the 'glory days' start ending once "under god" is added to the pledge."

Interpretation? Belief? Opinion? To each his own. Anecdotal inference to a point.

But actually a statement like the above, to me, is very similar to one stating what the dimensions were of a cloud on a given day and that it began to get cloudier after that day and measurement. (Think about it!)
How the glory days start ending .....once under GOD was added....

being polite I will only say that is in the category of shooting an arrow into a barn and then painting the bulls eye after the fact with the arrow dead center and then stating that arrows, notice always how arrows hit the bulls eye when shooting them at barns!!!!!!!!

I would submit my usual question, as measured by what? But, I pass!!!!

btk

Sorry but the tutor thing is a total myth, if you wander down the socialist pathway. And there is no evidence that Obama is a socialist. (Unless you count in the minds of the right wing)

It is so hypocritical to deny that these 2 issues are different. You paint Obama a socialist because of Alinsky, someone he never met, but laugh about a Tea Party guy being a weakend Nazi with an actual Nazi.

Are you cashing your "Social Security Checks"...been to the doctor under Medicare...gotten a Prescription paid by the new drug program? All socialist so if you answer Yes to any of these questions then you win a prize cause you are also a socialist.

Now for the truth....Bush bailed out the banks (TARP) Obama bailed out the car companies. Check out how the car companies are doing now. The healthcare plan as written is less socialist then Medicare...

You are going to have to explain what he did to small business and it would be good if you named an actual "small business" that was harmed and by what.

I am hearing a lot of ads out here about how Obama "raised" taxes but so far none of my taxes have gone up. So what actual federal taxes have gone up to date?

I await your answer.

Perhaps "tutor" is technically incorrect, but in essence and in all aspects of the definition of "teacher", "mentor" or even "philosophy guru" is absolutely correct. Maybe Obama didn't physically meet him, but 3 disciples of Alinsky taught the future President, at a school Alinsky founded, and he learned his lessons well.

I don't give a whit about the potential congressman you've tried to misdirect this discussion with. He can hardly be compared with the leader and commander-in-chief of this nation with his radical beliefs and his disrespect for the Constitution of the U.S. and the rights of the individual.

I'm pasting a few articles to back up my Obama/Alinsky connections and I can paste a 100 more.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...032401152.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/...skys_rule.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...n/jim-geraghty

I have tried to stay out of this particular discussion, but your statement that there is "no evidence that Obama is a socialist" is almost funny if it were not so serious.

Name ONE...just one position he has held in his short life where he was not in a group created by socialists, being trained by a socialist, or working with known socialist groups...JUST ONE....you cannot !

Then add him being the most liberal senator and I think the case is closed.

He writes of it in his books...class warfare....redistribution of wealth. He spent TWENTY..TWENTY years in a church that taught it from the black perspective. READ HIS BOOKS COLOGAL...he does not disguise it.


PS....I have tried very hard to tone it down, but he is making it quite difficult. As you know,I have called him arrogant and elitist (I am not alone on that as many of the press are now catching on) but today hearing how his wife was politicking inside a voting place just sets me off. They both just believe they are above it all. This would be used as great fodder for him if it were someone from the right. I am not a "tea party" guy, although the movement has its place, but there has got to be a change NOW. This President and his speaker are running us into the ground. First thing...that health care bill MUST BE REPEALED. He did that out of arrogance and behind closed doors and you just continue to defend this man.

Look....I get it you can't stand the guy...nor his wife. I really don't think he is a liberal and I am pretty upset about his stance on Don't Ask Don't Tell. Ok make that ****ed. But painting him as a Socialist, Non Citizen, Muslim Terrorist just is to far out for me. Where was the Tea Party when the Repubs were spending like drunken sailors? The were out still voting for them...now they got religion. Give me a break.

Did you see the billboard some nut put up in Grand Junction? I can assure you that no similar billboard was ever setup against Bush.

If you don't like the Healthcare bill then propose something else. If I lose my job I will not have any Healthcare...can't get it because of my knees. What are people like me supposed to do?

If you don't like the Healthcare bill then propose something else. If I lose my job I will not have any Healthcare...can't get it because of my knees. What are people like me supposed to do?[/QUOTE]



From what I've been reading you don't get Healthcare free in Obamacare, you MUST buy it under "penalty of law". Projections are already saying it will be more expensive than insurance is now. Good luck with that and no job. That's if you can find it in the first place as Insurers are dropping insurance because of the government mandate regarding "pre-existing condition", like your knee, for instance. You need for the whole industry to collapse so that the government, and whichever bureaucrat oversees you claim and your right to whatever treatment, can take "good" care of you.

From what I've been reading you don't get Healthcare free in Obamacare, you MUST buy it under "penalty of law". Projections are already saying it will be more expensive than insurance is now. Good luck with that and no job. That's if you can find it in the first place as Insurers are dropping insurance because of the government mandate regarding "pre-existing condition", like your knee, for instance. You need for the whole industry to collapse so that the government, and whichever bureaucrat oversees you claim and your right to whatever treatment, can take "good" care of you.[/QUOTE]

But you propose nothing......and that is the problem. The companies can no longer compete given the cost of healthcare. So something has to be done. What would you do? It seems your solution is every person for themselves..... Currently have a very good job but like many of us still in the workforce we are just one step ahead of the next round of cuts. I have a pretty good nest egg and a company pension. I am old enough that I qualify for retirement healthcare pre Medicare, however it will take quite a bite out of that nest egg.

I am not one of the evil entitlement people.