Is it fair to say that The Democratic Party has become the party of the Anti-Semites, .......... the hate-America movement, the Marxists, the Communists, the Socialists and the Anarchists?

It is the truth!

Can't categorize people this way. There are many Liberal Jews, Con Racists, Gays and Latinos were run off by the Cons ... Muslims are too silent to know.. To me they are PRO their own sorry asses and bHo looks like he's pro Islam so they are... Look at your own list! That's quite a coalition! The Cons need to re-look at their posture on some issues ... The Dems (NWOers) have a spectacular strategy and it's not easy watching Cons shoot themselves in the foot. I dunno guys, I just dunno

here here

Actions speak louder than words. All one has to do is shut up and listen and the answer to this poll will become apparent.

From the American Heritage Cultural Dictionary:
"Semitic - A descriptive term for several peoples of the Middle East and their descendants, including Jews and ARABS."

From the Jewish Virtual Library
"Jews are SUBSTANTIALLY more likely to identify themselves as Democrats than are members of any other major religious group in the country.

The Democratic Party...anti-Semites? (shaking my head).

Hell don't they know what the happened to all of them in WW.2.----I guess they don't give a damn or they are just stupid,they are not like their parents or grandparents are they??

when you support it you need to own it

Are you serious? Take a look at how many Jews are liberals and progressives and Democrats and you have the answer.
What is the matter, are you feeling inferior today, so you had to come up with this BS?

Best selling books have been written on the subject ...........

Truth hurts......or maybe not. They don't seem to care

It is more than fair, it is the truth.

I'd say that pretty much sums it up.

Norman Matton Thomas (November 20, 1884 – December 19, 1968) was a leading American socialist, pacifist, and six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America. He was ordained as a Presbyterian minister in 1911. As a candidate for President of the U. S., Norman Thomas said, in a 1944 epoch speech:

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism”, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

He went on to say: “I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform.”




http://www.aim.org/aim-column...


http://politicalaffairs.net/a...

Hi GrayBear. You do realize there is more than just one Communist and more than just one Socialist party in the United States right? Communist Party USA (CPUSA), Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), Workers World Party (WWP)...and many others http://www.freerepublic.com/f...

They don't all endorse the same people. In fact, a number of them had their own candidates run for president and they even have diverse views and focus in relation to each other so trying to pawn the Democratic Party off as a Socialist or Communist darling is probably not accurate....no matter what quote from 1944 you put up there.

And you have to remember, just because someone or a group endorses a candidate, doesn't mean the candidate endorses them or shares their values or viewpoints. Anyone can endorse anyone else. I'm betting there were some pretty serious hate groups that did not endorse Democratic Party nominees.

Hey, O.M. You are correct, there is more than one, however, the CPUSA had direct ties to the Soviet Union and the Kremlin. When the USSR went down it put a crimp in their style but they are a persistent lot. They get their support by way of Cuba now. And they did endorse Obama. There are 88 members of Congress sporting the "D" that belong to Democratic Socialists and have ties to the communist party.

The 'socialization' of western civilization has been going on in earnest since the 1930's, it's been a long arduous process. We are close to a tipping point, kinda up in the air as to which philosophy will win out; individual liberty and freedom or the coercion of the collective. A great treatise on the subject is "The Road to Serfdom" by Hayek. Covers it very well and is surprisingly non-partisan.

Thanks for the reply. I've heard of the book you mentioned, I will check into that some more (maybe my local library has it).

As far as CPUSA and their endorsement of Obama, I was trying to research that and I have not been able to find any reliable sources that show that CPUSA officially endorsed Obama during his presidential run. I've read where they've supported some of the programs of the Democrats and I have also read that if they had to chose between the lesser agreeable of the two they would chose the Democrats but it seems the CPUSA leadership has openly stated that both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are pro-capitalist and that is not a position of CPUSA.

So, like I said, I'm trying to find out where the CPUSA officially endorsed Obama because it seems kind of strange. Any links (non-partisan if possible)?

Oh, and just so you know, the CPUSA might have been more formidable in years past but I believe I read that their membership is somewhere around 2000 members. That is quite small for a political party.

Straight from the horses mouth: 2008 campaign-

http://www.cpusa.org/search/S...

Also:
http://www.cpusa.org/articles/

interesting reading.....

Thanks for the link and I did follow it.

That is a long document and, when I get some more time, I will look it over more carefully, but I did scan it for the word 'endorsement' and this is the quote directly from the document that REALLY stood out and something to consider:

"While this movement has its own dynamic, it is inseparable from the personality and politics of Barak Obama. WHILE HE IS NOT A CANDIDATE OF THE LEFT OR SOMEONE WE WOULD ENDORSE since we dont endorse candidates of either party he is, nonetheless, a fresh 8 voice on the political scene."

There you have it, in their own words. CPUSA obviously supports some of his programs and ideas but they did not officially endorse Barak Obama according to this statement.

While endorse may have been the wrong word to use, support is definitely obvious. NOT a candidate of the left? Come on, you gotta be kidding me. They were also incorrect later in that same paragraph with:

"...his desire to overcome divisions between Black and white, Black and brown, white and non-white, red state and blue state, immigrant and native born, Christian and Muslim, Muslim and Jew, blue collar and white collar, male and female, gay and straight, urban and rural strikes a deep responsive chord among Americans."

He's been the most divisive President in the history of the office, including Lincoln.

Words play an important role when depicting the relationship between two things/groups/people. There is a bit of a difference between saying:
"The Communist Party endorsed Barak Obama for president"
and
"The Communist Party supported some of Obama's positions while he was running for president"

According to that link, the CPUSA did NOT endorse Obama. but that has not stopped the anti-Obama crowd from purposely spreading that untruth far and wide across the blogosphere and even tricking good people like yourself into believing it. You know how many times I've read when people say "THE COMMUNISTS ENDORSED OBAMA!" And, like yourself, never bothered to fact check it?

"NOT a candidate of the left? Come on, you gotta be kidding me."
Again, you should do some fact checking to see how many admitted true leftists groups feels the same way. I was chatting with someone from Australia a few months back and they laughed at the idea that President Obama was a leftists politician, especially when compared to theirs.

That is why I have to laugh when people call Obama a Communist or a Socialist. Me, personally, my opinion is that Obama is left-of-center but not a true leftists. America has far too many powerful corporations to allow much Socialism to happen....just my opinion.

Thanks again for the response.

While you're at it, you might want to take a look at this article I dug up on snopes.com

It seems a similar rumor of the Communist Party USA 'endorsing' John Kerry also surfaced in 2004. This is kind of interesting so you might want to check it out:
http://www.snopes.com/politic...

The bottom line seems to be that if the CPUSA or any other far left group seems to support Obama or the Democratic Party it is probably more of a case of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' rather than 'this is our guy!'

I don't know, the rhetoric coming out of both parties seems pretty much alike to me.

Snopes is not high on my list of reliable fact-checkers, I try to go straight to the source.

http://www.cpusa.org/search/S...

And every bit of it is contrary to Natural Law and Natural Rights.

What website/organization do you consider a credible fact-checker?

I don't use any of them, all seem biased to one degree or another, some far more than others. The same problem exists with the media. The Fourth Estate has become a Fifth Column element, unabashedly agenda driven and reduced to not much more than propaganda outlets for one party or the other. To get an accurate picture of whats going on I use foreign news services like the BBC.

I'm an Independent; I also do not believe in the traditional paradigm of "Right" and "Left" in the way it is used today. It's not about which side of a magically benign and rational "Center" one is on, it's about how much control government has over the individual. Politics in this country is like the WWF - outcomes are predetermined and all the drama (for example, all the noise about the 'fiscal cliff' and the 11th hour 'rescue') is a big show for the great unwashed masses. All that's missing is smacking each other with chairs on the House floor.

Haha, love the last paragraph! As far as not trusting anything you read or see from the media and that all the big outlooks have an agenda...I say you have to wash them through your own filter but try not to be too conspiratorial. Glad your an independent and that you try to think past the labels. Cheers!

those are the ones to rid ourselves of,,no matter how we must do away with them..

Yes, sir, however they are not the problem, the problem is a constituency that would agree with those ideas and put them in office.

when is it going to be that our real media will stand and tell this country this,------when are we going to get rid of the progressive liberal communist democrat media and get back to OUR TRUTH TELLING MEDIA?????------------------what must happened to get us up off our ass???

It's happening now, just a matter of how much it will take before the SHTF.

Such a claim reflects paranoid delusions common in Right Wing Fantasyland.

Such a reply reflects the common ignorance found in Left Wing Insane Asylums!!!

My, what an ACTIVE imagination! Jump to conclusions much?

Jumping to conclusions seems to be quite common in the fantasyland of the right-wing blogosphere. Such conclusions are drawn despite other likely explanations for the evidence presented. In the world of disinformation, speculation is misrepresented as fact.

When asked to substantiate their conclusions, we may encounter bluster, red herrings, and ad hominem attacks more often than rational, focused answers. Military Intelligence students are quickly disabused of such behavior, and learn the value of supporting every conclusion they proffer. Researchers at the Rand Corporation and other highly regarded research institutions often come from such rigorous backgrounds, where conclusions are based on empirical evidence, rather than wishful thinking. It's a pity that blogosphere researchers and commentators are not held to similar high standards of accuracy.

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Ironic you would quote a Republican.......

Another myth from Right Wing Fantasyland. King was NOT a Republican according to his son. See http://www.politifact.com/ten...

You can have your own opinions but you're not entitled to your own facts.

Problems with reading comprehension? The FACT, according to his son, is that King was not a Republican.

Problem with historical record? He was registered a Republican.

Proof?