Revisionist definitions come from revisionist historians. Truth has become relative.

” You are intelligent and you use it to obfuscate your opponent’s position with an abundance of words and convoluted argument.”

No my arguments are incredibly simple- you don’t know anything about Marxism. How hard is that to understand?

“You are not really debating me because you know I see through all of your wordy, insulting responses.”

Really? Then why don’t you answer them instead of writing this nonsense?

“Karl Marx is not the founder of modern sociology and political economy. He is the founder of modern communism; also known as Marxism.”

I didn’t say he was the founder of modern sociology and political economy. Obviously political economy had to exist for Marx to write critiques on it. However, he was a major contributer to both of those fields. “Marxism” is a term related to the philosophical and economic thought laid out by Marx. “Communism” is a mode of production.

” It is responsible for the rise of dozens of tyrants and millions of deaths throughout the 20th Century and continues to this day. To ignore it would be irresponsible.”

The same could be said about capitalism but with a much higher death toll.

“Playing with or exposure to Marxism in college indeed does not make one a Marxist. Continued voluntary exposure and participation in the furtherance of its ideals does.”

How does one measure this?

” David Horowitz was a major influence in waking up many of Lenin’s ‘useful idiots’, including this former liberal writer.”

But he should be considered a Marxist as he spent as much time if not more working supposedly in furtherance of Marxist ideals.

“Ruslan would like to see all of my sources indicating that Obama is a Marxist, except for Obama’s book.”

Yes because the quote from the book was weak. So someone was partially inspired by someone who in turn was interested in Communism. Let me ask you something, what would we find if we applied your logic to your heroes like Hannity, Beck, Palin, and so on? Beck alone has W. Cleon Skousen and Elizabeth Dilling.

“That’s like asking for all of the evidence to prove the world is round, except for a photo from space. If you can’t accept the photo from space, why should I spend the time to dig up other evidence that won’t convince you?”

No, it’s actually nothing like that because Obama doesn’t write anything about Marxism, nor does he identify himself as a Marxist, and what you can provide is insufficient to suggest that he was a Marxist.

“If “spreading the wealth” is not what Marxism is all about, then the phrase, “From each according to his ability. To each, according to his need”, has been an unchallenged hoax for a century and a half.”

First of all this phrase describes the mode of production known as Communism, something that would come into existence after the evolution of socialism, which itself would last as much as an entire epoch. Marx defined socialism as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his WORK.” What’s wrong with people being paid the full value of their work? The Communist “slogan”(as you incorrectly call it) would be the result of a mode of production where wealth is produced in such abundance(as there is nothing to fear from overproduction) that people would simply take what they need.

Whether you believe such a society is possible isn’t the point, the point is you have no idea what you are talking about. I could recommend that you read Critique of the Gotha Programme but then again, you don’t like words.

“In recent U.S. history wealth has not been redistributed from bottom and middle to top.”

Yes, actually it has since 1970. Not my fault that you don’t bother to check.

” It has been ‘earned’ by middle and top and redistributed to the bottom under what we call ‘progressivism’.”

It was not “earned”. If that were true you’d have a hard time explaining why the top started “earning” so much more since 1970 while the working class’s real wages didn’t rise.

” It is playing out presently as planned. All those empty houses used to belong to the middle of our working society brought about by the federal government’s attempt to allow the bottom to own and possess middle class assets.”

Actually this theory has been entirely debunked. The bubble was not a result of the federal government’s policies. At least not any direct policies. (Yes, I see you trying to blame the CRA on this)

” When the bubble burst, it was the middle who suffered most leading the way to a classic Marxist model—a few at the top, most at the bottom and none in the middle.”

Please cite the Marxist work where this “model” is given.

“The title and position of ‘Czar’ was a Republican creation meant to identify an appointed leader of a specific administrative effort—Drug Czar for example, where a Cabinet position would be unnecessary.”

Incorrect, the term Czar was used as far back as 1923.

“Where Czars fall into the Marxist debate here is that Obama has appointed a record number of them and assigned them to jobs which are designed to strengthen the progressive cause. You appoint a Czar when you do not want them scrutinized by the Senate. All of Obama’s Czars have progressive leanings, some have praised communism and its current leaders and one has admitted that he was and is a communist, Van Jones, Green Jobs Czar. Valarie Jarred admitted that Jones was well vetted before being assigned to the position.”

Ok let’s slow down for a second here, a “czar” is not always above senate review but since the evil Dems had a majority in the senate why would that matter if they were? Presidents delegate their authority to get things done. Bush had his “faith-based programs czar” if you choose to call it that. Was he a Communist?

Also I’d like to see where Van Jones admitted that he’s still a Communist.

“Red China is the most glaring example of the failure of communism. In order to keep itself from imploding, it had to adapt some free market ideas. But the totalitarian side of Marxism is still strong there. There is a minimal middle class located mainly in urban areas.”

There is no “totalitarian” side of Marxism. China is a capitalist state, plain and simple. The color of their flag means nothing. Cyprus and Moldavia are capitalist states and they have Communist presidents.

“Banks not lending money is directly tied to Marxism in the current situation. The philosophy of ‘ability’ and ‘need’ must be determined by some authority and so far in America it is determined by Congress.”

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Banks don’t want to lend money because they don’t want to lose it.

“The banks saw a Democrat landslide and pitched with the obvious winner. In exchange they got a handsome bailout (under a lame duck Bush with a Democrat Congress). ”

Please cite the Marxist text where Marx recommends using taxpayers’ money to fund private banks. Please name the country where socialists did this.

“Marxist policies were inevitable. Thus came unaffordable free health care and attempts to tax our breathing through ‘Cap and Trade’.”

I can’t even begin to tell you what’s wrong with this statement. First of all, there was no “free health care”, even the “public option” was stricken from the bill. And tax our breathing? Have you lost your mind? What does any of this have to do with Marxism? Even the capitalist with a level head understands that his workers must have a minimum standard of health.

“Bankers are not stupid and held the money they were given because they understand Marxism destroys wealth. ”

Then why was the USSR wealthier than the Russian empire?

“While it is true that many Marxist have made themselves well know, it is also true that Obama hasn’t.”

Because he’s not a Marxist.

” Any thinking man with minimal study of this Marxist puppet could see who he was prior to his election. Where did he come from? Who influences him? These questions never came up in the mainstream media and as we have seen from recent revelations, left wing journalists conspired to keep it that way”

Ooooh it’s a big CONSPIRACY!!! No evidence necessary then. Sorry for asking.

“He is a puppet. Who pulls his strings? The same people who set him up; Marxists.”

Name them Dick.

“I will not be debating you anymore, Ruslan. I find you boring and predictable. For followers of this debate, I welcome challenges from you over my ideas.”

Awww, you’re leaving the sandbox because I pointed out, quite correctly, that you have no clue what you’re talking about. You keep throwing words like “Marxism” around and applying them to all kinds of things which have nothing to do with the term.

Here’s a tip: Don’t go on saying things like “I DO know what Marxism is!!” You see, in your first post here you already told me that you didn’t know. It’s like if someone says they are a pilot, and then use so many terms incorrectly that any real pilot can call them out without trouble.

I’m afraid my initial assessment of you as an intelligent debater was erroneous. You are intelligent and you use it to obfuscate your opponent’s position with an abundance of words and convoluted argument. You also weave ridicule into your argument which impresses less intelligent readers with your superior intellect.
You are not really debating me because you know I see through all of your wordy, insulting responses. You are actually attempting to sway an audience. In these pages they would overwhelmingly lean your way. So, for readers who follow the SPLC’s ideology and paranoia of the right, I will keep things simple and to the point in response to Ruslan’s insult.

Karl Marx is not the founder of modern sociology and political economy. He is the founder of modern communism; also known as Marxism.

Any study of modern socio-politics or economics must indeed include a study of Marxism. It is responsible for the rise of dozens of tyrants and millions of deaths throughout the 20th Century and continues to this day. To ignore it would be irresponsible.

Playing with or exposure to Marxism in college indeed does not make one a Marxist. Continued voluntary exposure and participation in the furtherance of its ideals does. In America one has to cloak these beliefs under the positive sounding ‘progressive’ label in order to have it swallowed. David Horowitz was a major influence in waking up many of Lenin’s ‘useful idiots’, including this former liberal writer.

My “incredibly weak evidence” concerning the Unitarian Church can be strengthened by anyone interested by simply attending one—any one. But I was wrong on one point; I have heard God discussed in a Unitarian Church, when we were mocking the idea and its believers.

Ruslan would like to see all of my sources indicating that Obama is a Marxist, except for Obama’s book. That’s like asking for all of the evidence to prove the world is round, except for a photo from space. If you can’t accept the photo from space, why should I spend the time to dig up other evidence that won’t convince you?

If “spreading the wealth” is not what Marxism is all about, then the phrase, “From each according to his ability. To each, according to his need”, has been an unchallenged hoax for a century and a half.

In recent U.S. history wealth has not been redistributed from bottom and middle to top. It has been ‘earned’ by middle and top and redistributed to the bottom under what we call ‘progressivism’. It is playing out presently as planned. All those empty houses used to belong to the middle of our working society brought about by the federal government’s attempt to allow the bottom to own and possess middle class assets. When the bubble burst, it was the middle who suffered most leading the way to a classic Marxist model—a few at the top, most at the bottom and none in the middle.

The title and position of ‘Czar’ was a Republican creation meant to identify an appointed leader of a specific administrative effort—Drug Czar for example, where a Cabinet position would be unnecessary.
Where Czars fall into the Marxist debate here is that Obama has appointed a record number of them and assigned them to jobs which are designed to strengthen the progressive cause. You appoint a Czar when you do not want them scrutinized by the Senate. All of Obama’s Czars have progressive leanings, some have praised communism and its current leaders and one has admitted that he was and is a communist, Van Jones, Green Jobs Czar. Valarie Jarred admitted that Jones was well vetted before being assigned to the position.

Red China is the most glaring example of the failure of communism. In order to keep itself from imploding, it had to adapt some free market ideas. But the totalitarian side of Marxism is still strong there. There is a minimal middle class located mainly in urban areas.

Banks not lending money is directly tied to Marxism in the current situation. The philosophy of ‘ability’ and ‘need’ must be determined by some authority and so far in America it is determined by Congress. The banks saw a Democrat landslide and pitched with the obvious winner. In exchange they got a handsome bailout (under a lame duck Bush with a Democrat Congress). Marxist policies were inevitable. Thus came unaffordable free health care and attempts to tax our breathing through ‘Cap and Trade’. Bankers are not stupid and held the money they were given because they understand Marxism destroys wealth. Give Obama enough time and he will destroy the bankers as well.

While it is true that many Marxist have made themselves well know, it is also true that Obama hasn’t. Any thinking man with minimal study of this Marxist puppet could see who he was prior to his election. Where did he come from? Who influences him? These questions never came up in the mainstream media and as we have seen from recent revelations, left wing journalists conspired to keep it that way. Obama’s incompetence is now on full display so much that he’s even receiving criticism from his former backside smoochers. He is a puppet. Who pulls his strings? The same people who set him up; Marxists.

I will not be debating you anymore, Ruslan. I find you boring and predictable. For followers of this debate, I welcome challenges from you over my ideas.

I was an early admirer of the SPLC, particularly Morris Dees because I knew he and others took ultimate risks to rid us of the Klan, the ‘Order’ and other destructive elements of our society. I was extremely disappointed when I realized it had become a propaganda arm for the progressive left. So far, I have been allowed to participate and criticize in these pages. But as America becomes more divided, I don’t expect to be here. I’ve studied the left enough to know that their arguments can never be defended rationally. This is why wordiness and ridicule must be employed against its opponents. Someone, please—make a rational argument for big government, totalitarianism and equality utopia and perhaps you will convince me. But you’ll need a better spokesman than Ruslan.

http://mltoday.com/en/subject-.....914-2.html

http://mltoday.com/en/subject-.....s-906.html

http://mltoday.com/en/subject-.....g-644.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/pres.....index.html

If being exposed to Marxist ideas or even playing with such groups in college means one is a Marxist for life, then we’d have to include several famous conservatives, many of whom were previously Trotskyites. One of the most famous is David Horowitz. Islamophobic darling of the right, Robert Spencer, also used to be a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party USA.

“The family also attended the East Shore Unitarian Church in Bellview. Have you ever attended any Unitarian Church that discusses God? I haven’t.”

This is incredibly weak evidence. First of all, they do not have a Marxist doctrine. Second, how many Unitarian Churches have you attended at all?

Anyway I’d like to see your exact sources(besides Obama’s book), because all of this sounds suspiciously familiar to Jermoe Corsi’s discredited work.

About “spreading the wealth”- this is not what Marxism is about. Redistribution of wealth happens in a number of ways in capitalist society. In recent US history wealth has been redistributed from the middle class and poor to the wealthiest. When this happens, republicans don’t complain.

Next, “czars”. Because you are probably a Beck fan, your memory is poor and your understanding of US politics non-existent. “Czars” are just people the president delegates to handle various programs. Bush had his “czars” too but nobody cared back then. Where do you get the idea of having “czars” has something to do with Marxism? For one thing, Marx wrote nothing about how a socialist government should be organized, second, you DO realize that a real Czar is an emperor, a monarch, and historically Marxists and monarchs haven’t gotten along so well, right? I suspect Beck plays on your ignorance by connecting Czars-Obama-Russia-Communism-Marx.

Saying that the presence of these “czars” makes Obama a Marxist is like saying that his desk and personal chef make him one as well. It’s a total logical disconnect.

On the matter of Red China, are you admitting then, as many Marxists do, that China is in fact a capitalist state? And to destroy your funny little theory, banks do not “bet on the winner”. See how many banks in Russia supported the Bolshevik revolution some time- no class willingly gives up its power. They could just as easily shoot themselves.

“Do you see any bankers lending money these days? It worked out well for them and as for the ‘common man’ doesn’t get a dime.”

This is absolutely hilarious. You think that banks not lending money equals Marxism? In case you didn’t know this is a matter of capitalist enterprises doing what they do best, look out for their profits. What, you think the government should force the banks to loan out money at a time when they fear they won’t be able to get it back? The credit crunch is part of a normal capitalist crisis, not some evil Marxist scheme. Absolutely ridiculous.

“I have often pondered the inability of Marxists to champion their beliefs publicly. Then I realized they can’t. It might wake up all those useful idiots Lenin described as the secret to his success.”

Maybe you need to “ponder” a little harder because Marxist have and are constantly displaying their ideas openly and yet you have basically told me in this message that you have no idea what Marxism is, you have clearly never read any of Marx’s works, and as is the case with most people who rail against Marxism, you don’t understand what capitalism is either. Don’t try to flop around and say, “YES I DO KNOW ABOUT X” because this entire message has shown me otherwise.

So let’s see, here you are using debunked conspiracy theories and fallacious logic, and preaching about something you clearly know nothing about, and then you want to talk about “useful idiots”?

First, Read his book, Dreams from My Father then do some research. One of the major influences in his early life was Frank Marshall Davis, identified in the book as Frank. It must be remembered that communists weren’t as popular then as they are now so Frank took pains to conceal his affiliations. However, government informants not only confirmed but received Davis’ Communist Party dues for at least 3 years during the 50s. When he got caught up in some of the subversion going on in Hawaii at that time, Davis repeatedly ‘took the 5th’ at the Senate Security Subcommittee hearings in 1956.

Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham was raised by Marxist parents—Obama’s maternal grandparents. The family moved from Kansas to Mercer Island, Washington so Stanley could attend a school infested with communist ideology. The chairman of the School Board and at least 2 teachers at the school admitted to such. According to a childhood friend, Maxine Box, Stanley embraced the ideology and was an avowed atheist. The family also attended the East Shore Unitarian Church in Bellview. Have you ever attended any Unitarian Church that discusses God? I haven’t. They discuss politics and whoa be to you if you disagree with their Marxist philosophy. In Bellview, the church was known as the ‘Little Red Church on the Hill’ for obvious reasons.

So it isn’t surprising that Obama would launch his political career in the home of Bill Ayers who describes himself as a communist with a little ‘c’. ( A little ‘c’ communist is a little ‘m’ Marxist.) Introducing Obama to his new friends and puppeteers at the Ayers home was IL State Senator Alice Palmer who designated Obama as her preferred successor. A member of the World Peace Council, a Soviet front organization attempting to prevent ‘Star Wars’ implementation in the early Reagan years, Ms. Palmer wrote in the People’s World Weekly telling of her experience attending the 27th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

During the campaign Obama made Joe the Plumber famous when he said he wanted to spread the wealth. This is a Christian principle when churches do it and a Marxist one when the State does it.

Now that he’s President, take a look at his Czars. Van Jones was the first to go because he had broken a cardinal rule—never, ever admit to being a communist. Progressive sounds much better. Ask any salesman the value of words and perceptions when you’re trying to sell junk.

That’s a small sample which will get you started on your own research.

As far as the banks go, like any good capitalist, the money’s on the most likely winner. Who says capitalists can’t make money under Marxism? See Red China for details. It’s the free market that gets choked under Marxism. Do you see any bankers lending money these days? It worked out well for them and as for the ‘common man’ doesn’t get a dime.

I have often pondered the inability of Marxists to champion their beliefs publicly. Then I realized they can’t. It might wake up all those useful idiots Lenin described as the secret to his success.

And don’t give us this nonsense about how you guys are upset about a “destructive government”. You were the ones calling leftist traitors when they were protesting two wars of aggression and the biggest challenge to constitutional rights in modern history- i.e. by the Bush administration. And don’t even try this “oh we were angry about that too” nonsense. You weren’t in the streets screaming with your tri-corner hats back then. Despite the economic crisis beginning in 2007-08, you guys waited Obama was elected to suddenly “realize” that the country was going down hill.

Looking forward to your proof of Obama being a “Marxist” surrounded by “Marxists”.

His ridicule is telling. When one cannot argue a point he ridicules his opponent.Lets try some.

The ‘Mexican immigrants’ he refers to are actually foriegn invaders. When people from one nation invade another they have no intentions to assimilate. When immigrants enter a country with an invitation from that country, they assimilate.

If we find four Elbonians hopping Mr. Bunch’s fence and entering his home, we call that a home invasion. One may cut the grass, one may do his dishes, one may clean his house but invariably one trashes his house and molests his kids. Being a kind-hearted liberal, Bunch allows them to stay–become part of the family. Unfortunately, three out of four want to remain Elbonians while mooching off of Mr. Bunche’s hard earned wealth. Soon the Bunch home is full of Elbonians who decorate his home in traditional Elbonian style. When Mr. Bunche’s family comes to visit, there is no room and his house stinks to high heaven. Eventually Mr. Bunch wants his home back but the Elbonians cry foul; all they want is a better life and mean Mr. Bunch is denying them that ‘right’.

At this point Mr. Bunch no longer has any wealth and his home has been taken from him because the unassimilated Elbonians have brought with them the same stench they were escaping in their home country. Now Mr. Bunch and his guests are all poor and everyone’s equal. Finally–liberal utopia!

The Tea Party is a threat because it has no national leader and therefore no one personality to ridicule. So Mr. Bunch invents some leaders to ridicule.

The Tea Party is angry, but it is angry at the policies of a destructive government. But who in there right mind could be angry at policies Mr. Bunch supports. Therefore, they must be dangerous and they must be racists. After all, political decent and free speech are not ‘rights’ for dangerous racists. They are only ‘rights’ for those that agree with Mr. Bunch.

Although Glenn Beck is not a Republican, he is a leader of the Republican Party because Mr. Bunch says he is. His ‘followers’ must be stupid because Beck was a worthless, uneducated junkie who came out of nowhere. This of course, is the American dream. But only idiots would follow a guru who made his fortune from dispare. Better to follow an educated liberal who made his fortune through a liberal education paid for by his rich parents or his ideological groomers.

And of course, idiots hate Obama because he is black. It has nothing to do with him being a Marxist. He surrounds himself with Marxists, wrote a bio or two spelling out his introduction and embrace of Marxism, attended a church for 20 years, mentored by its anti-American racist preacher and started his political carrer as a puppet for the left in the home of a violent radical Marxist. But how can he be a Marxist if the ugly right hates him only because he’s black?

And finally, the Tea Party, the ‘right’, the racists will eventually all die out when we all become diverse and less religious. However, we must make an exception for those on the most extreme ‘right’; those that hate free speech, sexual expression, filthy homos and want all to conform to their way or die. Yes, we must allow radical Muslims to keep their religion. This is because they hate American ideals even more than their current Marxist allies.

Can you think of anything more American than the right to hate America?

They fear that when they become a minority then the non-whites will hate them and treat them the same way that the whites have treated the non-whites historically. They think that the prejudices that they harbor are humanly universal, that we are all born with them.

What they don’t realize in their ignorance is that those kind of ideas of racial superiority, passed on only through culture, are unique to white Europeans, and actually quite recent in the vast span of human history. Other ethnic groups just don’t have any historical or cultural precedent for that kind of persecution. Their fears are baseless.

Even the actual poor do not consider themselves anywhere near the lower classes in the pecking order.

Of course that is a direct result of politicians’ massaging of frail egos and their lies about the conditions of labor that employees actually face. Now some of them have (with ignorant pride) started the so-called “Tea Party” to cash in on the fun and games.

While hucksters like Dick Armey and Beck work their confidence schemes, political backers cash in on every aspect of the nation’s wealth.

Here’s the one and only rule to never break in such a political society as ours. Never trust a person who has lied to you or to anyone else in order to gain any kind of preference.

In the end it has been every man for himself in this American society. It began in murder and theft and will end in the same way.

That is, unless we awaken in a hurry to what we have become in our race to get rich.

Earlier you mentioned the changes in San Diego like suburban sprawl and linked it to immigration. There’s one problem with that-white flight is what causes suburban sprawl. White folks who don’t want to learn to get along with everyone else “head for them thar hills” because they buy into a bunch of myths.
Many of the immigrants we get every year have TRS (temporary refugee status) and yet we keep hearing that people are here to take our jobs away-these are people who really did have to run for their lives. Stopping immigration will still likely not do one single thing to stop the preferential treatment of Cubans. If they can get onto dry land they get citizenship, yet someone from Latin America who’s trying to keep their kids safe get picked up and deported.
The Tea Party is really looking to go back to a time that never really existed. History back in the 50′s and 60′s must have been extremely romanticized, because it never happened the way Beck and others claim it did. They’d tell you that the Allotment Act was promoting “diversity”when it was just another clever way to make tribal lands even smaller. This revision of history is actually dangerous, it is every bit as dangerous as their claims of “limited government” enshrined in the Constitution. Problem is that its not the Constitution that they’re talking about. It’s the dead and long defunct Articles of the Confederation.

I believe that you are not a Tea Party guy and I personally think that a lot of people get caught up in the movement who really don’t accept all of their beliefs. Debt is also a serious issue and closing down US bases overseas and ending military interventions would be one of the best things America could do.

Okay, Ruslan says I’m a racist to say that some cultures place more value on education than others. But Mason says children whose parents are from India told him education was highly valued in their culture. To say that education is highly valued in your culture is to say implicitly that it is more highly valued in your culture than others. (By the way, I explicitly mentioned in my comment–check it out if you don’t believe me–”Incidentally, I’m not saying that Americans value education above ALL others, either.”) Otherwise, these children’s statements would be rendered completely inane.

Skinnyminny, I agree that most parents do want what’s best for their children. I completely agree with that. I’ve never said, nor would I say, that racism doesn’t exist or that it has had no effect on people groups.

Also, I never said I was a Tea Party person. Some of their ideas I agree with, yes. But not all. I’m not against government programs. If I had my druthers, I’d first close down military bases overseas. Honestly, other than that I don’t have a lot of ideas. We’re in a really big pickle right now. We should never have gotten into a debt this big to begin with. I really don’t know how to get out of it, because we’re such an integrated global economy that to pull back runs very big risks–but to continue on means getting out-competed by the Chinese and Indians. And that means that black hole of debt yawns ever wider. Probably some things are going to have to be cut–there’s probably no way around it. I especially hope that senior citizens are protected from these cuts. People aren’t going to loan us money indefinitely with an ever-expanding debt load. Once the money stops being loaned to us, what do we do?

I know that some of the tea party members want to cut the debt. However, with what this country is going through, I don’t think it is a good idea to cut public entitlement. Seriously, what other alternatives do we have? The population in this country is much greater than when we had the depression – image having soup lines, or even lines for toiletries (toilet paper….) add to the mix that more people are more dangerous with guns….

I can definitely say that I have expressed disappointment about some of the actions of the republicans/tea party. Here’s partly why, it appears everytime a GOP takes office, they complain of monetary shortfalls, they cut needed social programs, education, then they begin to sell off assets that taxpayers paid for – example, remember the ports up for sale to U.A.E…. In Calif – Pete Wilson gave I.O.U’s, which, in the end cost more because these are short-term loans, and banks make money for honoring the I.O.U.’s, now Schwarzenegger issued I.O.U.’s and will issue them again. From what I understand, in Arizona, the state building was sold and the government is leasing it. Then you have the people protesting against the cultural center – ground zero, well, here’s one that you haven’t heard of, in Costa Mesa Calif, the Orange County Fair Grounds was set to be sold for $96 million to the Fait Family Trust, or, Facilities Mgmt West Group which is owned by Mr. Fait. So, again, there’s frustration about so-called Islamization of America – yet, the frustrated ones are being mislead and getting involved in issues that help the causes that may not always be in their best interest – by the way, the councilman that is alleged to be all for this is Mansoor. So, let’s see, over $400 million for the cultural center, $96 million for the O.C. Fairgrounds, other proposed sites, and other projects that we are not aware of. Personally, I can care less one way or the other, but do you see my point – how can you be against the so-called SIOA, when the people you are following are helping this group sell off assets – eventually you will be asking ‘who owns America?’

And to briefly touch on race, blacks and native Americans have NEVER received the quality of education they should have received. Some schools I attended, there were never enough books, no swimming pool, sometimes no field trips…..if all the minorities in this country were treated equally, meaning that not one child was Left Behind, there would be no issue with having to bring in migrants for either high or low-skilled. I’m not in my 50s yet, but, I remember in elementary school, a white teacher asked me what I wanted to be when I ‘grew up.’ When I responded I wanted to be a nurse, she told me I couldn’t because I was black. So, again, minorities in this country have always valued education. However, sometimes higher education was impossible because lack of financial resources, or because we already knew, no one would ever hire us for that position. Another thing I should point out, I remember teachers that were white, they didn’t care if we learned proper English or not – I can now safely say, some were afraid to be there, whereas, others was just there for the paycheck. This should sound familiar, some kids were passed to next grade that couldn’t read or write, fill out applications. So don’t you dare accuse any minority of not wanting higher education when you haven’t walked in their shoes. And, don’t you dare accuse any minority of not wanting higher education when they are not wanted in some of the white schools – BTW, did you miss or not learn of Central High in Arkansas?