Received my copies of the "Tea Party Primer" the other day. I took them to the local Tennessee Firearms Association (TFA) meeting, where they quickly vanished! I saw their new owners leafing thru them all night.

As an avid reader who enjoys Patriot Post, may I express my belief that the appraisal of the Medved article is overly harsh. Medved, in my opinion, is accurate in his observation that regardless of any other matter, it is the intent of Obama to radically transform the USA, even against the wishes of its citizens. That stated intent, and the concommitant action to implement it, is the most important point of engagement.

Thank you sir. Well written and to the point.

It's not what he says, it's what he does.

I acclaim the courageous Essays of Mr. Alexander and your excellent site. Keep up the Great Effort! Many have good thoughts which are never expressed and thus are unable to magnify the cause of Freedom. Thank you for your willingness to put your lives on the line, as we all do in speaking out these days!

What is it about Obama that makes so many otherwise intelligent people swallow his snake oil. I do not consider myself extra smart, but if I can see through him, why can't/don't they??

Mr. Michael Medved,

G-Damn Obama !

Respect for the Office of President ?

How about respect for the Constitution ?

How about respect for the majority of voters that do not want Obamacare ?

Only the willfully blind deny that Obama is a die-hard Marxist. In my never humble opinion, he is indeed a traitor. At the very least, he is guilty of numerous high crimes and misdemeanors, and should be immediately impeached, tried, and jailed.

Michale Medved must have gone off his meds.

The evidence of Obama's malice toward America is eminently clear in his actions and the people that surround him.

Limbaugh is far closer to the truth about Obama than Medved.

Anyone who still believes socialism is a viable social and economic construct that when implemented will led their society to utopia are either ignorant or evil. The total tonnage of evidence that this system is deadly and suicidal, make those who ignore it evil. Because the evidence is there for all to see. Obama chooses that path. You can reach no other conclusion than that of Limbaugh and others. No other conclusion is possible!

Mark, thank you for your "non compos mentis" echo of my sentiments on the subject as recorded in my rebuttal letter to the Wall Street Journal yesterday:

Michael Medved's surprising presidential apologia is sadly misguided from start to finish. History has recorded repeatedly that "Heaven" did not in fact "bestow the best of blessings" on the House first occupied by our second president as evidenced by the obviously not so "honest and wise men" who have ruled under its roof. Many not only "fell short" (ironically a biblical metaphor for "sinned") but were in fact, like the lying Nixon and seducing Clinton, corrupt to their constitutional core. To argue that these men simply acted upon "bad decisions," but were not "bad men" evinces not only bad reasoning, but an even worse biblical theology. If gross immorality, especially on the part of a presiding president is not "bad," what is for God's sake?

And as for the present occupant of the people's House, history has already documented in multiple best sellers (including most recently Paul Kengor's Dupes: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century) just how "bad" this character is in terms of habitually keeping company with really bad "friends" and politically prevaricating from the get go of his career. If in fact, as Mr. Medved asserts, that "every survey shows more favorable views of his personality than his policies," have we not been badly duped to believe that we ought not "focus on his bad intentions and rotten character"?

Mr. Medved's "hope" to the contrary, the Almighty has not answered John Adam's prayer, but has sent us a "strong delusion" that we should believe the lie of "hope and change." These troubled "times of panic and distress" remind me of the proverbial caveat that "trusting in a treacherous man in time of trouble is like a bad tooth or a foot that slips."

Perhaps Mr. Medved, author of my autographed copy of Right Turns, seems to have unwittingly taken a curiously tortured and disappointing turn to the left. Mr. Obama is not "trying to weaken America"---he is weakening America.

Not surprising about Medved. I have listened to him on and off for a few years, when push comes to shove he always goes left...

Well stated. I generally like what medved says, but he missed this one.

While Mr. Medved may claim he's a conservative I firmly believe he's never ever really given up his liberal bias. He was in college when Bush 43 was there but he was on the liberal side. If one listens to Mr. Medved's show (which I no longer do) one soon realizes the only people he ever wants to talk with are liberals and loonies. Mr. Medved has an excellent mind and superb debating talents however that doesn't make him a conservative.

Rush's rebuttal fails to discern what may well be Michael Medved's true point of view. That's not surprising, as Michael's point of view is a bit mind boggling. So make no mistake, I do not defend that point of view, I only undertake to explain it in part.

I had occasion last year to ask Michael face-to-face why he did not consider Obama to be a socialist. In response, and without missing a beat, Michael proceeded to detail for me (and me alone) a definition of socialism based on numbers. That is, he cited criteria such as percentages of taxation which would have to be levied, or at least sought, in order for Obama to be accurately named a socialist. In the case of federal income tax, as I recall, the number was upwards of 60%.

I listened without interruption and merely thanked Michael for his reply when he had finished. I had no idea what to make of this definition of socialism, as I had never heard or read anything like it before. But you can bet I researched it the first chance I had to do so, and I found nothing to substantiate any of it.

I also know that Michael strongly believes that even if Obama is a socialist with malicious intent toward the country he governs, it is imperative that conservatives not say so. As far as I can tell, the idea is akin to stealth jihad. In other words, conservatives must keep their methods kind and gentle in order to be effective in rooting out the destructive effects of leftism and Obama's policies.

So, I believe Michael Medved is one of us. But he is attempting to encourage a kind of "stealth conservatism," if you will, among his fellow conservatives.

As for me, I felt a little betrayed by Michael. If he purposely gave me a false definition of socialism in order to silence my strong objections to Obama's policies, then I am disappointed. But it's not about me, it's about saving our country and Israel from today's left.

I don't know if what I've said here accurately explains Michael's intent, but consider it grist for the mill.

We all tend to see what we want to see regardless of reality. Melved is no different - he is seeing what he wants to see. Forget the descriptors "conservative" and "liberal"; let his words tell you what he really is.

When I read this essay, I saw both Mr. Alexander and Mr. Medved falling into the same pitfall that exists in many talk and discussion groups. That pitfall is the use of a term with the assumption that everyone will define the term in the same way. In this case it is the term "bad man".

Mr. Medved stated (according to this essay) that Obama is a bad president and is making bad decisions, but is not a bad man. Mr. Alexander disagrees with this assertion.

In the absence of an agreed upon definition of what constitues a bad man, I am left to either not knowing who to agree with or to agree or disagree according to my own definition of a bad person. It is possible that I could agree with both of them based upon their individual definitions of a bad man.

This is the best article as well as explaining to those nonbelievers of what Obama is really doing, I know how desperate Dem and Unions are for they have to give up their leaders golf courses etc. but they had best get their head screwed on and know we are being led down the yellow brick road but for the Rush & Glenn and Bachman...Palin wow.....This person spouting off has betrayed Rush...Shame on him !!!! He'll get his.........

Mr. Medved is a "useful idiot"

Your reluctance to assign the word "traitor" to the socialist in the White House is perhaps understandable, but on the other hand, can we not openly agree that this is a situation that calls for application of the old adage,"if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, then in all likelihood it's a duck?"

Amen! Its more comforting to pretend that secular socialism (aka modern liberalism) is not evil...its also more comforting to pretend that arrogant strident apostles of secular socialism are not really "bad people"...they cannot be misguided because history is clear and the laws of economics are what they are...

so the continued ramming of secular socialism down America's throat can only be the result of two things...either the national democrats are stupid (despite Ivy League degrees) or they are evil/bad...I pick the latter.

Upon further reflection, perhaps Michael Savage was right some years ago when he said "liberalism is a mental disorder".

Does it really matter as long as the results of their policies and the use of distractions, lies and smears almost daily are evident?

You are absolutely right; Michael Medved is wrong and so are all the others who continue to give Obama the benefit of every doubt. He is more than un-American; he is anti-American. What's more, I believe he is a Muslim committed to the destruction of America. If that makes me a wacko, then I'm a wacko.

Two questions:

1) So Medved is supposed to agree with Rush for the rest of his life on every issue, or he is disloyal? What is Medved supposed to be, loyal to Rush, or to what Medved believes is right and true? It's really odd that you seem to think Medved owes Rush anything, much less blind obedience the rest of his life. Now, if Medved ever promised such fielty, fine. If there was a verbal or even nonverbal understanding to that effect, fine.

2)Do you have any idea at all what the Fairtax fine print is about? Did you know that Fairtax fine print has massive hidden taxes on city and state governments -- that it's own official spokesmen admit they have never told city or state official about this tax?

California state government, for example,would owe 16 -18 billion to the federal government. TExas, 11-12 billion. Florida, 12-13 billion.

Every city in every state too. Did you know that? Yes or no?

If you claim you knew that, why not discuss this massive surprise tax on city and state governments? If you did not know, why not?

http://fairtaxfineprint.blogspot.com/

Otherwise, you have a very good blog

I believe that Mr. Medved, like so many in the Slobbering Media, gives this man a pass simply because he’s our first Black President. Silly me, but I don’t see a privileged boy attending elite Prep schools raised in the tropical paradise of Hawaii by his WHITE grandparents as having anything remotely resembling the experience of a typical urban African American. I find him simply a radical offspring of the far left loons you mentioned and particularly the most successful disciple of the father of Community Organizers – Saul Alinsky – and the anti-Semitic, anti-American Black Liberation / Marxist Theologian Jerimiah Wright. It is fascinating that his betrayal of his benefactor backs this up. Some of us believe that there have been several "bad" presidents but we were fortunate to survive their misdeeds. This does not logically mean that it will always be so. Perhaps one day one bad president can bring this country down or at least do irreparable harm. It concerns me that a so-called Conservative is so quick to defend this radical community organizer occupying the white house and in the same breath able to throw his benefactor under the bus. Medved is a fraud and conservatives who listen to this man should consider spending their time more wisely – which would be to listen to just about any other conservative talk show.

The best one-word description of Obama, his philosophy, his policies, his goals is "alien." Alien to America, to American history, to American values, to American Exceptionalism. Alien, fits him perfectly in every respect.

America needs to wake up to the fact that there is a fox in the hen(white)house. While unthinkable to most people, we need only to follow the trail of socialist programs back to their disloyal source to discover the truth. There is an underlying theme here that anyone can see if we would only pay closer attention.

Michael Medved runs a decent radio show (to which I listen often) but he does have his off moments. Of course, anyone believing (fervently) in Bigfoot is bound to jump the tracks once in a while. He certainly is wrong on this one...

Excellent post. Obama is every bit as much a threat to America today as Adolph Hitler was to Germany in the 1930s.

"Mushy moderates" like Michael Medvid, are being co-opted by the Multiculturalist enemies of America.

"Then it is the brave man chooses while the coward stands aside; till the multitude make virtue of the faith they had denied."

Obama, confesses, what he is, in every canned, written for him, speech... a 12 year old Valley Girl, with the cutesy, abreviated, word endings, and, a curtsy, after every, speech... He's a masochistic, closet case, looking for a black daddy, to whup his non presidential, pansy, ass.

Well, let's see...From the article above: "... I feel a measure of compassion for him, given that he never chose the tragic childhood...". While I understand this viewpoint, and it is true that none of us choose our childhood, we do, as adults, have the choice of either seeking retribution for it or rising above it. Obama has clearly chosen the former, and that is where my compassion ends. As for Mark and the "FairTax fine print", let me spell it out for him: The way the fair tax works is there is no IRS, no central collection agancy for the Federal Government, so the individual states collect the tax and then forward it to the Federal Government. Can we all please get over the idea that tax cuts /cost/ money? It's an asinine argument.

*** Heard in passing *** (Passing the TV while Bill Oreally was again pretending to be a conservative)

Did he actually say (words to the affect) "birthers are pin-heads because BO is NOT a moo-slim." Does he really NOT understand the implications of BOs citizenship and/or parentage to the extent that he believes it has ANYTHING to do with religion?

Steam pressure reduced :)

Jack

I am sorry to hear that Medved betrayed a good friend that gave him the opportunity to advance his career. I do believe Obama is a socialist/communist. My parents came from the first country taken over by communism, Ukraine. And, when I heard Obama speaking when he was running for the WH, I knew from his slogans, they are the same ones used repeatedly by the communists from the past. They lie and are very good liars, and may swear on the bible and actually believe what they lie about is the truth. Look at Obama's record, he says one thing to be the truth only believed by him, but the next day it is not the truth because something else is stated.

Best said by Walt Whitman "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive"..

Very good descriptions and analysis of the Boy King.From an early age Obama sat and listened to stories from the Communist Frank Marshall Davis and grew up in the midst and inspired from other radicals. His parents and grandparents, Communists all. Certainly the old axiom, "guilty by association," fits pretty well, but more evidence is, it's in his DNA. But giving him the benefit of the doubt and if none of this is proof, the one question that Congress will not address, why is it healthy for our nation for a sitting President to be surrounded by radicals such as he has around him?

Fantastic article, puts it exactly where it's at! Thank you many times over.

I think Medved in a certain sense has blinders on because he has no love for Obama's presidency. He has stated more than once that he is misguided, wrong, even incompetent. He is loath, however, to call him a bad man or otherwise impugn his motives because he refuses to be seen as extreme or unwilling to welcome the folks in the "middle". At the end of the day, is he wrong to refuse to label the president in the same way that Limbaugh has? I don't think so, because he absolutely opposes all of the president's leftist policies. Seems a lot like, "Hate the sin, but love the sinner" to me.

"Ideological Socialists are not interested in the good of the nation or its people. Instead, they are driven by their own lust for power over the same."

And you know this because . . .?

You're aware that the well-known "socialist," Thomas Jefferson, said the wealthy should pay to educate the poor, right?

Like most if not all of his rightwing brethren, Medved peddles half-truths to half-wits, and is much more concerned about "strategy" than truth and his missing integrity.

I read every Patriot Post and listen to Michael Medved regularly. This is one area on which I vehemently oppose Medved.

Conservatives are generally too gentlemanly to call names but socialist is not a name it is a description. Meanwhile liberals have won the debate by being terse, succinct, descriptive and repetitive. We are racist, homophobs, hate children and old people. Conservatives rebut by saying "the current CBO figures state that the 2011 budget reflects....zzzzzzz".

The real overarching battle in this country is between capitalism, which resides in the Republican Party, and socialism, which lives and breathes in the Democrat Party. Unless conservatives can put this battle into focus, we are doomed.

David Telles

Re:Alexander's Essay – February 17, 2011

When the Right Is Wrong--Excellant observation. Obamas 'tactics' are so overtly obvious it is hard to understand how so few can see them. Stay vigilant and keep up the good fight. Regards Andrew

Terry, just for the record (I was certain it was Shakespeare!)

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_wrote_''Oh_what_a_tangled_web_we_weave_when_first_we_practice_to_deceive''

Whatever Obama says of himself, we know that he is for embryonic stem cell research, abortion, homosexual celebration, artificial economic policies, disdain for the military, etc.

Obama IS a bad man.

I listen to Medved about an hour each day while driving (only time I listen to the radio) What I have heard him say repeatedly is: stick to the major issues for debate. I don't agree with him about 20 percent of the time, and vehemently disagree on one issue in particular--but unlike the other poster comments here, I don't see him a candidate for targeting, isolating and personalizing (name calling) as Saul Alinsky advocates in his book "Rules for Radicals." ---BTW

Nice touch by the author to paint Medved with sole credentials as a "film critic," as if that is the depth of his education and entire experience. But I guess we all spin when it suits us.

While I can't stand his RINO attributes on principle, I love the looney toon Leftard calls: no one can attract them from the bowels of Haight Ashbury/Castro District like Medved. Most offensive is his daily WASP ambush: if it has white skin, is Christian, likes the 2A, speaks English---he can't resist unleashing upon them with a banjo strumming tune from "Deliverance" and a sarcastic, snooty laugh.

To mis-quote a really famous person [Forrest Gump], "A 'bad' man is what a 'bad' mad does."

[Stupid is as stupid does]

How else can a person be known except by what he says and what he acctually does?

King Solomon says "even children are known by their actions."

Not a "bad man" but one who wishes to see America improved by Sharia Law. Look at what he does - don't listen to what he says, unless you wish to contrast the two. He lies to non-believers and that is OK according to the Quran!

David Telles you are correct. We conservatives are too timid and urbane to really speak our true feelings. We are also schooled to live by what we are not like Democrats who have a far different constituency who are used to hearing something three times and it becomes facts. Vilifying, insulting and character assasination is the hallmark of the Democratic Party.

I'm a registered Reublican, was raised by my parents who had a deep abiding love and respect for Republican ideals. Sadly, I find myself so far removed from what I see today by those claiming to carry the mantel of Republicanism, I no longer feel part of the Party. I'm sorry to say, I see no great statesmen who are Republicans in the truest sense of most historical definitions. I see only sound bites meant to inflame emotions instead of rational thought, a presenting of factual and relevant evidence meant to truly educate the populace. I also see nothing from the left that meets these same criteria. I fear for my Country, our Country simply because civil discourse has been replaced by pure ideology and no nation in recorded history has sustained itself when one side thinks and believes it is always right. Our Nation was Founded upon the principles of compromise, our Founders knew it would be the only way our Nation could possibly survive. Sadly, it is a thing of the past and both sides of the aisle would seek our destruction simply because an ideology trumps rationality.

Regards to all,

Gordon

A very interesting "essay" from "The Patriot Post" editor. Perhaps M. Medved's new Seattle employer paid enough to sway his opinion/convictions. After all, Seattle is sometimes referred to as the North Left Coast.

All true Mark and I agree with you 100% concerning Obama and the agenda on the Left. I expect this from progressives and socialists; I’m not surprised or disappointed by it. What I am disappointed about is the continued lip service, lies and corruption from the GOP.

Here are a few more things the Right is Wrong about; Islamic terrorists hate us because we’re free, nation building in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Egypt etc, our military presence in 150 countries around the world, preemptive war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, the Financial Services Modernization Act, who we owe most of the national debt to, earmarks don’t matter, failure to introduce a balanced budget amendment.

You could not have been more correct or articulate in what you said. Perhpas Medved, being an admitted, former Democrat and liberal, has the same problem that Dennis Prager says Jews have over not being able to completely separate themselves from their liberal leanings asquired as new immigrants. He feels those leanings have been passed on, almost as a cultural identity, from generation to generation, even when they vote and say things that make no sense.

It has to do, in my opinion, with the difficulties they faced and had to overcome as immigrants, to become a great part of America, by having to be liberal activists at the time. They just can not get over those experiences and move on into the modern world of politics.

I have many, many conservative Jewish friends, who can not explain to me why they keep voting liberal election after election, when in most other things, they are conservative.

For Medved to critize Rush in that manner, who is responsible for his success, connoted to me that his ego is getting so large, it is becoming a liability to his continued success. I used to be a farily regular listerner, but lately, I had already begun to tune him out because I perceived he is becoming less astute, and more impressed with his own opinion.

I would go further and argue that based on a 2001 interview Obama gave on WBEZ FM out of Chicago, that he knows full well the limits the U.S. Constitution places on Presidential and Congressional authority and is deliberately violating those Constitutional limits.

In that interview he acknowledges that the Founders intentionally placed constrains on what the federal government could and could not do. He acknowledges that the Constitution does not give the federal government the power to do things for the people. The very things he and his allies on the left have been doing.

I would call that a willing and cognizant violation of his oath of office.

Sorry Mark, you are way off the mark. We have had several BAD MEN in the White House. Most notable in my lifetime are Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton. Lyndon was a double dealing thug, who ruled with an iron fist. He's have made a great Stalin for the USA.

While Clinton has some good points, I find it hard not to call a man bad that has no moral standards that are recognizable. As for Obama, the jury is still out. As for Limbaugh, just because he's right some of the time does not mean he's right allthe time. Medved may have a point. I really don't think Obama intends to destroy the country. Like most liberals he does not understand what the end result of his policies and ideas will be. He may be, like Jimmy Carter was, highly principled. But his liberal policies are destined to destroy what we have worked to attain.

Clear, consise and right on the money. I think the problem with Medved and others is that they are "charmed" by the man and cannot divorce the charming charismatic person from the reality of who BO really is. Thank you for the review of BO's background which I believe - as you clearly do - contributes overwhelming to the basis for his beliefs, and his character (or I would submit, "lack of character"). It's the "content of the character" that we should be looking at, not his artful spin or eloquent words.

Responding to Alexander's essay "When the right is Wrong": Mr. Alexander, when you are right, you are right, as usual.

I agree with Michael Medved. Obama wants all the wrong policies for this country, but it isn't out of desire to hurt America. He is a true believer who honestly believes that what he wants is the best way. And since he knows better than the rest of us, the ends justify the means.

Frankly, it is a stupid argument to waste time, effort and energy on. We should focus on how badly his policies work and communicate that to the American people instead of wasting time speculating on his motives. In the end, motives don't matter; performance and results do.

Rarely is there new wisdom. Frequently are there forgotten lessons.

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance" — Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43BC)

Who will be our Gibbon? Who will write "The History of the Decline and Fall of the American Republic"?

Mark,

I love your no nonsense, tell it like it is editorials. God bless you and your dedicated staff.

Keep up the good work. My wife and I will support in generous prayer and financially as "change" will permit.

Thank you.

Kerry and Shirley

If conservatives are to stage a big comeback in the next election, they need to stop this pointless name calling and labeling of other people.

Hammer away on the national debt. Hammer away on government spending.

Cynically, I wonder if the whole move to get rid of "don't ask/don't tell" was a clever ploy to distract the conservative movement and allow its critics to portray it as a bunch of Bible-thumping homophobic hicks.

Right On!! Although I have heard Michael Medved on the radio numerous times, I never would have taken him for a conservative and was not surprised to read your words that he was a former Democrat operative. I was surprised to read that he guest hosted for Rush Limbaugh. I personally agree with you, Rush and Hannity as well as others that Mr. Obama is not doing what he thinks is best for America, but is systematically, along with others such as Pelosi and Reid, working to undermine the principles of the Constitution and bring socialism in as the economic and political system. Their deceit and arrogance should be an indicator of their true motives. I wonder how Mr. Medved and others cannot see what has been clearly obvious. These people must be willfully choosing to disbelieve the plain evidence, or they are in agreement.

Again you have given the reader a clear and consise description of the person who occupies the highest office in this republic. You ask how Medved can't see this and I ask why can't the average person with a modicum of logic see this?

Thank you, thank you, thank you. This needs to be stated over and over in ever widening circles. Most Americans still do not understand the threat this man, who wishes to "fundamentally transform" our nation, poses to us all.

A PS to my above remarks.

With Obama being such a danger to this country, as clearly recognized daily in this forum, I have an urgent plea to make to the Patriot Post.

I have tried with every limited means I have at my disposal, to have the conservatie media address one simple question. I have talked and/or written to Prager, Medved, O'Reilly, Hannity, Van Susteren, and almost any other prominent conservative media personality of whom I am aware, excluding yourself.

I would beg you from the bottom of my soul, to please bring up a discussion of the term and concept of a "natural born" citizen. It does not matter where Obama was born, therby completely eliminating the term "birther". He is currently a citizen of both the U.S. and Great Britain due to his father's nationality at the time of his birth (unless, of course, he is the illegitimate son of Frank Marshall Davis, which would be a huge liability for his re-election, as well as it would have been for his election). Therefore, he is not "natural born", as required by Article Two, section one of the Constitution.

The term was specifically used by the Founders to keep a man like Obama from becoming "commander of the Army", as John Jay wrote George Washington. His whole personality, beliefs and contempt for this country came exactly, in my opinion, from the fact that he is not a "natural born" citizen. What seems to me to be a rational explanation of Obama's destructive attitudes and contempt that he holds toward this country, to which you alluded in your article, was expounded upon competently, in my opinion, by Dinseh D'Souza in his recent book, "The Roots of Obama's Rage".

This constant refusal of the conservative media to even discuss this issue (but instead, being afraid of being called "birthers") is aiding and abetting Obama to continue perpetrating this fraud against the Constitution and on the American people. Since he prides himself on being a "law professor" (which is a lie ths school proved last year by saying he was merely an instructor), he can hardly claim he was ignorant of not being a "natural born" citizen. That certainly qualifies as being a "high crime and misdemeanor" to me, when he fraudulently ran for President.

If Representative Issa would ivestigate that issue (as he promised to do during his campaign), and report what is the result to the Congress, then Speaker Boehner could bring impeachment charges against Obama and rid us of this obomination on our country without having to wait for the next election.

After over two years of my trying to bring about this discussion, the only reason I can possibly imagine why the conservative media are now afraid to discuss this subject openly would be the fear of riots by certain small segments of our society. Is that price too large to pay to stop a deeply injurious, obvious and openly blatant, violation of our Constitution? If we allow this, how great must a violation become before we address it to maintain the integrity of Constitution? I fear that if this is unaddressed, it will do irreparable damage to the Constitution and the rule of law in this country.

Please let us bring an end to the angst of, and damage to, the entire country is suffering because of this man, and avoid any further damage he may inflict on our nation by bringing this issue to the fore for the American people. Patriot Post is an entity with the national following and reputation that gives you the power to successfully bring this blatant, preplanned and devastating violation of our Constitution to the attention of our country. I fervently pray that you will do so.

Thank you and God Bless America.

Mark, your comments about Michael Medved are right on target. I am totally befuddled by his apparent blind spot where Pres. Obama is concerned, and have taken to listening to music rather than Medved's radio program. Wonder how many of us are doing that?!

In Mr. Medved's article, he calls into question the main point of the book "The Source of O'Bama's Rage." That the president is trying to fulfill is father's dream for Africa and other third world countries seems very likely. His actions towards anything English I believe can only be explained by his anti-colonial thinking even though he lived a life of privlidge compared to compared to others. Also one must ponder as the book does on what level his father's abandooment of him at the age of two

Mark, this one of your best columns!! I am in total agreement.

I could hardly be more surprised over what Medved has become after years of spokesman for the far right.I used to listen regularly to his program on

KVI fm 570?, the station which also carried Limbaugh and Hannity. I listen now exclusively to Fox News and just found out the other day that the station was sold and no longer exists so now there is no major conservative program left in the Puget Sound area. The Seattle Times the only major paper remaining now has gone completely over to the liberal side. The Eastside Journal which was mostly on the Republican side, also no longer exists So Puget Sound area has become a political wasteland. Oliver de Graaf

When was the last time a Republican Leader (still an oxymoron) called BHO a Communist? What no one has ever said that! They remind me of the jews in Germany that voted for Adolph. No surprise as the republican leadership are RINO's, CFR members or both.

Mr. Alexander's remarks on 2/17 seemed rather harsh to me, but a lot of what he said was true. Recently we heard Oprah Winfrey also say that Americans don't respect the office of the president, just as Mr. Medved did. Seems to be a theme running through the media. They equate what we feel about President's policies with the way we feel about him personally. To me there is no connection with the two.

Medved has long been a faux conservative. His talk show is billed as "Americas number one show on pop culture and politics" an intentionally misleading moniker. Listened to him for a few months when he replaced Sean Hannity on WLSS in Sarasota and became ever more disenchanted.

He appears to be a phoney who can quite shkae his liberal upbringing.

As to Presidant Obama you are correct in your opinion he is to be pitied. An unfortunate child of god who recognizes the worms in his heart each night when his head hits the pillow. Too bad he is doing so much harm to so many Americsns. We as Christians may abhor the acts but pity the man

I believe that Obama, since he swore to uphold the Constitution, is literally aiding and abetting known criminals by suing Arizona. Is he not to keep the citizenry of this nation protected and secure? The people coming across the border are from other places as well as Mexico & South America, they are called "OTM"s: "Other Than Mexican" & they hail from Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Egypt, Sudan, ETC., nations which sponsor terror & mean to do us harm. In my mind, that Obama, Inc. chose to sue/punish a state asking desperately for help, he has chosen to abdicate his sworn duty to protect us. Illegal aliens may come in through AZ, but depending upon the ambitions of these criminals - for that is what they are by virtue of one unauthorized footstep over the border - we are ALL put at additional risks which are separate from the economic disasters wreaked by their presence. Obama not only chose to punish AZ, but deliberately misrepresented SB1070 perpetuating & exacerbating existing animosity & misleading the public. By virtue of his siding with the law-breakers inflicting lawlessness, terror, financial ruin, murder, etc., he is a traitor and is BAD for the nation. Impeach.

Hannity is no great shakes either. He had on, the few times I listened to him, Gingrich and Karl Rove. And refered to them as conservatives. Gingrich is a CFR member. When he was Speaker of the House can you name one agency, department, bureau, etc. that was abolished? In 2005 when the House would not approve the budget, kommandant klinton started shutting parks and monuments. Gingrich could not jump fast enough to pass the budget and castigated House members that would not go along. Karl Rove was Bush the Younger's advisor. He brought us the patriot act, banned incandescent light bulbs, No Child Left Behind, McCain Feingold, pushed amnesty for illegal aliens (oops undocumented workers), etc. etc. etc. How do you say wolf in sheep's clothing?

Thank you for your insights. I appreciate the information. HOWEVER, there is something that I am growing weary of. At least one other person, Model Citizen and I agree-- Can we please stop the name calling and slandering of people? I believe that there is gray in ALL of us. No one is ALL bad or ALL good. No one is immune to the deadly poison of Pride. Obama is human! Of course he is subject to the same natural tendencies we all are.

Pride is the father of all other vices. Whenever I seek to elevate myself over another, I am subject to a fall! Pride was the great error of Rome.

There is a difference between being proud of our Nation and believing WE as a people are better than other humans on the planet or better than a democrat! Please tell me that it is possible to disagree on philosophies without being disagreeable.

I am proud of our Nation and grateful that I live here.

I am grateful for the informative essays on this site, but I am weary of the name calling and the manipulative play on our emotions. Honestly, I'm rather surprised to find it so abundant here lately--Ann Coulter, Michele Malkin and now you. What is up? I'm beginning to feel that in the world of political commentary it doesn't matter what side you are on as long as you can spin a more entertaining web of personal slander. It is getting extremely old. Democrats do it. Republicans do it. It is so easy to point out the faults of other people. We as a general population find it way too entertaining to see the faults of another's character exposed for selfish agendas.

I heartily agree that we must stop the socialist policies that the current administration is attempting to push through. I want a strong America. I want our liberties conserved. Let's stick to philosophies and facts. Let's learn from history rather than repeat it. Please keep this website on higher ground. I've appreciated this resource, but I am tired of the same old same old I'm finding everywhere else. Keep the low-ball name calling and shaming of individuals out of the commentaries, please!

Do a greater service with your words by presenting facts and philosophies so that I can make up my own mind and act on my individual interpretation of those facts. I don't need more entertainment.

That was the best, most concise, most complete, exact statement of the beliefs about our "President" that I carry to the core of my being. Thank you!

Jack J. Jones Jr.

Greenville, TX

Mark, thank you for clearly explaining and stating what many of us know - BHO is not a bumbling fool, rather a calculating idealogue and anti-colonialist bent on transforming America FROM its Constitution, roots, and Christian foundation. "Disloyal" may even be generous.

It is with great love and respect for this Nation that our Holy God led "We the People" to, founded her, and established her through us with His Divine Guidance. This man people keep referring to as president is a blatant lie; BHO has never been our president, is not, and never will be. Eighty percent of the people in this Nation want him ousted from our Government. He has demeaned our Nation at home and abroad. He began his tactics against our Nation YEARS ago, and even blasphemed our Lord's Sermon on the Mount in that "Call to Renewal" speech June 2006, BEFORE he made it know he was to 'run' for our Oval Office seat, of which he is not fit to sit. A muslim cannot take the Oath of our Holy GOD and it be legal...it is as dead as is his black heart, not speaking of his race, for he is not black, and that further enforces his unbalanced psyche, for it is severely fractured due to his 'messed up' childhood. His own Kenyan grandmother stated in his campaigning that she midwifed his birth in Kenya, and that she ought to KNOW, for she was there. ALL OF THESE PROBLEMS PEOPLE KEEP WITNESSING DAILY WOULD ALL DROP OUT OF SIGHT AS NULL AND VOID BECAUSE WE HAVE AN IMPOSTER WITH ABSOLUTELY NO CREDENTIALS TO HIS CREDIT THAT HE WILL BRING FORWARD - WHY??? BECAUSE HE DOES NOT HAVE ANY AND HE IS AN ILLEGAL. THE PRESENT GROUP OF POLITICIANS ARE ASHAMED TO ALLOW THE WORLD TO SEE THAT THEY ALLOWED AN UNFIT TO SIT PERSON IN OUR SACRED OVAL OFFICE BECAUSE HE HAS NOT BEEN VETTED, AND THEY WILL NOT PRESSURE HIM TO SHOW HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE BECAUSE HE DOES NOT HAVE ONE. WE HAVE A GROUP OF CASTRATED POLITICIANS, AND BOEHNER HAS PROVEN HE IS WORTHLESS TO OUR CAUSE TO PRESERVE OUR SOVEREIGNTY, IN HIS STATEMENT LAST SUNDAY 13TH, THAT HE BELIEVED BHO WAS CHRISTIAN AND BORN IN HAWAII. WE AND MANY OTHERS KNOW DIFFERENT, BUT WE ARE TAKING NOTES ON EVERYONE IN OUR GOVERNMENT WHO SIDES WITH HIS TREASONOUS EMENY...HE IS MUSLIM AND PATIENT, AND IS WORKING PIECE BY PIECE TO DESTROY OUR NATION OF "WE THE PEOPLE" and make it a muslim state. MAY OUR HOLY GOD DESTROY US ALL BEFORE WE BOW TO ANY MUSLIM. THIS IS PURE DECEIT AND ALL THOSE MEN WHO REFUSE TO CALL THIS IMPOSTER ON THE CARPET OF THE COURTS WILL FACE OUR HOLY GOD FOR THEY HAVE ALLOWED A SATAN WORKER IN GOD'S HOLY PLACE THAT HE NEVER INTENDED TO HAVE BLEMISHED IN SUCH A WAY. WE HAVE SENT THOUSANDS OF LETTER AND ALL KINDS OF DOCUMENT TO BOTH POLITICIANS AND SCOTUS, ALL TO NO AVAIL. THIS IS AN OUTRAGE TO OUR UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. ALL OTHER COUNTRIES REALIZE HE IS DEMEANING AND DESTROYING OUR NATION; WE NEED TO PUSH OUR LAWS THROUGH QUICKLY TO MAKE ALL CONTENDERS FOR ANY GOVERNMENT OFFICE PROVIDE LEGAL AND TRUE DOCUMENTS AS TO THEIR NATIONAL HERITAGE BORN IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND ALL OVER QUALIFICATIONS LEGAL NO MATTER WHAT; THIS SHOULD BE TAKEN CARE OF QUICKLY BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION, OR IS IT THAT ALL THESE WIMPY POLY-TICKS ARE WANTING OUR NATION TO FAIL! WE ARE THE TENANTS OF THIS LAND GOD LED US TO, GOD OWNS IT, AND THOSE WHO DO NOT WORK TO KEEP HIS SOVEREIGNTY IN THIS NATION WILL HAVE HELL TO PAY IN THE JUDGMENT!!!

"Obama's Socialist foundation was shaped by black radical Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist Party USA member who mentored Obama for most of his formative years"? Are you sure?

Although Obama's book indicates "Frank" was a family friend who offered him advice on racial issues, Obama wrote that Davis "fell short" and his views were "incurable." Obama's book proves that Obama did not consider Davis to be a "wise and trusted counselor," which is the standard definition of "mentor." By what creative definition can Davis be considered his "mentor"?

Further, according to "Dreams," Obama visited Davis only twice on his own after visiting with Gramps: once to discuss his grandmother's bus stop incident, and three years later before leaving for college. When did this alleged "socialist" training occur?

You may have been misinformed regarding Frank Marshall Davis. If you examine primary source evidence (e.g. Davis's own writings), you will find that he has been severely misrepresented by Dr. Kengor and others, such as AIM's Cliff Kincaid, in their revisionist "opposition research" reports.

Davis NEVER advocated socialism, communism, Marxism, or collectivism. There is no evidence that Davis EVER discussed these topics with Obama, or that Obama was even aware of Davis's CPUSA connection. Misrepresenting Davis was collateral damage that enabled critics to more easily smear Barack Obama.

Analysis of Kengor’s “Dupes” suggests that Kengor himself is still "duping" his audience by falsifying evidence against Davis, as identified on National Review Online at http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/248877/obama%E2%80%99s-communist-mentor-paul-kengor?page=1. Such blatant misrepresentation cannot be condoned by any person of integrity.

As posted on National Review: Contrary to Davis’s actual 1950 “Frank-ly Speaking” column, which has been posted online for years (http://www.hawaii.edu/uhwo/clear/HonoluluRecord1/frankblog1950.html), critics claim that Davis SUPPORTED socialism, when in fact Davis REJECTED socialism (i.e., letting “the government own and operate our major industries”). Davis said socialism was a “HORROR”!

Davis said that we didn’t have free enterprise any more. Davis supported small businessmen, which he considered a “casualty” of monopolies. He said they are the BACKBONE of free enterprise.” He said we had to decide to OUST the monopolies, which were driving us down the road to ruin, and restore a competing system of free enterprise. In the ACTUAL ”Free Enterprise or Socialism” column from which Kengor stacks his evidence, Davis wrote:

“As for free enterprise, it doesn’t live here any more. At the same time we have manufactured a national horror of socialism. Meanwhile, the dictatorship of the monopolies is driving us down the road to ruin. And so, with still rising unemployment and a mounting depression, the time draws nearer when we will have to decide to oust the monopolies and restore a competing system of free enterprise, or let the government own and operate our major industries.”

“Backbone of Free Enterprise Broken: In this control by monopoly, the small businessman, the backbone of free enterprise, has been a casualty. He cannot compete against the tremendous financial reserves of the huge monopolies, and thus we find more and more forced into bankruptcy or absorbed by the monopolies. Those small businessmen who supported the Marshall Plan have been unable to get but a pittance of orders, for here it’s the Big Boys Who, through their contacts with official Washington, walk off with the fat contracts.”

Thanks for your consideration.

"Truth is generally the best vindication against slander." - Abraham Lincoln

Hear, Hear, Mark! I was disappointed in Michael Medved's remarks, as well. I agree with your conclusions. Sadly, our citizens have fallen asleep at the wheel. By the time,they wake up it may be too late!

Electronic letter sent today, January 17, 2011 to Michael Medved Radio Show

KRLA 870 AM (12:00 to 3:00 PM Pacific Standard Time)

Conservative Talk Show Station

Introduction: I have been listening to Mr. Medved talk show for some time now with certain regularity and even though he presents himself as a Conservative host, every once in a while his left wing origin show its dirty ear. He typically engages in heated arguments with callers when they dare to admit that they believe the President wants to destroy purposely the political and economical system our founding fathers created for our nation based on the implementation of the US Constitution as written in 1787 with the amendments approved since. I among many in our Country believe that the President, in order to drastically change the USA (as he promised before his election) necessarily has to destroy the existing system of government including of course its economic base, in order to implement (what he considers) a “more just society” based on wealth redistribution, from the productive elements of the society to the non productive elements. Both economic systems are incompatible and history has taught us that in order to implement one you have to eliminate the other. Of course the President does not want to destroy for the sake of destroying. He thinks (with a complete disregard for recent history) that he has the right idea to make everybody equal and happy. Many before him have had the same or similar ideas but all ended in catastrophic failures after ruining strong free economies and starving and corrupting their people.

Your continuous defense of the President and assuming, preaching and arguing with your callers that he does not want to hurt or destroy our economic and political system. Today you called a caller “ridiculous and stupid conservative” because he did not agree with you in “giving the President the benefit of the doubt”.

Have it occur to you that you may be the ridiculous and stupid conservative you are talking about? For an intelligent talk show host as yourself not to understand that in order for Obama to implement his socialist agenda he has to destroy the existing political and economic system because there is no way to make it coexist with the free enterprise system. This is what Castro did in Cuba, Stalin did in Russia and Mao did in China. Don’t you think Stalin wanted to destroy the economy and sacrifice 20 million Russian kulaks to install a system that, he thought, would be better and more just than what existed in Russia at the time?

I don’t believe Castro wanted to impoverish Cuba and kill thousands in order to create the miserable economic and political system that enslaves today the whole Cuban population. He like Stalin and Obama thought he had a better idea to make everybody in the land happy. They were all arrogant and believed they had the right solution and to implement it it was justifiable to kill millions and destroy prosper and successful economies because at the end they would reach utopia or heaven in earth.

Modern day potential tyrants as well as traditional ones always justify their evil actions stating they are in pursuit of ultimate welfare for the people. It is sad your amazing memory and extensive knowledge of history does not help you connect the dots and recognize what is so obvious to many of us with some painful experiences in the subject.

Ike M. Gonzalez

Mark, I agree complitely with your disection of both, Barak Hussein Obama and his appoligist Radio talk show host Michael Medved. Exactly a month ago I sent an electronic letter to Mr. Medved (see previous comment above) expressing my opinion, coincident with yours, about the President and critizicing him (Mr. Medved) for his continuous defense and justification of the obvious Socialistic policies he has implemented since he assumed office. It stil baffles me how ridiculous it is to try to hide or justify the necessary attempt to downfall our free enterprise system to replace it with what he thinks is a better system, with "social justice" for everybody.

No, President Obama's primary political objective IS NOT to distroy or dismantle the economic and political system he found in operation when he took office, REALLY.....? I DON'T THINK SO!

When Obama announced that he intended to "fundamentally transform" America, he essentially stated he wants to change America's culture, traditions and way of life. If he liked America, he wouldn't want to make those changes.

When he goes out of his way to deny his socialist, anti capitalist beliefs despite actions to the contrary, and when he attempts to conceal critical details regarding his personal background, such as his birth records, he clearly cannot be trusted to be acting in the best interests of America as we know her and love her.

How wrong the right can be

Again, thank you for your insight. The wolf in sheep's clothing is how I would define the current W.H. occupant.

When the Right is Wrong:

Healthcare

Deficit Spending

Taxes

Environmental Policy

Foreign Policy

"Me" Society instead of a "We" Society

The list goes on and on...Mark, I think you missed a few.

Well stated and good comments!

Michael is certainly caught off first base. Terms like evil genius and diabolical just don't apply. Zero's not evil, just not American. To say he's a genius belongs on Leno. And diabolical doesn't fit either. He's a radical leftist who's not American and not smart. The word vacuum is a better fit. Watch what he does not what he says. "Obama: not doing everything he says he would, doing everything he said he wouldn't." Sarah and Rush are spot on.

Mr. Alexander,

In Christian love I must strongly encourage you to remove the Obama button. Lev. 24:16; Ex. 20:7.

The message of that picture is clear and it is dangerous ground to tread upon. Though it may be the attitude of BHO, it does not become Christians to even repeat this sinful sentiment!

In Jesus Christ alone,

Rob Risko

a “more just society” based on wealth redistribution, from the productive elements of the society to the non productive elements."

Know who else advocated a more just society based on wealth redistribution? That well-known socialist Richard Nixon, whose administration proposed a guaranteed family income.

"Justice is the end [goal] of government." - James Madison

"Eighty percent of the people in this Nation want him ousted from our Government."

Another "fact" from rightwinger Alice in Wonderland world.

Mark's essay is right on target but still understates the problem. Mr. Obama and those that think like him don't really care if it works or not. Socialism is a way to increase the power of government and they are in government. Its purely a selfish job security issue. Think about it. A call for the growth of government and you happen to be running the government! In fact as the population become more dependent on government, those folks who agree with that policy are guaranteed tenure in an ever growing workforce.

This essay, When the Right Is Wrong, provides the clearest and most concise assessment of Obama's political objectives I have read anywhere, and I appreciate the fact that Alexander and The Patriot are always consistent in their advocacy of our Constitution, whether that means taking on a Democrat or Republican!

Amen, Brother! Enough said.

Mark Alexander's "Medved" rebuttal is as intelligent as it is irrefutable. Barack Hussein Obama is such a complete disaster as president that asserting he has America's best interest at heart, in and of itself, suggests a severe and prolonged lack of oxygen.

Mr.Obama's golden tongue cannot conceal his socialist heart.

Well said, Mr. Alexandar. I'm livid at what the-current-resident-in-the-White-House is doing to our country perhaps through ignorance, but most likely on purpose. I don't "hate" him personally--just his ways, his actons, his arrogance, his inability to connect with the citizens of this country. I really tire of the accusations tossed about so freely toward those of us who do not agree with him. We have a right to voice our opinions, our fears, and our objections to what this man is doing to our country. We have more than enough proof to sustain both the ojections AND the fear.

I love the Post but your attack on Michael Medved was very upsetting to me. I agree with Michael, although your arguments are quite logical, Obama is not TRYING to destroy America, he is just terribly wrong. But the bigger point is that we must defeat Obama and his liberal agenda in 2012 to save this nation, and trying to convince people he is evil will not do it - even if it were correct. There are three groups of voters - the Conservatives need no convincing to vote against Obama, the Liberals will vote for him if he were Satan himself, it is the Independents we must convince and if we try to tell them he is evil they will turn away from us. We need them and we can and must convince them that Obama is - as William F Buckley might have said - 'Intelligent, educated, well spoken, erudite and on every conceivable subject -Wrong!' - That approach will win - otherwise we will find ourselves exclaiming 'see we told you so' as our country crashes around us.

In his intent to defend Michael Medved theory about the President, Mr. Eliason uses the argument "if we try to tell them (independent voters) that he is evil they will turn away from us". He got it complitely wrong because the disection of Mr. Obama does not depict that he is evil and no one has acused him of been evil. The right description is that he is an ideologe Marxist and his agenda is to change complitely our Nation and convert it into a Socialist Democracy 'a la European' and in order to achieve his goals HE NECESERALY HAS DO DISMANTLE OR DESTROY OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT AND OUR ECONOMY. Is that so dificult to understand and accept? Not to me but aparently Mrss. Medved and Eliason do not get it.

The reality is that Medved has never been a conservative and his words from the last 8 years have demonstrated it repeatedly. In fact, I and another colleague interviewed him in 2003 in St. Paul, MN, wherein we addressed the illegal immigration issue. He openly stated that opponents of the open-borders lobby are "racist" and xenophobic. If one listens to his radio program on AM1280 the Patriot here in MN, it would be difficult to find a conservative sentiment within his words. This man is not now nor has he ever really been a conservative.

Barack Obama's presidency should be viewed through the prism of Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

He is not intentionally sabotaging the country. He adopts his policies because he thinks that they are the right thing to do. He is a true believer. No one was more surprised than he when they totally failed.

Ultimately, the debate should be about whether his ideas work, not about his motives. It is on the grounds of his incompetency that we can beat him, not on the grounds of his being a Hitler or a Stalin (because he clearly isn't).

It is all well and good that we recognize who the President is and what he is doing.

But if we do nothing because of his skin color for fear of being called names then we are as guilty as he of treason.

Now he hs declared open war on the voters and tax payers using the unions as the armys he spoke of when he was running for election and we do nothing.

Obviously Medved is excusing Obama, just like the rest of his ilk. Giving aid and comfort to our enemies is one of Obama's hallmark behaviors; and he so stated, from the beginning; he'd come down on the side of ISLAM in any conflict; Islam, at least those who support Sharia, which includes the entire global Muslim Brotherhood IS the ENEMY of the US and the rest of the NON-MUSLIM world, period! They have made that abundantly clear; yet Obama consistently continues to provide support to various branches of that group, both directly and indirectly, while attacking the moral values and beliefs of the majority of Americans equally consistently, and IGNORING the Constitution and rule of law entirely. To say he believes in a "living" Constitution is a joke; there is only ONE Constitution, and you either believe in and support IT or not; Obama does NOT!

All I remember about Medved, wasn't he a "warmed over hippy" who graduated in 1965??????

Whoever he was or is, this topic sure brought out the "troops". How about the one from commentor "Kaleokualoha" defending Frank Marshall Davis!!!!!??????

Thanks, Howard Last, for your comments. You give good American Historical comments.

I was wondering about these "Christian comments". PS. 139:31,32, "Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with a perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies." I will add this, God and I have the same enemies. People, what's down in a person's heart comes out. "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh. Luke 6:45 "A good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit...wherefore by their fruits you'll know them" Matt. 7:17,20. People are composed of body, soul, and spirit, you don't separate those entities or you don't have a person. People are responsible for their actions and their words and they are judged accordingly, that's common sense.

For God & Country

The American

@ Odin re: 02 18 11 at 20:20 -- On the subject of Paris Hilton: the very same right that says your children are morally entitled to your estate - rather than your neighbors, or the people that make bad decisions (like my neice) and then expect the system to pull them out of the meat grinder (like my neice).

You are not outraged that the government can (after you ride the Sleipnir Express) take a huge chunk of everything you have worked for and planned on dividing among your friends and family - and give the proceeds to people you may not know (or worse, bear a righteous and raging contempt for)?

Are you sure you sacrificed your eye at the correct well, Odin?

I submit the following evidence: "Good men" do not lie habitually and glibly. President Obama's regular dishonesty is breathtaking.

"Whoever he was or is, this topic sure brought out the "troops". How about the one from commentor "Kaleokualoha" defending Frank Marshall Davis!!!!!??????"

RESPONSE: That "one" posted irrefutable primary source evidence that Davis rejected socialism. That "one" provided irrefutable proof that Davis was misrepresented.

Of course, this only matters if you are actually interested in the truth, rather than disinformation from Paul Kengor and others. If you would rather believe unsubstantiated fantasies rather than fact-based evidence, you are not alone. You can be like a "Good German" and believe unsubstantiated claims about Davis, just as Germans believed unsubstantiated claims about Jews (e.g., "Protocols of the Elders of Zion).

As a retired Air Force Intelligence Officer with specific training in Deception Analysis by the C.I.A. in 1989, I am familiar with political disinformation. I am familiar with disinformation campaigns, including Pope Gregory's misrepresentation of Mary Magdalene, Russian and German misrepresentation of Judaism, Operation Fortitude protecting the D-Day invasion, Operation Left Hook protecting the coalition drive into Kuwait, and the misrepresentation of the Iraqi threat this century.

As a fair-minded thinker, you may be interested in this cordial exchange between myself and Max Friedman, Cliff Kincaid's researcher: http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2009/05/31/judge-sonia-sotomayor-and-singing-sensation-susan-boyle/#comment-13017. Only the last few comments pertain to this situation. Please note that Max agreed to follow through with Cliff Kincaid regarding the specific misrepresentation I had identified in June 2009. Not a peep was heard from him since then.

"Have patience awhile; slanders are not long-lived. Truth is the child of time; erelong she shall appear to vindicate thee." - Immanuel Kant

Kaleokualoha,

Frank Marshall Davis was an "identified member of the CPUSA, The Communist Party, United States of America" in Congressional hearings.

The Communist were "recruiting" for their "revolts" on the Campuses of this Country for many years before Hussein's Mother came of age, to offer herself to be part of the "revolts".

I know about Kent State and SDS and their nefarious ways and doings. They fomented and incited on the Campus of Kent State before they lead the "revolt" which caused all of the trouble. But as they always do, "they get out Dodge, before the shootin' starts", so they are preserved to go on to cause more trouble and insurrection.

Same thing was going on at Berkeley in California, they sent the "revolters" down to San Diego to insult the returning Vietnam Veterans. Just ask the Vietnam Veterans about their treatment coming through San Diego, returning from the War, There's a "pay day" for what those radicals did with their insults to our Veterans ie Jane Fonda, et al.

So defend Frank Marshall Davis, if you want to, you don't have the facts, The United States Government certified that he was a Communist, he was "actively pursuing goals against America."

I want my Beloved America back, from whatever the enemies have perpetrated against US. Socialism is just one step on the ladder, down to destruction and the ground floor is Godless Communism. God established this Nation, that His Kingdom would come and His will would be done on earth as in Heaven. Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Ten Commandments of Almighty God, Triune Foundations of this Blessed Constitutional Republic.

For God & Country

The American

Odin, aren't you late for a rally in Wisconsin?

I would dare to ask Medved: if Obama's marxist track record of actions and words do not constitute outright treason, what would?

I agree with David and Charles.

I think that Obama is a true believer and really does care for at least what his vision of this country is. You can still love your country while you fundamentally disagree with it.

I am not too quick to name call Obama like many others are. You see, our Country is not going to fall from a direct "socialist" attack, it will fall from within by true and sincere believers. They are the ones that get followers that stay loyal. Obama is one of them and not the overt big threat that some of us make him out to be. He is a more quiet threat and because of that will be much more dangerous.

While I do not always agree with Michael Medved, he was mostly correct on this one. I am afraid that Rush "rushed" to judgement too quickly on this one, completely missing Medved's point.

Yes, Mr. Medved's stance on the current administration surprised me. It seems that he was making excuses for Obama. Wrong is wrong and right is right. Obama knows full well of what he is doing. He would not become President if he were a stumbling idiot. Which makes Obama's actions even more evil.