So you're angry at ANSWER because it speaks for its conscience?

[Terran1212]

All of this reminds me of Dr. King's own turn against the Vietnam War. In his "Beyond Vietnam" speech, he mentions that civil rights activists across the country (as well as the clergy) told King not to speak out against Vietnam, not to "blur the issues" so as to take away support from the civil rights movement.

But he could not stay silent, because he knew that racism and war and poverty were linked, and he was not going to stay silent in the face of injustice because it might draw some "moderates" "away" from one cause or another.

And his strategy worked, mobilizing more people than ever across a wide range.

[Mr_Spock]

1. MLK had a strong base of support

He was extremely articulate and spoke with a singular voice (obviously as he was one person). Many of the ANSWER people were shrill and cursing people who didn't speak for me (and many others). JMHO though...

[gristy]

3. Good points

I especially fear that newly vocal newcomers to the anti-bush and anti-war movement will feel the same way. The speakers in SF were, just as you say, shrill and cursing, and received notably tepid support from the audience.

[bluestateguy]

2. I'm sure Osama bin Laden also speaks from his conscience too

Speaking from your conscience does not qualify one for sainthood. Nor does it remove one from being held accountable for what he/she says.

ANSWER is a whiny, hateful, pessimistic organization, full of narcissistic blowhards who just want to be the center of attention.

If they really had their druthers, Israel would be blown off the face of the planet. Well, I dislike Likud and Ariel Sharon, and I support Palestinian statehood, but I also think Israel has the right to exist as a nation-state too.

[newswolf56]

4. As far as I am concerned, any organization that demands the...

extinction of Israel (and thus the extermination of all Israelis) is no different from the Nazi Party and its demand for the extermination of all the Jews. And no, I am not Jewish, but I have been fortunate enough to number Holocaust survivors among my closest friends -- which makes A.N.S.W.E.R.'s murderously bigoted viciousness absolutely personal and even more repugnant -- all the more so for the voice it gives to the savagery of Islamic Fundamentalism.

I am as opposed to Islamic Fundamentalism as I am to its Christian counterpart: religious fundamentalism of any kind is the ultimate enemy of democracy, incompatible with even the most minimal personal liberty.

It is now obvious Bush launched the Iraq war not to liberate Iraq but to impose Islamic Fundamentalism on it. A.N.S.W.E.R. is thus in the ironic, infinitely hypocritical situation of supporting Islamic Fundamentalism while opposing a war Bush launched precisely to achieve a victory Islamic fundamentalists have sought for decades. Confusing to say the least -- though I suspect the underlying truth is revealed by the organization's undeniable links to the fundamentalists themselves.

I will not have my opposition to Bush's war (and my opposition to religious fundamentalism in general) perverted into a call for genocide against Israel. Indeed when Cindy Sheehan called for the elimination of Israel, I withdrew all my support from her -- and will not support her again unless she retracts her demand.


Edit: angry typos.

[Scurrilous]

5. Cindy Sheehan ...

...called for the elimination of Israel? Got a link to that statement? I'd like to read it.

[Malikshah]

6. I suspect you'll be waiting a while...

hyperbole is one of the first symptoms of sloppy thinking.

[newswolf56]

9. Not hyperbole, fact: see my #8.

[Scurrilous]

26. There were facts in post #8?

Sorry, all I saw was convoluted spin and opinion.

Still waiting for a link to where Cindy Sheehan called for the elimination of Israel.

[newswolf56]

28. Demanded links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Sheehan

Sheehan also gave a speech on August 5, 2005, at the Veterans for Peace convention in Texas, stating, "You get America out of Iraq, you get Israel out of Palestine".

Here's another: from the Crawford Peace House site:

http://crawfordpeace.nfshost.com/node/644

And another:

http://crawfordpeace.nfshost.com/node/636

And the final proof, in Sheehan's own words, from her address to the Veterans for Peace Convention, from the transcript on the Truthout website (scroll down to August 5, 2005):

http://www.truthout.org/cindy.shtml

You get America out of Iraq, you get Israel out of Palestine.

[Violet_Crumble]

29. Don't hold yer breath, Scurrilous...

She didn't call for the elimination of Israel, and all yr going to get is convoluted spin in an attempt to say she did...

Violet...

[Scurrilous]

30. Yep...

...I believe you're right.

[newswolf56]

33. Words have meaning:

"Israel out of the Occupied Territories" means one thing, "Israel out of Palestine" means quite another: the obliteration of Israel, the extermination of the Israelis. Sheehan said "Israel out of Palestine." Moreover -- given the enormous controversy in response to Sheehan's statement -- there is no doubt she was aware of the impassioned debate her words had provoked; as I showed by the above links, the debate took place even on her own (Crawford Peace House) website. Had Sheehan felt any need to deny she had called for the destruction of Israel, she could have done so. But she did not -- and in fact it was not the first such remark attributed to her (for which see the Wikipedia entry).

Clearly you will believe whatever you want about Cindy Sheehan and the Palestinians. As for me, I choose to accept the normal modes of evidence, and (without good reason for contrary reactions) to take such evidence at face value: whether a person's publicly-spoken words or the hatefulness expressed by suicide bombers.

It is also obvious you have merely been baiting me from the beginning; too bad I assumed this might be a real discussion and so gave up an evening with friends in my local saloon to do the research you requested. You'll forgive me if I'm a bit angry -- and never again trouble myself to respond to any of your posts.

[newswolf56]

8. Was reported (and discussed in detail) here on DU a few weeks ago.

In response to a reporter's question, Sheehan said terrorism would not end until Bush withdraws from Iraq and Israel is out of Palestine -- not the "occupied territories," but "Palestine." As I remember, this was around the middle of August. Note too in this context the map of the Middle East at the Cindy-sponsoring Crawford Peace House shows Palestine WITHOUT Israel: another endorsement of genocide. (I'm not a DU donor and thus am not allowed to use the "search" facility, so can't find a link, but there were several at the time, and -- as I said -- extensive discussion/controversy.)

[Violet_Crumble]

10. Sorry, but that's complete nonsense...

Do you think World Vision also supports genocide? I sponsor a Palestinian child and when I got the info sheet on her, it showed her country of residence as Palestine. I own a 'Free Palestine' t-shirt. Does that make me an advocate of genocide? Seriously, that's one of the silliest arguments I've ever seen, and possibly motivated more by a desire to vanish the term Palestine and Palestinians from everyone's vocabularly more than anything else. So, any time you see Israel mentioned without any added explanation that they're talking about Israel itself and not the Occupied Territories, I take it that you also see that as an endorsement of genocide?


Violet...

[newswolf56]

23. You're in denial -- and therefore arguing "nonsense" yourself:

The slogan "Israel out of Palestine" is implicitly a call for the destruction of Israel. (Not only because "Palestine" as defined by the Palestinians includes not just the former Occupied Territories but all the land now within the borders of Israel, but because the Palestinians who shout such slogans are absolutely clear about their genocidal intent.)

Moreover, supporting a child through World Vision -- a worthy thing to do -- is not remotely the same thing as supporting A.N.S.W.E.R. Indeed, to even suggest such an equivalence is also "nonsense."

[Violet_Crumble]

25. The Palestinians have acknowledged the existence of Israel...

..from way back in the days of Oslo. There was a famous exchange of letters between Arafat and Rabin, so claiming that the Palestinians don't recognise Israel is incorrect for a start...

Most people would, I hope, possess the understanding that when someone calls for Israel to withdraw from Palestine, they are indeed talking about the Occupied Territories. Personally, if anyone were to garner support of genocide from my 'Free Palestine' tshirt and my support of ANSWER, I'd brush them off as someone who actually just has a problem with any opposition to the occupation itself...

The point I made to you about World Vision wasn't about the worthiness of an organisation which excuses them from being naughty when they refer to Palestinians as being residents of Palestine, or else I'm going to have to assume that you have some problem with ANSWER and Cindy Sheehan above and beyond their calling Palestine, uh, Palestine. I think both World Vision and ANSWER are worthy organisations, and support both....

Violet...

[newswolf56]

31. How marvelously Stalinist of you:

"...I'm going to have to assume that you have some problem with ANSWER and Cindy Sheehan above and beyond their calling Palestine, uh, Palestine."

In other words, either I accept your ENTIRE agenda or I'm some sort of hopeless reactionary. Which not only makes debate with you utterly pointless but illustrates precisely the sort of ideological extremism that has so severely wounded the Democratic Party and the U.S. Left in general.

Indeed if I were to follow your own example and leap to conclusions as you are doing, I would have to assume you support Islamic Fundamentalism -- also (and far more importantly) that you therefore deny the one incontrovertible truth of history: that religious fundamentalism is the most malignant, most destructive force in human experience -- the one sure obstruction to environmental consciousness and thus to any human progress -- and damned by all true socialists for precisely that reason.

That said, you should understand that (despite corporate media's deliberately false impressions), there are many of us here in the U.S. who vehemently oppose Bush's war in Iraq and just as vehemently oppose A.N.S.W.E.R.'s agenda. Some of us have tread such ideological minefields before -- carefully avoiding both the would-be co-opters and the agents provocateur -- and I am no exception. You should also be cautious in your assumptions: I have a long history of Leftist activism -- jail for the Civil Rights Movement, participation in the anti-Vietnam War, Back-to-the-Land and alternative press movements -- a history for which I pay more every year in an old age too ruinously impoverished to ever allow retirement.

[Violet_Crumble]

32. No, just marvelously logical of me...

I pointed out that you must have a problem with ANSWER and Cindy Sheehan above and beyond them both using the term *gasp* Palestine, because you yrself said that World Vision, who also use that term, are a worthy organisation, while the others (paraphrasing here) suck big chunky bits. Is that making sense? It's got nothing at all to do with accepting entire agendas, but everything to do with you accepting the use of the term Palestine when groups you already approve of do it...

The problem is that you've tried to claim that ANSWER's agenda is genocidal, but nothing you've come up with to try to support that claim shows anything of the sort....

btw, if you had been involved in the anti-war movement back in the 60's, you'd be aware that even though the main focus was, like today, the war, there were other causes floating around then too. So was it wrong then as well?

Violet...

[newswolf56]

43. If you are indeed as Left as you imply, you will accept the right...

of an oppressed minority to identify its oppressors, as in (for example) the Afro-American right to (correctly) define the recent debacle in New Orleans as not only racist class-warfare but deliberately genocidal. Here then -- assuming you accept that minority right -- is what the Anti-Defamation League, the leading American Jewish civil rights organization, has to say about a key member of A.N.S.W.E.R:

Free Palestine Alliance (FPA) is a radical San Francisco-based organization that supports the dissolution of the State of Israel and the “unconditional liberation” of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and in Israel proper. The group is led by Elias Rashmawi and is closely affiliated with ANSWER, the International Action Center and Al--Awda. FPA has supported calls for divestment from companies that do business with Israel, supports the right of return for Palestinians, has expressed support for Hamas and, in one incident, attempted to bar Jewish peace groups like Tikkun from participating in antiwar protests. Other notable leaders include Michael Shehadeh, Eyad Kishawi, and Hanna Hanania.

And about A.N.S.W.E.R. itself:

The ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) Coalition, created by the New York-based International Action Center to protest the bombing of Afghanistan, has organized many anti-war protests around the country since September 2001. The largest and most disturbing was on April 20, 2002, in Washington DC. Called the “National March for Palestine Against War and Racism,” the massive rally was attended by approximately 200,000 people, including thousands of pro-Palestinian demonstrators. The rally served as a forum for supporting violence and terror organizations, and for a proliferation of anti-Semitic expression. The ANSWER coalition moved up the date of its rally to April 20 to coincide with anti-globalization demonstrations, which were organized to protest the IMF and World Bank. ANSWER has become one of the most effective organizers for anti-war rallies, attracting thousands of demonstrators to subsequent rallies. ANSWER has played a key role in bringing Arab and Muslim groups into the anti-war and anti-racism movements, which has led to extreme invective against Israel during protests and expressions of support for Palestinian terrorists. Among the groups that have endorsed ANSWER events and participated in rallies are Al-Awda and the Islamic Association for Palestine.

The link to the ADL site is here: http://www.adl.org/Israel/israel_protest_calendar_groups.asp#4

"(D)issolution of the State of Israel" is implicitly genocidal, particularly given the Jihadists' avowedly murderous hatred of all Jews. Of course -- if you don't grant the Jewish people the same personal-as-political right you grant other oppressed minorities -- then you can reject the truth of these descriptions. (Though to do so you would also have to reject the assertions of A.N.S.W.E.R.'s own website.)

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. Calling Israel To Heed Is One Thing.....

Calling for the annihilation of six million Jews is another...


I'll quote two British philosophers on the subject...



"You say you got a real solution
Well you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait"

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

50. Nope

But I don't think the answer to hate is more hate or the answer to violence is more violence..


Or I guess the Israelis and Arabs can fight each other for the next one hundred years or until we all destroy ourselves whichever come sooner....

[Gnostic]

51. You're right

The answer to hate is definitely not more hate. But as human beings, with emotions and feelings, it is understandable to me how someone can grow to hate another when that other never stops the very activities which caused the hate in the first place.

I am not saying that one side is at fault while another is. I am merely pointing out the causalities.

[WillyT]

7. Blitzer... Is That YOU ???

:evilgrin:

[rman]

37. well, that's your problem

If you can't distinguish between criticism of Israeli policies on the one hand, and extermination of all the Jews on the other hand.

However, neither is why people went to DC this weekend, so it should not have been on the agenda.

[newswolf56]

48. There is a vast difference between "criticism of Israeli policies" and...

calling for the extinction of Israel as shouting the slogan "Israel out of Palestine" does.

[Gnostic]

38. And I suppose....

....that the treatment the Palestinians have recieved from the Jews from the day of the very first annexations is far removed from fascism?

Give me a break.

There are reasons many muslim/Arab countries and peoples find the Israelis distasteful....from their known massive stockpiles of WMD that they STILL won't own up to, to the forced confiscation of lands, businesses and homes.

It's a double edged sword over there, and the Israelis are by no means innocent victims of nazi-like animosities.

[Mari333]

11. ANSWER will not play in middle america

screaming "comrades! Brothers and sisters! Free Mumia!" is not going to play to mom and dad in Indiana. Mom and Dad might be rethinking how stupid this war is in Iraq, but they wont be identifying with someone yelling about Imperialists and claiming they are proud communists.
Im sorry, but ANSWER has too many egos goin on.

[thebigidea]

12. nor will they identify with massive marches, period.

No matter how purged of scaaaary commies - Middle America doesn't do marches period. Even if they were scrubbed clean and free of any concievable other agenda or political quirk, they'd still be classified as crazies and extremists...

(by crazies and extremists, funnily enough.)

[Mari333]

14. I disagree

many everyday americans identify with people onstage who are vets, gold star moms, grandmas and grandpas, and speakers who are everyday people angry at Bush. They will not identify with college aged limosuine liberals who are spouting rhetoric about the workers struggles against imperialism.. and ANSWER seems to be loaded with them.

[thebigidea]

15. name one rally or protest held at any point that Middle America loved

just one.

suffrage, civil rights, the Vietnam war... all despised.

they wouldn't have to protest in the first place if they appealed so much to "Middle America."

[Mari333]

17. I live in middle america and I know them well

and my mom who is a staunch republican LIKES Cindy sheehan and identifies with her..many people sitting on the fence identify with people like Cindy, or Vets against the war, because they are real people, like them. ANSWER had too many speakers on self serving ego trips , who seem to live in a bubble of their own causes. If the ANSWER people do not reflect grassroots people, they do more harm then good with their speeches. I protested the Vietnam war too, and middle america is what we needed back then to stop the war..and I saw the same sort of people back then turning off everyday americans with their egofest.
The war ended when middle america finally turned on the white house back then, and we need middle america to be the turning point now.

[thebigidea]

18. again, name one protest movement beloved by middle america

even the one middle america itself hatched, temperance, was quickly mocked and hated.

protests aren't directed at them, anyway - the way you hypnotize them is with television.

[Mari333]

20. had C Span shown ONE minute of the march

and not the rally, middle america would have been in AWE of the numbers and the diversity of the people in the march.
All anyone saw on C Span were a few shrill people with fractured screaming rhetorical self serving causes.
If we are protesting for each other only, it seems a bit ludicrous.
Its all about PR.

[thebigidea]

21. dodged the question twice, eh?

well, never mind then. As if Middle America sat riveted to CSPAN - that's for political junkies, insomniacs, and shutins.

[Mari333]

24. Not one person at my job today even knew there was a march

in DC..so what was the point..for everyone to feel good? to boost their own egos? Im IN middle america, and they dont even know there was a march.
Tomorrow morning the talking heads on right wing radio will have a field day with some of ANSWERS speakers..and middle america will be provided with a rash of stereotypes of the looney left..people screaming Comrades!! Free Mumia!!...whats worse is, people in the US are RIGHT NOW on the cusp of change..they dont like Bush..
and we need to appeal to that, but the ANSWER rally today just reinforced the stereotypes, thats all
Maybe you dont think its important that we reach the grassroots, but until they get damned angry and rise up , we might as well be pissing into the wind.

[Violet_Crumble]

27. That's strange, because people around the world knew...

This is the media coverage the march is getting in Australia. It's weird but the only mention of the 'loony left' and claims that the focus wasn't on the war in Iraq I'm seeing are here at DU...

Thousands protest against Iraq war in US

More than 100,000 protesters flooded Washington for dual demonstrations against the US-led war in Iraq and economic globalisation, before coming together to demand that US President George W Bush bring troops home.

Thousands marched in London as well, and protests were planned in San Francisco and Los Angeles that called for an end to military action in Iraq nearly 30 months after an invasion ousted Saddam Hussein.

"We need a people's movement to end this war," said Cindy Sheehan, an anti-war protester whose son was killed in fighting in Iraq. She camped out in Crawford, Texas, during much of August while Bush was holidaying there, and Sheehan's rallies drew crowds that sometimes numbered in the hundreds as she demanded a meeting with Bush.

Bush, who met Sheehan in 2004 after her son was killed, refused to meet her again.

"We'll be the checks and balances on this out-of-control criminal government," Sheehan, who has become the anti-war movement's best-known face, told the group gathered at the Ellipse, a park behind the White House.

<snip>

Some protesters carried signs calling Bush and Cheney "Liars". One sign said, "Bush is a Cat 5 Disaster," in a reference to the recent hurricanes that have hammered the US Gulf Coast.

Another said, "Make Levees, Not Humvees" - referencing the New Orleans levees that Katrina breached and recalling the "Make Love, Not War" chant of 1960s Vietnam war protesters.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Thousands-protest-against-Iraq-war-in-US/2005/09/25/1127586732923.html


How dare those protesters hijack the anti-war protest by talking about Katrina!!!! ;)

Violet...

[rman]

35. name one that wasn't organized by ANSWER

or a simmilar organization that drags in all sorts of issues that didn't motivate people to go demonstrate in the first place.

More then a few people have stated they don't go because of ANSWER's tactics. Many more who did go have expressed their dismay at ANSWERs tatics. Supporters of ANSWERs tactics are a small minority here.

ANSWERs tactics enable the Black Block agression to get all the media attention, which obvoiuoly damages the cause - as was to be expected because it goes like that EVERY F'IN TIME. When will ANSWER learn? Or do they do this on purpose?

This time many people actually left the ANSWER 'lectures' and went to march around the WH.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. The March On Washington

But the size and diversity of the gathered masses, the pageantry of their display, the emotional intensity of the songs and speeches, and the peacefulness and good humor of everyone under the hot sun deeply impressed most observers. Russell Baker wrote in the New York Times: "No one could remember an invading army quite as gentle as the two hundred thousand civil-rights marchers who occupied Washington today...The sweetness and patience of the crowd may have set some sort of national high-water mark in mass decency."12



http://www.abbeville.com/civilrights/washington.asp

[SlowDownFast]

19. That's not true.

There are lots more people coming out and speaking their mind about Iraq and Bush that did not before.

It's only another few steps to a march...

edit: A.N.S.W.E.R. is a detriment to the goal of connecting the Bring Troops Home Now/Impeach Bush Movement to mainstream America. It's hard enough mobilizing on a single issue little own throwing in the 3 ring circuses of A.N.S.W.E.R.

[rman]

40. Middle America was there today;

Just Got Back from DC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4876111

"What struck me the most was how many families with children were in the gathering at the Ellipse and in the march down Pennsylvania Avenue. Young moms and dads pushing strollers with their toddlers, all wearing "Impeach Bush Now" tee-shirts, marched next to three generations, parents, grandparents and teenaged children. It was definitely an inter-generational event. There were multitudes of high school and college students proudly defying the stereotypes of apathetic youth. Infirmed octogenarians in wheelchairs rolled along the route, shouting out anti-Bush slogans in loud voices. This was no college-aged group of radicals. They were working people, home owners, church groups, and retirees."

<more>

[mondo joe]

13. No. Angry for their OPPORTUNISM in trying to co-opt any other group

that gets attention.

Dumb parasites.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

16. MLK was taking two HUGE important issues and linking them

ANSWER takes 100 small ones, many that there is no consensus on and jumbles them up in a sloppy mess.

[U4ikLefty]

22. I think the problem many have with ANSWER is that they front-load

the stage with "their" issues. Many people feel they are forced into listening to ANSWER's adgenda. They should push the non-anti-war stuff to the end, for those whom are interested.

[rman]

36. no need to guess

there are several threads precisely about that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4871085

[rman]

34. IT'S NOT WHY PEOPLE WENT TO DC

very simple.

[Bluebear]

39. That's really the ticket, isn't it?

Well said in a few words.

[OneBlueSky]

42. the problem with depleting the message is that . . .

it depletes the message . . .

[rman]

44. ANSWER has no single conscience.

It is a conglomerate of many protest groups each with their own conscience, each with their own topics that are apparently more important to them then what people came to DC for in the first place.


The people who went to DC this weekend however do pretty much have one conscience - one (or two) things on their mind:
TROOPS OUT OF IRAQ, BUSH OUT OF THE WH

People can and do speak for their own conscience without ANSWER speaking for them (much of which was off-topic as far as the demonstrators were concerned). Many did leave the ANSWER 'lectures' and went on to do what they had come to DC for: to march around the WH in protest of the war in Iraq and in protest of the Bush administration.

[newswolf56]

45. A solemn and heartfelt plea to DU:

I am deeply concerned that A.N.S.W.E.R.'s effort to take over opposition to the Iraq War and submerge its democratic, humanitarian impulses in a united front for the authoritarian purposes of Islamic Fundamentalism is leading the American Left toward the most suicidal strategic error we have ever made. It is an error breathtaking in its implicit vileness -- playing on the ugliness of America's latent anti-Semitism -- and astounding in its absurdity: an attempt to unite antitheticals, to combine the murderous tyranny of religious fundamentalism with secular, progressive forces who beyond their opposition to the war are trying desperately to build a workable political majority in time for the 2006 and 2008 elections.

While A.N.S.W.E.R. may increase anti-war ranks short-term, all its long-term presence does is add enormous weight to the likelihood we will be defeated -- that the dread reality we see today in New Orleans will be the reality of all America tomorrow.

This is a critical point since I think most of us here on DU agree that building a progressive majority is utterly vital to the survival of our nation. I think we also recognize how our national survival depends entirely upon our ability to (1) take back the Democratic Party and (2) thereby bring about the electoral victories essential to save ourselves from Bush and his corporate agenda -- to turn back a dire agenda that seeks to reduce our nation to a Third World despotcy: essentially a slave labor camp to serve the oligarchy. Most of us also recognize that if we achieve economic justice at home, peace in Iraq -- and in the world generally -- will at least theoretically follow.

But to build the majority we need, we have to reach into precisely those American households who feel abandoned by the Democratic Party -- working families (especially blue-collar workers), rural folk, the poor, the disabled -- all people to whom A.N.S.W.E.R.'s shrillness is repugnant and its elitism is repulsively alien. Thus I think many people are finally awakening to the self-destructiveness of A.N.S.W.E.R.'s methodology and agenda, all the more so because history proves that in any artificial alliance between tyrants and progressives (as in the ill-fated Spanish Republic), the tyrants invariably win out, often allowing even worse tyrants (for example Francisco Franco) to eventually triumph. And there's no doubt the alienation-factors in A.N.S.W.E.R.'s agenda ultimately thwart progressive intent. Thus it might even be wise to ask if A.N.S.W.E.R. could be yet another cleverly contrived front for the forces of oppression -- whether headquartered in Washington D.C. or elsewhere.

Wake up, folks! This is not a game we are playing: very literally, the fate of our nation is in the balance.

[Moderator]

52. Locking....

This is flamebait.