Have you ever noticed that whenever themuslimvileone starts mocking and/or denying anything that it’s exactly what he is going to do?
For instance:
Remember when he said that if you “like your doctor you can keep your doctor” and “If you like your healthcare, you can keep your healthcare”? Remember that? He was denying the Republican assertions that you’d lose your doctor. What actually happened?
Remember when he denied the idea of releasing our strategic oil reserves? Yep.
He lied about that, too. He sold 5 MILLION barrels of our strategic oil reserve in 2014.
Also last year, he denied planning to sidestep Congress in order to do the Iranian nuclear deal. Of course, as we all know, he sidestepped Congress to get the deal done.
In 2014, he threatened to have our planes shoot down Israeli jets if they tried to destroy Iranian nuclear plants, but this year he denied saying it. He later went so far as to claim to be the “the close[s]t thing to a Jew that has ever sat in this [Oval] office.” He then had the audacity to preach to Jews about being Jewish. (Chutzpah!) He may not have shot down Israel’s planes, but he did not support them in at least seven different ways that may have put them in danger. In fact, it’s a lot more than seven times that he has harmed Israel.
In 2011, he mocked the idea of a secure border, claiming that it was something he’d already accomplished. Yet, as we’ve all seen in the last year or so our borders are as leaky as a former Secretary of State’s e-mail security.
In his Senatorial campaign he liked the idea of “homosexual marriage”, during his presidential campaign, he was against it. Recently he’s been for it again.
Before he was elected prezidunce, he was against using Executive Orders to circumvent Congress. Now we see that his actions speak MUCH louder than his previous words!
He denied going soft on the Middle East, but his later actions prove that he was soft.
He denied that the individual mandate in his healthcare TAX was a tax, but the SCOTUS ruled that it was.
As a candidate, he denies supporting abortion on demand, but as prezidunce he, of course, supports it wholeheartedly and fights to make sure that his healthcare TAX is used to pay for them. Even going so far as to SUE NUNS!
So we see that he has a pattern: Denial/Mocking then doing exactly what he was denying or mocking. That’s a real problem for America because now he’s denying something that will affect all of us, and perhaps create a Constitutional crisis. You see, he’s mocking and denying the idea of a third term for him. Which, if he sticks to his pattern means that he will run! That’s what I’ve been saying for quite a while now, is it not?
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Monday, October 12, 2015
Monday, March 24, 2014
Tranferred: Already A LOSER
I wrote this and posted it to my previous blog way back in March of 2009 and read it today and realized how prescient I was. It's time to re-read it. It's sad that folks didn't listen.
Space Coat Conservative
____________________
Posted by Space Coast Conservative at 3/24/2009 12:50 AM
Categories: Politics
Tags: Future B. Hussein O. President
B. Hussein O.'s first sixty days in office have been nothing if not historical. And, no, I do not mean historical in that he is the first fraudulently, Acorn-elected "African-American" President. I mean something totally different.
Why his presidency is historical within the first sixty days is that no previous White House occupant so quickly, agressively and totally went socialist on us as this one. None other; no matter the skin color, political party affiliation, or the size of his shoes or bank account prior to being elected. No previous POTUS has ever accomplished the total sacking and trashing, the thrashing and bashing of the American economy as this POTUS. Within his first sixty days, B. Hussein O. has proposed (in his official budget: Budget), a budget that, "The Congressional Budget Office on Friday estimated that the budget proposal would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade — or $2.3 trillion more than the White House had estimated." (Quoted from FoxNews.com) That's historic.
The problem B. Hussein O. is not seeing is that — at the pace he's going — not only will America be broke and desparate fast and easy with his "bodget" proposals, but his actions are having an unforeseen consequence. That consequence? When will America, after this B. Hussein O. fiasco, be willing to elect an "African-American" person to the Oval Office again? B. Hussein O.'s lack of leadership in the right direction, his party-harty attitude (even laughing at the budget deficit he is proposing) and his idiocy when it comes to any ideas as to foreign policy or foreign diplomacy (twenty-five DVDs for the British Prime Minister that won't even play in British DVD players? Get real!), his lack of connectivity to the American people (when was the last time you saw him with anyone besides D.C. elitists?) and you add it all up to a failure as President already. Failure because he is already dooming anyone who may wish to run as an "African-American" candidate. Because he's allowing them to be painted with the same broad brush as he is painting himself with: IDIOT, MORON, COMPLETE LOSER. He may look like a GQ candidate for the front cover, but in his head, he's got nothing but game (probably Atari's"Pong"®).
I seem to remember another candidate who was a similar loser; Bill Clinton. Anyone remember him? Anyone remember his attitudes and disconnectedness when it came to the American people? Remember his attitude toward the little people in "fly over country"? Remember how his disdain was shown for those of us who pay our taxes and live free in America and love our country? Remember how his wife displayed her hatred for Americans voicing their opposition to the two Arkansans who didn't know right from wrong (and still don't). Look at their legacy. When will anyone from Arkansas ever hold high elected office again? I'd bet it's going to be a long time.
Has B. Hussein O. thought of this? Has he even stopped to consider his legacy for those who may wish to follow in his footsteps? Nope. He's too busy following his teleprompter down the road to perdition and his recklessness down the road to political Hades. He's messing up big time and too stupid to realize it. (Either he's too stupid, or he just doesn't care. My guess is both.) He doesn't care about those who may wish to come after him and try to follow in his (illegal, Acorn-aided) footsteps. Nope. He's too busy schmoozing with the hoity-toity to care about those who may wish to emulate him. He doesn't care if he's messing things up for them: as long as he gets his now, that all that matters. Ask Michelle, she'll tell you. She's on the same road, the same page and the same note as her hubby-bubby. Neither of them care that they are totally screwing it up for the rest of the "African-American" dreamers.
When great men make a path for others to follow, it is a lasting path. One of those great men was Martin Luther King, Jr. His speech, "I Have A Dream" was a great speech. It inspired millions and is still inspiring millions. It was and is a powerful dream-maker. When we look at how Mr. King led people, we see that he had a real impact on people's lives and that he was a man of character, courage, conviction and leadership by example. His legacy is that, because of his life, others will be and are better off. He taught us and continues to teach us to judge a man, "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
When I think of those "African-American" men who have been great leaders, I do not think of B. Hussein O. (although as the first of his race to be elected POTUS, shouldn't that be the first person who comes to mind?). I think of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Dr. Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas (first "African-American U.S. Supreme Court Justice), Bill Cosby (NOTE: before the sex scandal was known about), and others like them who, after their tenures are up in their current or former positions, their legacies will lead to more "African-American" men and women being able to pursue their dreams and have their futures be brighter because of those who came before them. The men listed in this paragraph have done something legitimate and worthwhile that will have a positive impact on the lives of current and future people of "African-American" descent. A positive impact, not a negative impact; that's the standard.
I judge B. Hussein O. not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character. He does not care about those who come after as long as he gets his. He does not meet the standard of leaving the world a better place (how can a financially devastated America be part of a better world?). He does not meet the standard of leaving a goal for others to attain except and unless they aspire to defraud the American electoral system as B. Hussein O. did with Acorn.
I judge B. Hussein O. as a negative influence because he laughs as others are suffering (calling it "gallows humor"), he plans more hard times for everyone in America — not just the rich as he promised during his campaign — making even those who wish to emulate him to have a more difficult time in the process. B. Hussein O. has totally messed up in his first sixty days with the worst budget in the history of the whole of America's existence. And for this I condemn him to being already the worst POTUS ever. Let me repeat that: B. Hussein O. is already the WORST POTUS EVER.
He is not a great man. He is a loser, a gamer and a fraud. He could have been — and SHOULD have been — so much more. He chose otherwise. That makes him a sorry excuse.
Space Coat Conservative
____________________
Posted by Space Coast Conservative at 3/24/2009 12:50 AM
Categories: Politics
Tags: Future B. Hussein O. President
B. Hussein O.'s first sixty days in office have been nothing if not historical. And, no, I do not mean historical in that he is the first fraudulently, Acorn-elected "African-American" President. I mean something totally different.
Why his presidency is historical within the first sixty days is that no previous White House occupant so quickly, agressively and totally went socialist on us as this one. None other; no matter the skin color, political party affiliation, or the size of his shoes or bank account prior to being elected. No previous POTUS has ever accomplished the total sacking and trashing, the thrashing and bashing of the American economy as this POTUS. Within his first sixty days, B. Hussein O. has proposed (in his official budget: Budget), a budget that, "The Congressional Budget Office on Friday estimated that the budget proposal would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade — or $2.3 trillion more than the White House had estimated." (Quoted from FoxNews.com) That's historic.
The problem B. Hussein O. is not seeing is that — at the pace he's going — not only will America be broke and desparate fast and easy with his "bodget" proposals, but his actions are having an unforeseen consequence. That consequence? When will America, after this B. Hussein O. fiasco, be willing to elect an "African-American" person to the Oval Office again? B. Hussein O.'s lack of leadership in the right direction, his party-harty attitude (even laughing at the budget deficit he is proposing) and his idiocy when it comes to any ideas as to foreign policy or foreign diplomacy (twenty-five DVDs for the British Prime Minister that won't even play in British DVD players? Get real!), his lack of connectivity to the American people (when was the last time you saw him with anyone besides D.C. elitists?) and you add it all up to a failure as President already. Failure because he is already dooming anyone who may wish to run as an "African-American" candidate. Because he's allowing them to be painted with the same broad brush as he is painting himself with: IDIOT, MORON, COMPLETE LOSER. He may look like a GQ candidate for the front cover, but in his head, he's got nothing but game (probably Atari's"Pong"®).
I seem to remember another candidate who was a similar loser; Bill Clinton. Anyone remember him? Anyone remember his attitudes and disconnectedness when it came to the American people? Remember his attitude toward the little people in "fly over country"? Remember how his disdain was shown for those of us who pay our taxes and live free in America and love our country? Remember how his wife displayed her hatred for Americans voicing their opposition to the two Arkansans who didn't know right from wrong (and still don't). Look at their legacy. When will anyone from Arkansas ever hold high elected office again? I'd bet it's going to be a long time.
Has B. Hussein O. thought of this? Has he even stopped to consider his legacy for those who may wish to follow in his footsteps? Nope. He's too busy following his teleprompter down the road to perdition and his recklessness down the road to political Hades. He's messing up big time and too stupid to realize it. (Either he's too stupid, or he just doesn't care. My guess is both.) He doesn't care about those who may wish to come after him and try to follow in his (illegal, Acorn-aided) footsteps. Nope. He's too busy schmoozing with the hoity-toity to care about those who may wish to emulate him. He doesn't care if he's messing things up for them: as long as he gets his now, that all that matters. Ask Michelle, she'll tell you. She's on the same road, the same page and the same note as her hubby-bubby. Neither of them care that they are totally screwing it up for the rest of the "African-American" dreamers.
When great men make a path for others to follow, it is a lasting path. One of those great men was Martin Luther King, Jr. His speech, "I Have A Dream" was a great speech. It inspired millions and is still inspiring millions. It was and is a powerful dream-maker. When we look at how Mr. King led people, we see that he had a real impact on people's lives and that he was a man of character, courage, conviction and leadership by example. His legacy is that, because of his life, others will be and are better off. He taught us and continues to teach us to judge a man, "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
When I think of those "African-American" men who have been great leaders, I do not think of B. Hussein O. (although as the first of his race to be elected POTUS, shouldn't that be the first person who comes to mind?). I think of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Dr. Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas (first "African-American U.S. Supreme Court Justice), Bill Cosby (NOTE: before the sex scandal was known about), and others like them who, after their tenures are up in their current or former positions, their legacies will lead to more "African-American" men and women being able to pursue their dreams and have their futures be brighter because of those who came before them. The men listed in this paragraph have done something legitimate and worthwhile that will have a positive impact on the lives of current and future people of "African-American" descent. A positive impact, not a negative impact; that's the standard.
I judge B. Hussein O. not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character. He does not care about those who come after as long as he gets his. He does not meet the standard of leaving the world a better place (how can a financially devastated America be part of a better world?). He does not meet the standard of leaving a goal for others to attain except and unless they aspire to defraud the American electoral system as B. Hussein O. did with Acorn.
I judge B. Hussein O. as a negative influence because he laughs as others are suffering (calling it "gallows humor"), he plans more hard times for everyone in America — not just the rich as he promised during his campaign — making even those who wish to emulate him to have a more difficult time in the process. B. Hussein O. has totally messed up in his first sixty days with the worst budget in the history of the whole of America's existence. And for this I condemn him to being already the worst POTUS ever. Let me repeat that: B. Hussein O. is already the WORST POTUS EVER.
He is not a great man. He is a loser, a gamer and a fraud. He could have been — and SHOULD have been — so much more. He chose otherwise. That makes him a sorry excuse.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Something Suspicious This Way Comes
On May 2, 2011, the death of Osama bin Laden was reported. Those responsible for the death of the terrorist were hailed as heroes. Seal Team Six was the group that entered bin Laden’s complex and made the final call.
Three months later, Seal Team Six was decimated by the death of almost a dozen of the Team members as their helicopter was shot down in Afghanistan. God rest their souls, comfort their loved ones and we will never forget them. Semper Fi!
Since that date, Aug. 6, 2011, I have had the uneasy feeling that I’ve heard that story before; as did my husband.
According to Christopher Ruddy, Bill Clintoon’s Secretary of Commerce, Ron Brown, was killed on an airplane in Croatia. According to the official reports, the plane Brown was on slammed into a mountainside as they approached the airport of Dubrovnik. One “survivor” was found by the Croatian rescuers first on scene, but later American reports said that all died on impact. That’s a bit suspicious. But, if you read the report at the link, there’s so much more.
Consider also the Aviation Weekly stories that raise questions as to the veracity of the stories released by the MSM and the Clintoon administration. Considering this – and considering that the Secretary of State is Hillary Clinton – what are the chances that since we didn’t learn from history we are doomed to repeat it?
The obamination administration refuses to release the pictures of a dead Osama bin Laden. Although being sued by Judicial Watch for the pictures, obamination steadfastly refuses to release the alleged pictures.
After allegedly killing bin Laden, obamination ordered bin Laden’s body buried at sea – supposedly in accord with the dictates of the Koran/Quran. If you read the book, it says nothing of burial at sea and according to Islamic scholars, it is not “respectful”.
A death whose pictures will not be released: a burial whose witnesses have never come forward; a burial of a body whose DNA could never be tested; and soon thereafter, the death of the elite forces who allegedly brought bin Laden to his just desserts. No one can either confirm or deny that Seal Team Six actually killed bin Laden, nor that they were ordered to take him alive.
There’s the rub.
What if?
What if Seal Team Six was ordered to capture bin Laden and bring him to a designated place so that the administration may try to get information out of him? Or, contrariwise, the administration would congratulate him on his following of the Koran/Quran and keep bin Laden comfortably provided for in a French chalet somewhere, with servants and good food and wine; all that he wants at American taxpayer expense? All under the guise of using his information for defense purposes, but in actuality, using our money to thank him for a job well done?
Consider: If you have the ability to find your biggest enemy, order his death and actually carry it out, wouldn’t you release all information possible – including pictures – in order to plant the feather firmly into your cap and ensure the public’s good opinion and hero-worship of you? With an ego as big as obamination’s would he not be the one person in all the world who would do exactly that: pictures, details, speeches by the Seal Team that made it all happen? Yet none of that has happened. Extremes of egotism such as obamination’s would dictate the actions if at all possible. Have you seen any of those things? Yet with everything else obamination does – or pretends to do (religion, health care, gas prices, “lower” unemployment, a “better economy”, etc., etc.), -- he relishes the admiration, the praise, the belief in the Almighty One. With the death of bin Laden, nothing. No admiration. No songs. No celebratory parties at the Red House (and we all know how much the obaminations love to party!).
Why?
Ever hear anyone on the ship that allegedly dumped – I mean buried -- the body at sea say anything about it? Is there a story anywhere that the shipmates have reported on the burial? Any of the people on the ship ever say anything on Facebook, Twitter, or hinted at it in a blog? Or is there something that the Captain has ordered to keep them quiet about it? Even with orders, though, something that big happening must soon slip somewhere into a sly little comment, a backwards reference, a nod to the fact that bin Laden’s body let air escape as it slid down the board. There should be something in the air, some little buzz: at the very least immediately following the burial it should have been a little lapsus linguae (slip of the tongue). Reality: nothing.
The death of Seal Team Six conveniently prevented any of the Team from denying or confirming the claim. With their deaths, bin Laden’s alleged death details were obliterated. All chances of anyone refuting the story that the administration has put out is gone. Their death is a little too convenient and a little too cushy for my taste.
The fact is, other sources say that my theory is possible.
Remember how many of the Clintoon’s previous associates died suspiciously? Now we have a Clintoon as Secretary of State. Who deals with the Foreign Policy of the United States of America? Who handles the relationship with the Middle East? Where was Osama bin Laden? Where was bin Laden allegedly killed? Where was Seal Team Six killed? Where is the proof (pictures, etc.) that bin Laden was killed as alleged? Where are the slips of the tongue incidents that follow a major development of that sort?
Why is the obamination administration fighting in court to prevent those pictures from being released – at the very least to an independent organization, Judicial Watch, who can confirm or deny the accuracy of the administration’s assertions?
Why has the Middle East gone silent on the subject as well? Considering how “beloved” bin Laden was in the Al Qaeda network, how rich he was, how respected and adored he allegedly was within the Muslim community due to the fact that he successfully attacked “the Great Satan” several times, why are they not still mourning his death in public and still voicing their disapproval?
One final thing to ponder: I think that’s the most telling thing. It’s election time. When was the last time you heard obamination crowing – yodeling even – the reminder that he killed Osama bin Laden? With an ego as big as obamination’s, doesn’t that silence speak volumes?
Three months later, Seal Team Six was decimated by the death of almost a dozen of the Team members as their helicopter was shot down in Afghanistan. God rest their souls, comfort their loved ones and we will never forget them. Semper Fi!
Since that date, Aug. 6, 2011, I have had the uneasy feeling that I’ve heard that story before; as did my husband.
According to Christopher Ruddy, Bill Clintoon’s Secretary of Commerce, Ron Brown, was killed on an airplane in Croatia. According to the official reports, the plane Brown was on slammed into a mountainside as they approached the airport of Dubrovnik. One “survivor” was found by the Croatian rescuers first on scene, but later American reports said that all died on impact. That’s a bit suspicious. But, if you read the report at the link, there’s so much more.
Consider also the Aviation Weekly stories that raise questions as to the veracity of the stories released by the MSM and the Clintoon administration. Considering this – and considering that the Secretary of State is Hillary Clinton – what are the chances that since we didn’t learn from history we are doomed to repeat it?
The obamination administration refuses to release the pictures of a dead Osama bin Laden. Although being sued by Judicial Watch for the pictures, obamination steadfastly refuses to release the alleged pictures.
After allegedly killing bin Laden, obamination ordered bin Laden’s body buried at sea – supposedly in accord with the dictates of the Koran/Quran. If you read the book, it says nothing of burial at sea and according to Islamic scholars, it is not “respectful”.
A death whose pictures will not be released: a burial whose witnesses have never come forward; a burial of a body whose DNA could never be tested; and soon thereafter, the death of the elite forces who allegedly brought bin Laden to his just desserts. No one can either confirm or deny that Seal Team Six actually killed bin Laden, nor that they were ordered to take him alive.
There’s the rub.
What if?
What if Seal Team Six was ordered to capture bin Laden and bring him to a designated place so that the administration may try to get information out of him? Or, contrariwise, the administration would congratulate him on his following of the Koran/Quran and keep bin Laden comfortably provided for in a French chalet somewhere, with servants and good food and wine; all that he wants at American taxpayer expense? All under the guise of using his information for defense purposes, but in actuality, using our money to thank him for a job well done?
Consider: If you have the ability to find your biggest enemy, order his death and actually carry it out, wouldn’t you release all information possible – including pictures – in order to plant the feather firmly into your cap and ensure the public’s good opinion and hero-worship of you? With an ego as big as obamination’s would he not be the one person in all the world who would do exactly that: pictures, details, speeches by the Seal Team that made it all happen? Yet none of that has happened. Extremes of egotism such as obamination’s would dictate the actions if at all possible. Have you seen any of those things? Yet with everything else obamination does – or pretends to do (religion, health care, gas prices, “lower” unemployment, a “better economy”, etc., etc.), -- he relishes the admiration, the praise, the belief in the Almighty One. With the death of bin Laden, nothing. No admiration. No songs. No celebratory parties at the Red House (and we all know how much the obaminations love to party!).
Why?
Ever hear anyone on the ship that allegedly dumped – I mean buried -- the body at sea say anything about it? Is there a story anywhere that the shipmates have reported on the burial? Any of the people on the ship ever say anything on Facebook, Twitter, or hinted at it in a blog? Or is there something that the Captain has ordered to keep them quiet about it? Even with orders, though, something that big happening must soon slip somewhere into a sly little comment, a backwards reference, a nod to the fact that bin Laden’s body let air escape as it slid down the board. There should be something in the air, some little buzz: at the very least immediately following the burial it should have been a little lapsus linguae (slip of the tongue). Reality: nothing.
The death of Seal Team Six conveniently prevented any of the Team from denying or confirming the claim. With their deaths, bin Laden’s alleged death details were obliterated. All chances of anyone refuting the story that the administration has put out is gone. Their death is a little too convenient and a little too cushy for my taste.
The fact is, other sources say that my theory is possible.
Remember how many of the Clintoon’s previous associates died suspiciously? Now we have a Clintoon as Secretary of State. Who deals with the Foreign Policy of the United States of America? Who handles the relationship with the Middle East? Where was Osama bin Laden? Where was bin Laden allegedly killed? Where was Seal Team Six killed? Where is the proof (pictures, etc.) that bin Laden was killed as alleged? Where are the slips of the tongue incidents that follow a major development of that sort?
Why is the obamination administration fighting in court to prevent those pictures from being released – at the very least to an independent organization, Judicial Watch, who can confirm or deny the accuracy of the administration’s assertions?
Why has the Middle East gone silent on the subject as well? Considering how “beloved” bin Laden was in the Al Qaeda network, how rich he was, how respected and adored he allegedly was within the Muslim community due to the fact that he successfully attacked “the Great Satan” several times, why are they not still mourning his death in public and still voicing their disapproval?
One final thing to ponder: I think that’s the most telling thing. It’s election time. When was the last time you heard obamination crowing – yodeling even – the reminder that he killed Osama bin Laden? With an ego as big as obamination’s, doesn’t that silence speak volumes?
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Why obamination Is NOT Impeached
A friend of mine sent me an e-mail that supports my Birther-ism. I know obamination is ineligible, the e-mail just proved it again. When responding I chose to look into a few things that would result from proof that obamination is an illegal president.
• Executive orders he has signed: nullified.
• Laws an ineligible president signed: negated.
• Appointments of federal judges: unseated; rulings nullified; cases retried.
• Lawsuits the administration filed against the states : over ballot issues, over illegal immigration, and more issues resulting in more law suits the administration has filed: dismissed.
• Czars he has appointed: fired.
• Jobs within the bureaucracy: gone!
• International treaties signed: unenforceable.
• Vacations he and his family have taken: must be reimbursed.
• Presidential salary and pension plan: reimbursed and revoked.
• He would, of course be jailed.
• Thousands of voter fraud cases investigated and prosecuted.
• Staff of ms obamination: fired.
• Etc. Etc. Etc.
The thing will be a holy terror to straighten out. Unemployment numbers would skyrocket.
This is the biggest reason the administration thinks the House and Senate cannot do anything. The administration can't imagine the House and Senate dealing with the implications and ramifications. And, in actuality, it's the truth. It's fear freezing feet when it should be right making righteous indignation act and strength against weakness making them bold. Too bad our House and Senate are men with "feet of clay" (Daniel 2:33).
Oh! I forgot one thing:
• Status within the Dem./Wrongie party: GOD! For pulling the biggest fraud in history on the American people.
• Executive orders he has signed: nullified.
• Laws an ineligible president signed: negated.
• Appointments of federal judges: unseated; rulings nullified; cases retried.
• Lawsuits the administration filed against the states : over ballot issues, over illegal immigration, and more issues resulting in more law suits the administration has filed: dismissed.
• Czars he has appointed: fired.
• Jobs within the bureaucracy: gone!
• International treaties signed: unenforceable.
• Vacations he and his family have taken: must be reimbursed.
• Presidential salary and pension plan: reimbursed and revoked.
• He would, of course be jailed.
• Thousands of voter fraud cases investigated and prosecuted.
• Staff of ms obamination: fired.
• Etc. Etc. Etc.
The thing will be a holy terror to straighten out. Unemployment numbers would skyrocket.
This is the biggest reason the administration thinks the House and Senate cannot do anything. The administration can't imagine the House and Senate dealing with the implications and ramifications. And, in actuality, it's the truth. It's fear freezing feet when it should be right making righteous indignation act and strength against weakness making them bold. Too bad our House and Senate are men with "feet of clay" (Daniel 2:33).
Oh! I forgot one thing:
• Status within the Dem./Wrongie party: GOD! For pulling the biggest fraud in history on the American people.
Friday, December 2, 2011
It’s Xmas in the Red House
The obaminations have decorated the Red House(used to be White until Commies moved in) with their vision of Xmas. Thirty-seven trees decked out with what they think is appropriate for Xmas decorations, garlands draped over everything horizontal, Bo idols strategically placed.
One tree has Bo all over it. One has more traditional ornaments. One has Purple Hearts, military medals, etc. One has … Wait. What? Purple Hearts? Purple hearts as in papier-mâché, painted glass, or something like that? No. As in the medal, Purple Heart, given to those members of the military who “are wounded by an instrument of war in the hands of the enemy and posthumously to the next of kin in the name of those who are killed in action or die of wounds received in action. It is specifically a combat decoration.” Notice it doesn’t mention hanging on a tree? Check the website. Notice it doesn’t say that it’s appropriate to use as a Xmas decoration? Notice it doesn’t say that it can be used helter-skelter, willy-nilly however anyone wishes? It states that it is to be awarded to those who “are wounded by an instrument of war”. When did that tree get “wounded by an instrument of war”? If the tree did not fight and get wounded, it should not be decorated with a Purple Heart, much less with multiple Purple Hearts.
For the obaminations to use a Purple Heart, the military medal, as a decoration for their Xmas tree is not just wrong, it’s a slap in the face of all Purple Heart honorees worldwide. That tree could have been just as much of a tribute to our military men and women without denigrating one of the most revered awards the military has. For obaminations to use a Purple Heart as a tree decoration says to those who have been awarded it that their valor, their sacrifice, their heroism is just as valuable to the obaminations – and because it’s in the “People’s House”, the (used to be White now-) Red House – and that the nation as a whole, that their sacrifice is cheap, like a souvenir we bought while in Aruba, Alaska, or Madrid. The nation as a whole is now attributed to the denigration of the Purple Heart, to slapping the honorees in the face and making their Purple Heart worth as much as a glass ornament, a popcorn string, or paper chain.
That’s just wrong and I, for one, resent the obaminations denigrating the Purple Heart’s vaunted place in the lexicon of military history and honor. From now on, every Purple Heart honoree will be so proud to know that the award is so special that it also hung on a Xmas tree. Won’t that make the medal on his/her chest even more revered?
Then there’s the whole thing about the Xmas decorations being a witness to the obaminations’ extravagance in times of want. They put up thirty-seven trees, decked every horizontal surface, had a different decoration for every tree, and a different designer for each room, a whole slew of folks in there to volunteer to help with the decorations. Question: did those volunteers get time with the obaminations? (How valuable is the ear of the president even if he’s an ACORNed president?) Did they get fed at taxpayer expense? Did the decorations get purchased by the taxpayers? Did the trees get donated or were they purchased by the taxpayers? How about all those decorations? Were they donated? The lights and the electricity they use, were/are they donated?
In years past previous presidents reused some of the ornaments of past Christmases, or decorated their own tree (and here near the bottom of the page). Yes, Laura Bush had more trees (“nearly fifty”), than the current family, but when reusing ornaments, it’s cheaper to do so. The current “first” family seems to think that they are royalty and that we, the taxpayers, should pay for their every whim, no matter how difficult it is for us to pay our own bills, feed our own family, keep our own house!
Then there’s the whole idea of Christmas and where it is represented in their decorations. Obamination has long said he’s a Christian (well, at least since it became convenient and he had to hide his hatred of America and his Islamism). Anyone see a nativity? Anyone see a manger? Anyone see Christ? See an angel even as a tree topper? I see stars, but they’re the “regular” stars, not one that is considered the traditional representation of the Northern Star that led the Wise Men to Jesus in the manger. Anyone see anything even remotely resembling a Christian symbol at all? I see Bo, the family’s dog. I do not see Jesus. I do not see a Nativity scene. I wonder what kind of Christian celebrates Christmas – Xmas in this case – without a Nativity? To me, that is what Christmas is all about. No Christ, no Christmas. Where is the Christ in their Christmas? Thus, the “Xmas” designation is more appropriate for the obaminations’ décor.
The Bo thing gets to me, too. I see a tree there that has Bo all over it. I see Bo in almost every room: on tables, in marzipan in front of the gingerbread White House, and in buttons, hanging by his neck on a tree (in the bottom video). Yes, they love the family pet. If they wish to celebrate this way, why not change the name of their celebration to “Bo-mas”? After all, that seems to be who they are celebrating instead of Christ. Having that many Bo-icons (pronounced Bow-ih-cons) as the focus of the decorations seems to indicate what is most important in the family’s celebration of the season. So they are having “Bo-mas” instead of a Christmas, are they not? After all, Christ can’t be mentioned unless He’s convenient and necessary for the hiding of the truth. This assertion is proven every time obamination drops the name of Jesus. It’s only there to hide the truth, to distort the facts, to be a convenient touch point. Obamination’s actions speak louder than his words even in his un-Christmas decorations.
In my family – and I would venture to guess, in yours – when Christmas comes around there is a Nativity scene, as well as a few Holy Family representations around. There are ornaments that remind us, as well as traditions that remind us, about what Christmas is all about. We read the story of Christ’s birth in Luke every Christmas Eve, and we remember Him on Christmas day with thanksgiving, “For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord”. Anyone see a Christian Bible in those pictures? I don't. What does that tell you?
One tree has Bo all over it. One has more traditional ornaments. One has Purple Hearts, military medals, etc. One has … Wait. What? Purple Hearts? Purple hearts as in papier-mâché, painted glass, or something like that? No. As in the medal, Purple Heart, given to those members of the military who “are wounded by an instrument of war in the hands of the enemy and posthumously to the next of kin in the name of those who are killed in action or die of wounds received in action. It is specifically a combat decoration.” Notice it doesn’t mention hanging on a tree? Check the website. Notice it doesn’t say that it’s appropriate to use as a Xmas decoration? Notice it doesn’t say that it can be used helter-skelter, willy-nilly however anyone wishes? It states that it is to be awarded to those who “are wounded by an instrument of war”. When did that tree get “wounded by an instrument of war”? If the tree did not fight and get wounded, it should not be decorated with a Purple Heart, much less with multiple Purple Hearts.
For the obaminations to use a Purple Heart, the military medal, as a decoration for their Xmas tree is not just wrong, it’s a slap in the face of all Purple Heart honorees worldwide. That tree could have been just as much of a tribute to our military men and women without denigrating one of the most revered awards the military has. For obaminations to use a Purple Heart as a tree decoration says to those who have been awarded it that their valor, their sacrifice, their heroism is just as valuable to the obaminations – and because it’s in the “People’s House”, the (used to be White now-) Red House – and that the nation as a whole, that their sacrifice is cheap, like a souvenir we bought while in Aruba, Alaska, or Madrid. The nation as a whole is now attributed to the denigration of the Purple Heart, to slapping the honorees in the face and making their Purple Heart worth as much as a glass ornament, a popcorn string, or paper chain.
That’s just wrong and I, for one, resent the obaminations denigrating the Purple Heart’s vaunted place in the lexicon of military history and honor. From now on, every Purple Heart honoree will be so proud to know that the award is so special that it also hung on a Xmas tree. Won’t that make the medal on his/her chest even more revered?
Then there’s the whole thing about the Xmas decorations being a witness to the obaminations’ extravagance in times of want. They put up thirty-seven trees, decked every horizontal surface, had a different decoration for every tree, and a different designer for each room, a whole slew of folks in there to volunteer to help with the decorations. Question: did those volunteers get time with the obaminations? (How valuable is the ear of the president even if he’s an ACORNed president?) Did they get fed at taxpayer expense? Did the decorations get purchased by the taxpayers? Did the trees get donated or were they purchased by the taxpayers? How about all those decorations? Were they donated? The lights and the electricity they use, were/are they donated?
In years past previous presidents reused some of the ornaments of past Christmases, or decorated their own tree (and here near the bottom of the page). Yes, Laura Bush had more trees (“nearly fifty”), than the current family, but when reusing ornaments, it’s cheaper to do so. The current “first” family seems to think that they are royalty and that we, the taxpayers, should pay for their every whim, no matter how difficult it is for us to pay our own bills, feed our own family, keep our own house!
Then there’s the whole idea of Christmas and where it is represented in their decorations. Obamination has long said he’s a Christian (well, at least since it became convenient and he had to hide his hatred of America and his Islamism). Anyone see a nativity? Anyone see a manger? Anyone see Christ? See an angel even as a tree topper? I see stars, but they’re the “regular” stars, not one that is considered the traditional representation of the Northern Star that led the Wise Men to Jesus in the manger. Anyone see anything even remotely resembling a Christian symbol at all? I see Bo, the family’s dog. I do not see Jesus. I do not see a Nativity scene. I wonder what kind of Christian celebrates Christmas – Xmas in this case – without a Nativity? To me, that is what Christmas is all about. No Christ, no Christmas. Where is the Christ in their Christmas? Thus, the “Xmas” designation is more appropriate for the obaminations’ décor.
The Bo thing gets to me, too. I see a tree there that has Bo all over it. I see Bo in almost every room: on tables, in marzipan in front of the gingerbread White House, and in buttons, hanging by his neck on a tree (in the bottom video). Yes, they love the family pet. If they wish to celebrate this way, why not change the name of their celebration to “Bo-mas”? After all, that seems to be who they are celebrating instead of Christ. Having that many Bo-icons (pronounced Bow-ih-cons) as the focus of the decorations seems to indicate what is most important in the family’s celebration of the season. So they are having “Bo-mas” instead of a Christmas, are they not? After all, Christ can’t be mentioned unless He’s convenient and necessary for the hiding of the truth. This assertion is proven every time obamination drops the name of Jesus. It’s only there to hide the truth, to distort the facts, to be a convenient touch point. Obamination’s actions speak louder than his words even in his un-Christmas decorations.
In my family – and I would venture to guess, in yours – when Christmas comes around there is a Nativity scene, as well as a few Holy Family representations around. There are ornaments that remind us, as well as traditions that remind us, about what Christmas is all about. We read the story of Christ’s birth in Luke every Christmas Eve, and we remember Him on Christmas day with thanksgiving, “For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord”. Anyone see a Christian Bible in those pictures? I don't. What does that tell you?
Saturday, September 17, 2011
IMHO: Mother Hatred Leads Obama to Hate America
I was considering the way that Obama is treating America and I got to wondering about the question above. Does Obama hate his mother and is that why he is so dead set on making America, a nation perceived by most as a Caucasian majority country, pay for the hurts of his past? With a sad history of bigotry, did America reflect the actions of his mother in Obama’s eyes as a child? The following is my opinion on what happened to make Barack Hussein Obama so desire to destroy America. Consider:
Obama’s parents supposedly met in HI when his mom was eighteen (page 9 of “Dreams”), first her parents were said to have been “won over by his [father’s] charm” (pg. 9) then on page twelve, his grandparents – the white ones – said yes to the marriage of his parents “no matter how grudgingly” (pg. 12). Although the question of their “marriage” still is up for grabs, as admitted to on page 22 of “Dreams”. “There’s no record of a real wedding” he says. If there was no real wedding, there was no marriage. Considering the words of Michelle Obama, his mother was “very young and very single when she had him” so the marriage is even more in question. No marriage equals his birth out of wedlock and thus, he was a bastard child.
His mother took him from HI within two weeks of giving birth to Obama to attend college classes in Seattle, WA. She took him away from his father after only fifteen days with him in HI, not even giving them the chance to bond.
Supposedly they stayed in Seattle until sometime in 1963 when Obama and Momma returned to Hawaii. Obama would have been just a little one at the time, so no real resentment would have resulted from that. However, it was not too long until Momma found someone else to love. March 15, 1965, Stanley Ann Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, when Obama was three. Or did she? Stanley Ann gives two different dates for their wedding: March 5, 1964 and March 15, 1965 (read the whole thing and the commentary on it – very interesting).
A year or two after the wedding on whichever date, she dragged little boy Obama to another country where he had to adjust to new food, new customs, a new language, new people. After a while he also had to adjust to a new little half-sister, Maya, Stanley Ann had with Soetoro. As all this conspired against him, his mother’s attentions were elsewhere: school (she was still studying for her degree in Mathematics), husband (newlywed husband at that) and then little sister (cute, cuddly and doted upon no doubt): all this change and no room for Obama.
Stanley Ann used that math degree to fit her career choice: International Banking. She travelled extensively while he was young and that meant even less time for her little boy. She was gone and he was with nannies and saw that he was no longer her first priority. Everything else came first: her new husband, her new daughter, her new career. (BTW, Stanley Ann participated in a similar program as did her son years later, a program to give loans to people with bad credit and low incomes; think ACORN). Obama saw his mother as having more time for people she didn’t know, who didn’t love her, didn’t need her, who didn’t want her to love them than she had time for him. He saw the distance between himself and his mother growing and realized that she had no more time for him. Is this when resentment began to build?
In Indonesia, Obama’s Kindergarten year was repeated. He had done one Kindergarten year in Hawaii, and apparently they insisted he do another in Indonesia, learning their ways and their beliefs. So his first year of school was repeated. The boy was always a year older than his classmates while he was in Indonesia because of this repeated Kindergarten year. Did he resent this? Was he embarrassed that he had to repeat? Didn’t he want his mother to stand up for him and tell the school that he had been to Kindergarten already?
(While there, Obama studied “mengaji” (read about it under “Quranic Studies” and I do mean READ IT and “Mates”. Proves me right again.)
Then, lo and behold, Stanley Ann does the unthinkable. She took Obama as a ten-year old back to Hawaii to live with her parents. The ultimate rejection, she left him there and went back to live with his step-father and their daughter. The ultimate betrayal, she chose to keep the daughter with her, but the son got sent away. A white woman chose her “white” daughter (although the daughter had Indonesian blood in her) and denied, left, abandoned her half-black son.
It would be years before the two were reunited, and only then for relatively short periods of time. That’s when the resentment, the anger, the feelings of betrayal, abandonment, hatred and resentment began to build. Every time she would leave him, she would take the daughter she loved more than her half-black son with her. Maya got to go; Barry stayed with Grandma and Grandpa. Mom chose Maya.
According to his first “auto”-biography, on page xv, he states, “I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of twelve or thirteen, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites”. He was no longer happy with his mother being white, so he stopped saying her race – half of himself – was white. He didn’t like her being white, or he would have continued telling others. Notice also, he calls himself “the tragic mulatto”. It is a “tragedy” that the world is the way it is and he is “trapped between two worlds”. All this thanks to his mother: the one responsible for his existence and his mixed race. The one responsible for abandoning him and treating him so shabbily, his mother’s white blood made her choose the way she did and he hated her for it.
To make a rather long, self-absorbed, too utterly artistic, melodramatic, self-loathing story shorter than a millennium, or just his double “auto”-biographies, I will shorten it to a few key instances in “Dreams”. He says that his parents met in HI when his mom was eighteen (page 9 of “Dreams”). First her parents were said to have been “won over by his [father’s] charm” (pg. 9) then on page twelve, his grandparents – the white ones – said yes to the marriage of his parents “no matter how grudgingly” (pg. 12). According to Obama his great-grandmother – mom’s mom’s mom – was rumored to have been such a bigot that she was even embarrassed of her Cherokee blood. (He even says that his grandfather would probably say something bigoted and not even realize it when they met his father for the first time. [pg. 17] Sweet. But I digress.)
So in his own words when he wrote the book, his grandparents who raised him were bigots. He also tells of an instance when his grandmother was scared by a black panhandler and he heard her tell the story of what happened that day and got angry. While writing the book, he focuses on race. He uses it as both a violin to make you weep and as a whip to make you bleed. If you are a white person, you are partially responsible for the things that personally happened to him; whatever he experienced, you did. If you are black, you are supposed to identify with him for you are in the same position. Either way, race is at the core – the epicenter – of everything that happens in life.
If your mother leaves you to be raised by someone else even though she may think it was the best thing to do for you, it was because of your race. If your grandmother was scared by someone of your race, it’s because of his race. It wasn’t their actions or attitudes it was race; pure, plain and simple. White folks did all of this. They caused Barry to be miserable. They were responsible for his being raised by old folks (cool old folks, for the most part, but old folks nonetheless).
Because of this, Obama punishes white America. Everything that happened to him as a child was a white woman’s fault. Everything that happened to him as a teen was a white person’s fault (teachers, neighbors, whomever). Everyone must pay because his mom treated him poorly. As president, he can do something to make them all miserable. He can make them all feel his pain. He can make them all sorry for treating him that way. Even the memory of his mother’s love and desire to do what was best for him cannot stop him from making the white world pay.
This truth is evident in everything he does. From his failure to prosecute the New Black Panther Party to his statement that police acted “stupidly” in the Professor Gates incident, Obama can always be counted on to – without knowing the full facts of the case, or sometimes in spite of knowing the full facts of the case – take whichever side has a black person in it. The problem is, he hates his black side just as much and makes the blacks of America pay dearly, too.
It also shows in the way he treats the women of his administration.
So the truth is, Obama hates his white side because of his mother’s abandonment (see “Punahou”), and he wants to make America pay the price for that. But he also must punish the black side as well because he perceives that as being the cause of her abandonment. Thus, America pays because Obama’s mother played.
(NOTE: I have "Dreams From My Father", Three Rivers Press, © 1995, 2004 by Barack Obama, Paperback edition, ISBN 978-1-4000-8277-3)
Obama’s parents supposedly met in HI when his mom was eighteen (page 9 of “Dreams”), first her parents were said to have been “won over by his [father’s] charm” (pg. 9) then on page twelve, his grandparents – the white ones – said yes to the marriage of his parents “no matter how grudgingly” (pg. 12). Although the question of their “marriage” still is up for grabs, as admitted to on page 22 of “Dreams”. “There’s no record of a real wedding” he says. If there was no real wedding, there was no marriage. Considering the words of Michelle Obama, his mother was “very young and very single when she had him” so the marriage is even more in question. No marriage equals his birth out of wedlock and thus, he was a bastard child.
His mother took him from HI within two weeks of giving birth to Obama to attend college classes in Seattle, WA. She took him away from his father after only fifteen days with him in HI, not even giving them the chance to bond.
Supposedly they stayed in Seattle until sometime in 1963 when Obama and Momma returned to Hawaii. Obama would have been just a little one at the time, so no real resentment would have resulted from that. However, it was not too long until Momma found someone else to love. March 15, 1965, Stanley Ann Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, when Obama was three. Or did she? Stanley Ann gives two different dates for their wedding: March 5, 1964 and March 15, 1965 (read the whole thing and the commentary on it – very interesting).
A year or two after the wedding on whichever date, she dragged little boy Obama to another country where he had to adjust to new food, new customs, a new language, new people. After a while he also had to adjust to a new little half-sister, Maya, Stanley Ann had with Soetoro. As all this conspired against him, his mother’s attentions were elsewhere: school (she was still studying for her degree in Mathematics), husband (newlywed husband at that) and then little sister (cute, cuddly and doted upon no doubt): all this change and no room for Obama.
Stanley Ann used that math degree to fit her career choice: International Banking. She travelled extensively while he was young and that meant even less time for her little boy. She was gone and he was with nannies and saw that he was no longer her first priority. Everything else came first: her new husband, her new daughter, her new career. (BTW, Stanley Ann participated in a similar program as did her son years later, a program to give loans to people with bad credit and low incomes; think ACORN). Obama saw his mother as having more time for people she didn’t know, who didn’t love her, didn’t need her, who didn’t want her to love them than she had time for him. He saw the distance between himself and his mother growing and realized that she had no more time for him. Is this when resentment began to build?
In Indonesia, Obama’s Kindergarten year was repeated. He had done one Kindergarten year in Hawaii, and apparently they insisted he do another in Indonesia, learning their ways and their beliefs. So his first year of school was repeated. The boy was always a year older than his classmates while he was in Indonesia because of this repeated Kindergarten year. Did he resent this? Was he embarrassed that he had to repeat? Didn’t he want his mother to stand up for him and tell the school that he had been to Kindergarten already?
(While there, Obama studied “mengaji” (read about it under “Quranic Studies” and I do mean READ IT and “Mates”. Proves me right again.)
Then, lo and behold, Stanley Ann does the unthinkable. She took Obama as a ten-year old back to Hawaii to live with her parents. The ultimate rejection, she left him there and went back to live with his step-father and their daughter. The ultimate betrayal, she chose to keep the daughter with her, but the son got sent away. A white woman chose her “white” daughter (although the daughter had Indonesian blood in her) and denied, left, abandoned her half-black son.
It would be years before the two were reunited, and only then for relatively short periods of time. That’s when the resentment, the anger, the feelings of betrayal, abandonment, hatred and resentment began to build. Every time she would leave him, she would take the daughter she loved more than her half-black son with her. Maya got to go; Barry stayed with Grandma and Grandpa. Mom chose Maya.
According to his first “auto”-biography, on page xv, he states, “I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of twelve or thirteen, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites”. He was no longer happy with his mother being white, so he stopped saying her race – half of himself – was white. He didn’t like her being white, or he would have continued telling others. Notice also, he calls himself “the tragic mulatto”. It is a “tragedy” that the world is the way it is and he is “trapped between two worlds”. All this thanks to his mother: the one responsible for his existence and his mixed race. The one responsible for abandoning him and treating him so shabbily, his mother’s white blood made her choose the way she did and he hated her for it.
To make a rather long, self-absorbed, too utterly artistic, melodramatic, self-loathing story shorter than a millennium, or just his double “auto”-biographies, I will shorten it to a few key instances in “Dreams”. He says that his parents met in HI when his mom was eighteen (page 9 of “Dreams”). First her parents were said to have been “won over by his [father’s] charm” (pg. 9) then on page twelve, his grandparents – the white ones – said yes to the marriage of his parents “no matter how grudgingly” (pg. 12). According to Obama his great-grandmother – mom’s mom’s mom – was rumored to have been such a bigot that she was even embarrassed of her Cherokee blood. (He even says that his grandfather would probably say something bigoted and not even realize it when they met his father for the first time. [pg. 17] Sweet. But I digress.)
So in his own words when he wrote the book, his grandparents who raised him were bigots. He also tells of an instance when his grandmother was scared by a black panhandler and he heard her tell the story of what happened that day and got angry. While writing the book, he focuses on race. He uses it as both a violin to make you weep and as a whip to make you bleed. If you are a white person, you are partially responsible for the things that personally happened to him; whatever he experienced, you did. If you are black, you are supposed to identify with him for you are in the same position. Either way, race is at the core – the epicenter – of everything that happens in life.
If your mother leaves you to be raised by someone else even though she may think it was the best thing to do for you, it was because of your race. If your grandmother was scared by someone of your race, it’s because of his race. It wasn’t their actions or attitudes it was race; pure, plain and simple. White folks did all of this. They caused Barry to be miserable. They were responsible for his being raised by old folks (cool old folks, for the most part, but old folks nonetheless).
Because of this, Obama punishes white America. Everything that happened to him as a child was a white woman’s fault. Everything that happened to him as a teen was a white person’s fault (teachers, neighbors, whomever). Everyone must pay because his mom treated him poorly. As president, he can do something to make them all miserable. He can make them all feel his pain. He can make them all sorry for treating him that way. Even the memory of his mother’s love and desire to do what was best for him cannot stop him from making the white world pay.
This truth is evident in everything he does. From his failure to prosecute the New Black Panther Party to his statement that police acted “stupidly” in the Professor Gates incident, Obama can always be counted on to – without knowing the full facts of the case, or sometimes in spite of knowing the full facts of the case – take whichever side has a black person in it. The problem is, he hates his black side just as much and makes the blacks of America pay dearly, too.
It also shows in the way he treats the women of his administration.
So the truth is, Obama hates his white side because of his mother’s abandonment (see “Punahou”), and he wants to make America pay the price for that. But he also must punish the black side as well because he perceives that as being the cause of her abandonment. Thus, America pays because Obama’s mother played.
(NOTE: I have "Dreams From My Father", Three Rivers Press, © 1995, 2004 by Barack Obama, Paperback edition, ISBN 978-1-4000-8277-3)
Saturday, April 2, 2011
America, HYK!
When I was a child and learning about the U.S. Constitution and the Founding Fathers, I also watched my Dad go off to work in Air Force blues, in those awful green fatigues that I learned very early to starch so stiff that they almost stood up by themselves. I knew other kids whose dads also went to work for our country: day or night, “scrambled” out to make sure that the airplanes the Air Force needed were ready to go. He worked on the bombers, mostly, and they were his babies. I have been all over a B-52 – top, bottom, pilot’s seat to tail gunner’s, bombardier to navigator. I was rolled around in a B-52’s tires and I thought it was wonderful that the nation I grew up in and loved had such wonderful things to protect itself.
That was before I ever realized that anyone who could be elected President of the United States of America could actually hate America at the same time as taking advantage of our capitalist system, our civil rights and our election process. I never dreamed back then that the United States would have to fight for our own survival due to forces from within. On top of those B-52’s I always thought attacks would be from forces outside of America. If anything would bring us to the brink of destruction, it would be the Soviet Union, or China, or the Communists who hated America and all we stand for, but lived elsewhere.
Today, we have an economy that is tanking, putting America on the ledge of a financial cliff made of debt, profligate spending and ridiculous compromises made by the party that is supposed to be more Conservative – supposed to pull us back from the brink with their strength and principalled leadership.
Today, we have forces from within our own country – unions, George Soros (evil incarnate), progressives, power brokers – who are doing all they can to create chaos, disorder, hatred: make neighbor hate neighbor. While it’s apparent why they are doing this, it’s not apparent why they hate America – the country that made it possible for them to have all they have and still, they hate her.
Today, we have a President (I hate calling him that) who refuses to be transparent about anything except what he likes to eat, who hates America more than anything else in the world, who kowtows to enemies foreign and has none domestic except honest, hard working, conservatives who love the country that is paying for his lifestyle in the White House and his vacations, transportation, security, health care, children’s protection and his wife’s whims. All the while, in other countries they complain and moan about how bad America is, how rotten she is, how evil her people – some of them at least – are.
Today, we have a Federal Reserve that is working with the current administration to try to destroy America, again the land that blessed him with his position of authority, his wealth, his opportunities. Our Congresses and Senates – U.S. and States – are battling over the direction our country and our states should go. Some wish to go totally, progressively, toward Communism: everyone has everything that anyone else has at the expense of those who will work and those who don’t work get all the same things as those who do – at the working person’s expense, of course. Want food, health care, housing, a car, a big screen 3D television, a designer wardrobe, and the latest cell phone, iPod and computer? No worries. Those who work will be forced to pay for them for you. You sit down and relax; no need for those who will vote for us to do anything to earn their own way except vote for us, progressive Communist Congressmen and Senators say.
Today, the backs and patience of those who are willing to earn their own way, pay for their own houses, cars, televisions, are being broken under the burden of higher taxes, more regulations, more paperwork from every layer of government – city, township, county, state, federal – they all have to have their reasons for employing more of those constituents who want to work, but don’t want to work unless they have a union supporting their desires for an easier life, benefits and pensions guaranteed due to the threat of striking and the power of the unions. It’s not that the union wants to actually help those workers, it is that they want to keep their power, so they placate the worker to keep the unions getting the votes – and to keep their members voting for the political candidates who will support the unions’ power.
Today, regulation and “global warming” are the name of the game. We must buy certain kinds of toilets, washing machines, light bulbs (I refuse) and our children are being taught the lie of “global warming” as gospel and worshipping “Mother Earth” is the only religion allowed in public schools and some religious schools have picked it up as well. Families are “guilted” into recycling, driving less, or driving a “green” car so that the child in the back seat won’t feel guilty about driving those eight long hours to get to grandma’s house because her family is polluting the planet and causing more greenhouse gasses as they travel. Heaven forbid the teachers tell the truth and teach the child that there is no such thing as “global warming” and man’s impact upon the earth is never as devastating as the earth’s impact upon man.
Today, we have to sit back and be silent as the PC Police will shut us up if we say anything they disagree with. We are not allowed to voice opposition to “gay marriage” because it may upset someone; heaven forbid we talk about faith in any god besides their secular humanism. If we wish to mention the real GOD, we are mocked, laughed at and their superiority for not believing in Him is thrown in our faces. Disallowed to be taught in schools until a lawsuit is brought to make it happen, the PC Police try their best to keep GOD out of schools, the public square, even out of our hearts if they could. GOD is anathema to them: they don’t wish to understand Him, want to hear about Him, get to know Him, or anything else to do with a good, loving, holy GOD. If they did acknowledge Him, they’d also have to acknowledge that He sets the rules of right and wrong and they have broken so many of them and will have to answer to Him one day, therefore they must disavow any knowledge of or acknowledgement of GOD, good and holy.
Today, the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michele Bachman and any Conservatives are the enemy because we wish to restore America to what our Founding Fathers – enemies also – designed America to be, wrote our Constitution to keep her, and fought to make her. We shall never return to the Republic our Founding Fathers gave us, based upon godly principals and values. Heaven forbid we look to GOD for guidance and to the Founding Documents for our compass, true north. That is all verboten, disallowed and evil: even the mention of it causes those on the left – progressives, liberals, Democrats, Wrongies -- great anguish and heart ache.
Today, that will all start to change. America, HIT YOUR KNEES! (HYK!) Let’s make the year 2011 the year of the greatest spiritual awakening the world has ever seen. Let’s do what they cannot and will not stop. Take back our country through faith in GOD and prayer to Him. It says in the Bible, “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” (2 Chronicles 7:14)
Today, your prayers can “availeth much” because this is something they cannot prevent and have no way to fight. GOD is bigger, mightier, more capable than any of their plans, any of their schemers (even George Soros and Obama), any of their power hungry, money grabbing, Communist Manifesto toting, Rules for Radicals following, connected, enabled, high and mighty minions and they have no way to prevent us, stop us, or to stop GOD.
Today, we can start the America’s turn around, start a change in direction and we can make America the country she was supposed to be; Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington prayed she’d be. Today, all it takes is a little extra effort, a little extra time, a little energy to push yourself up from that kneeling position to make the difference. America’s 180 turn can begin today if you will start taking five minutes to pray for her in the morning when you get up. Take five minutes to pray for her at lunch time. Take five minutes to pray for her at bedtime. Put a pillow under your knees if you must (I do), but drop to your knees, go to the Lord in prayer and ask Him to protect America from those who will do evil to her, those who scheme against her, those who will tax the children who have not yet been born by spending way beyond our current means and borrowing away our futures.
Today, just in a few minutes, you can make a difference if you will, whenever you think of it, however you wish to do it, PRAY FOR AMERICA. Pray that GOD will turn us back from the direction our country has been going, that He will open eyes around the nation so that there will be no denying GOD and that He will bless our country with strong conservative leadership; leadership that will understand the Founding Fathers and all they believed, what they intended, and how much they must have loved America because they put such restraints upon the government and those who would undo what they did. Although, that has all been ignored for so long and we have been lied to and litigated into other ways of doing things for so long that most of us have forgotten the truth. Pray that GOD will touch hearts, give courage, and strengthen His people to stand and to make America AMERICA again!
Today, HYK! for your children’s futures, for the good of the nation, for the defeat of communism/liberalism/progressivism in America. HYK! so that you can ask GOD to change America, turn her back and bless her with a revival as no one has ever seen before. Then, “will [He] hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” GOD says. And when He says something, whether any human believes it or not, GOD is correct and it is the truth. HYK! to heal our land.
Today, Obama, Soros, Andy Stern, et al, can be defeated with your simple act of obedience. Wouldn’t that be something worth the five minutes here and there?
Today, give Soros and Obama a kick in the pants. Hit Your Knees and pray.
That was before I ever realized that anyone who could be elected President of the United States of America could actually hate America at the same time as taking advantage of our capitalist system, our civil rights and our election process. I never dreamed back then that the United States would have to fight for our own survival due to forces from within. On top of those B-52’s I always thought attacks would be from forces outside of America. If anything would bring us to the brink of destruction, it would be the Soviet Union, or China, or the Communists who hated America and all we stand for, but lived elsewhere.
Today, we have an economy that is tanking, putting America on the ledge of a financial cliff made of debt, profligate spending and ridiculous compromises made by the party that is supposed to be more Conservative – supposed to pull us back from the brink with their strength and principalled leadership.
Today, we have forces from within our own country – unions, George Soros (evil incarnate), progressives, power brokers – who are doing all they can to create chaos, disorder, hatred: make neighbor hate neighbor. While it’s apparent why they are doing this, it’s not apparent why they hate America – the country that made it possible for them to have all they have and still, they hate her.
Today, we have a President (I hate calling him that) who refuses to be transparent about anything except what he likes to eat, who hates America more than anything else in the world, who kowtows to enemies foreign and has none domestic except honest, hard working, conservatives who love the country that is paying for his lifestyle in the White House and his vacations, transportation, security, health care, children’s protection and his wife’s whims. All the while, in other countries they complain and moan about how bad America is, how rotten she is, how evil her people – some of them at least – are.
Today, we have a Federal Reserve that is working with the current administration to try to destroy America, again the land that blessed him with his position of authority, his wealth, his opportunities. Our Congresses and Senates – U.S. and States – are battling over the direction our country and our states should go. Some wish to go totally, progressively, toward Communism: everyone has everything that anyone else has at the expense of those who will work and those who don’t work get all the same things as those who do – at the working person’s expense, of course. Want food, health care, housing, a car, a big screen 3D television, a designer wardrobe, and the latest cell phone, iPod and computer? No worries. Those who work will be forced to pay for them for you. You sit down and relax; no need for those who will vote for us to do anything to earn their own way except vote for us, progressive Communist Congressmen and Senators say.
Today, the backs and patience of those who are willing to earn their own way, pay for their own houses, cars, televisions, are being broken under the burden of higher taxes, more regulations, more paperwork from every layer of government – city, township, county, state, federal – they all have to have their reasons for employing more of those constituents who want to work, but don’t want to work unless they have a union supporting their desires for an easier life, benefits and pensions guaranteed due to the threat of striking and the power of the unions. It’s not that the union wants to actually help those workers, it is that they want to keep their power, so they placate the worker to keep the unions getting the votes – and to keep their members voting for the political candidates who will support the unions’ power.
Today, regulation and “global warming” are the name of the game. We must buy certain kinds of toilets, washing machines, light bulbs (I refuse) and our children are being taught the lie of “global warming” as gospel and worshipping “Mother Earth” is the only religion allowed in public schools and some religious schools have picked it up as well. Families are “guilted” into recycling, driving less, or driving a “green” car so that the child in the back seat won’t feel guilty about driving those eight long hours to get to grandma’s house because her family is polluting the planet and causing more greenhouse gasses as they travel. Heaven forbid the teachers tell the truth and teach the child that there is no such thing as “global warming” and man’s impact upon the earth is never as devastating as the earth’s impact upon man.
Today, we have to sit back and be silent as the PC Police will shut us up if we say anything they disagree with. We are not allowed to voice opposition to “gay marriage” because it may upset someone; heaven forbid we talk about faith in any god besides their secular humanism. If we wish to mention the real GOD, we are mocked, laughed at and their superiority for not believing in Him is thrown in our faces. Disallowed to be taught in schools until a lawsuit is brought to make it happen, the PC Police try their best to keep GOD out of schools, the public square, even out of our hearts if they could. GOD is anathema to them: they don’t wish to understand Him, want to hear about Him, get to know Him, or anything else to do with a good, loving, holy GOD. If they did acknowledge Him, they’d also have to acknowledge that He sets the rules of right and wrong and they have broken so many of them and will have to answer to Him one day, therefore they must disavow any knowledge of or acknowledgement of GOD, good and holy.
Today, the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michele Bachman and any Conservatives are the enemy because we wish to restore America to what our Founding Fathers – enemies also – designed America to be, wrote our Constitution to keep her, and fought to make her. We shall never return to the Republic our Founding Fathers gave us, based upon godly principals and values. Heaven forbid we look to GOD for guidance and to the Founding Documents for our compass, true north. That is all verboten, disallowed and evil: even the mention of it causes those on the left – progressives, liberals, Democrats, Wrongies -- great anguish and heart ache.
Today, that will all start to change. America, HIT YOUR KNEES! (HYK!) Let’s make the year 2011 the year of the greatest spiritual awakening the world has ever seen. Let’s do what they cannot and will not stop. Take back our country through faith in GOD and prayer to Him. It says in the Bible, “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” (2 Chronicles 7:14)
Today, your prayers can “availeth much” because this is something they cannot prevent and have no way to fight. GOD is bigger, mightier, more capable than any of their plans, any of their schemers (even George Soros and Obama), any of their power hungry, money grabbing, Communist Manifesto toting, Rules for Radicals following, connected, enabled, high and mighty minions and they have no way to prevent us, stop us, or to stop GOD.
Today, we can start the America’s turn around, start a change in direction and we can make America the country she was supposed to be; Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington prayed she’d be. Today, all it takes is a little extra effort, a little extra time, a little energy to push yourself up from that kneeling position to make the difference. America’s 180 turn can begin today if you will start taking five minutes to pray for her in the morning when you get up. Take five minutes to pray for her at lunch time. Take five minutes to pray for her at bedtime. Put a pillow under your knees if you must (I do), but drop to your knees, go to the Lord in prayer and ask Him to protect America from those who will do evil to her, those who scheme against her, those who will tax the children who have not yet been born by spending way beyond our current means and borrowing away our futures.
Today, just in a few minutes, you can make a difference if you will, whenever you think of it, however you wish to do it, PRAY FOR AMERICA. Pray that GOD will turn us back from the direction our country has been going, that He will open eyes around the nation so that there will be no denying GOD and that He will bless our country with strong conservative leadership; leadership that will understand the Founding Fathers and all they believed, what they intended, and how much they must have loved America because they put such restraints upon the government and those who would undo what they did. Although, that has all been ignored for so long and we have been lied to and litigated into other ways of doing things for so long that most of us have forgotten the truth. Pray that GOD will touch hearts, give courage, and strengthen His people to stand and to make America AMERICA again!
Today, HYK! for your children’s futures, for the good of the nation, for the defeat of communism/liberalism/progressivism in America. HYK! so that you can ask GOD to change America, turn her back and bless her with a revival as no one has ever seen before. Then, “will [He] hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” GOD says. And when He says something, whether any human believes it or not, GOD is correct and it is the truth. HYK! to heal our land.
Today, Obama, Soros, Andy Stern, et al, can be defeated with your simple act of obedience. Wouldn’t that be something worth the five minutes here and there?
Today, give Soros and Obama a kick in the pants. Hit Your Knees and pray.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Health Care Scam?
Received a scanned image from a friend September 25, 2010. That image made me go webcrawling because it made me go, "Hmmm... That's not right." The image is of the letter my friend received from the
Research Triangle Institute and, to me, it's very questionable.
Why is it "very questionable"? First: Why on earth does the U.S. Government have to hire outside help to perform a U.S. Public Health Services survey? That's the header on the page; it's the U.S.P.H.S. letterhead. Why use an outside source to do this? After all, they have the resources and they have employees, or they could hire people to do the work without getting a third person involved. Why hire someone else to do this? And, why at this time (more on that later)?
Second: If you read the letter, they say that the people being interviewed are going to -- if qualified to participate in the actual survey (more on that later) -- receive thirty dollars each. There could be multiple people in the same household "chosen to participate", thus there could be almost one hundred dollars in the household given to people to answer questions regarding "health-related issues". So over 6 million taxpayer dollars are given to RTI to go house to house and ask "health-related issues" questions. Will you really be answering "health-related issues" questions, or will they be more related to something else?
Third: RTI states,
"Our activities both mirror and support national priorities and policies as well as diverse commercial, industrial, and academic endeavors." If they "both mirror and support" why choose them to give $6 million dollars walking around money to, when the administration could have and should have chosen an organization that is neutral. (BTW, was this contract put out to bid and if so, how many people/companies bid on this contract? What were the other bids? Who owns those other companies? What are the other companies' affiations [Soros?]?) Why choose an organization whose stated goals are "to mirror and support"? Why not choose a neutral organization unless there's a specific purpose to send the surveyors out to accomplish?
Fourth: Why the initial questions before you are "qualified" to participate? Are they looking for someone specific to give the money to? Someone, perhaps, who may be swayed by a little extra cash before they decide to vote for or against a certain person or idea? Why not just question everyone about their "health-related issues"? After all, we all have at least one thing to be thinking about, don't we? If we are healthy, we want to stay that way. If we are sick, we want to get treatment. If we are pregnant, we want a healthy baby and a good pregnancy and easy delivery. We all have "health-related issues" so why do they need to pre-screen the participants who will receive the thirty dollars? Is there another reason to do so?
Fifth: This survey is being conducted just prior to a mid-term election in which many of those who voted for shoving "health care reform" down our throats will be up for reelection. Where will these surveys be taking place: in whose districts? Will it be nationwide, no matter what? Or will it be only in those districts whose Senators/Congresspeople are facing defeat after voting in favor of "health care reform"? Isn't "healt care reform" a "health-related issue"? How many of those chosen to participate and receive that $30 will be those who will vote for the candidate up for reelection after they get that money? Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas, is having a difficult time due to her support and vote in favor of "health care reform". Is it coincidence that the surveys are being conducted here?
Sixth: How accountable are the people walking around with this money going to be to the taxpayers? Will they be keeping copious records? Will they be getting identification, Social Security numbers, drivers' license numbers, or any other type of record-enabling thing? What is the surveyor's responsibility to the taxpayer since they already have the money? Or will it be something that they can go spend the money however they wish once they get out into the neighborhood and there will be no accounting?
Seventh: Will they be bonded, licensed, insured? Will they be vetted prior to them being given identification and told to enter people's homes under the auspices of the federal government program they are working for? Or will it be similar to the U.S. Census in which several Census workers were found to be sex offenders after they had been employed by the Census? Or will they be more careful this time?
Will you be safe? Will your children be safe?
Eighth: Why do people need to be cleared to answer questions? Is there a set of particular people they are trying to question: i.e., is the survey being weighted? For instance: If they are trying to get people who were not going to vote for Kosmas to participate in the survey and they ask questions like, "Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas voted for the health care reform act. Does this tend to make you want to vote for Kosmas or against Kosmas?" Remember, it is a "health-related issues" survey. That question is related to health-related issues. After all, if it weren't for the people who voted for shoving the "Health Care Enslavement Act of 2010" we wouldn't have had that change and we wouldn't be facing the future difficulties we now are.
Ninth: If this information is being collected for "only for statistical purposes" why do the people need to be paid? And why screen people with initial questions? Why not ask the people in the household the questions, no matter their possible answers to the initial questions? Obviously, they are looking for a specific answer, a specific group of people, a specific result. So what result are they looking for? What statistic are they trying to secure: support for the "health care reform" supidity, or support for the candidate who supported it?
Tenth: Is this another "jobs" scam, similar to the
U.S. Census jobs? Remember how the U.S. Census kept getting busted for hiring people, having them work slowly for a few days, firing them, then re-hiring them for another portion of the U.S. Census? Remember that ridiculousness that made the summer jobs numbers supposedly better? Remember how all of that worked out? How about this stuff? Will all those RTI "surveyors" be part of the federal jobs program? And, if so, how about those people who take the survey and receive government money for participating? Will this administration be counting the survey takers as "government employees" also? What will that do to jobs numbers?
Eleventh: What benefits will the government get -- or does someone else benefit -- from this information? Find out the questions these RTI employees are going to be asking: both the initial questions and the survey questions. That will tell you the truth about what this survey is going to be doing for the "statistical purposes" of this administration. What will it benefit the government: or who within the government will it benefit? If it's benefiting the government, shouldn't we also get some benefit? After all, it is your six million dollars that is being spent, shouldn't you get some benefit of some sort?
Twelth: If RTI's stated goals and purposes are to "both mirror and support national priorities and policies", and it's going to be for "statistical purposes" that this survey is done, why bother spending six million dollars on a survey to be done by a company that already "mirrors and supports" the administration anyways? Does this make sense to you? Isn't that a bit like paying for an outcome that is already predetermined? Why pay six million dollars for something that is going to get the expected results anyways? Does this make any sense to you? Or is this being done for other purposes? After all, we already have the government agency upon whose letterhead this letter is written. Why hire an outside agency and pay give them six million dollars of walking around money, not to mention paying the employees to do this survey, and the contract amount? Why?
Which leads me to the last question:
Thirteenth: Is this Obama sending taxpayer dollars to his friends via another shady deal? Take a look at who RTI is. See any connections with this administration? How about
the fact that they lobby in favor of the health care issue? (Be sure to check out all of the tabs there, especially the "Issues" and the information on the group's lobbyists and revolving door info.) Or maybe you should consider
Erskine Bowles, President of the University fo North Carolina, which is part of RTI. Remember him?
He's part of the Obama appointed "Debt Commission". Nah. Nothing to see there. Then consider this RTI brochure that includes the line: "Education Reform Support, Soros Foundation/Bulgarian Ministry of Education (1998–2000)". Soros? As in George Soros? Is Obama paying back Soros with millions of your taxpayer dollars for the support Soros gave Obama in getting elected? Just asking, folks. Just asking. One more to look at would be
page five of
this RTI brochure. It has Soros in the brochure, too, as well as an organization called "USAID". There were 1,610 Google® search results for "Research Triangle Institute USAID Soros". RTI is the organization whose employees (vetted employees?) will be entering your house to ask you "health-related issues" questions.
USAID is a U.S. government aid organization that spends billions of your taxpayer dollars worldwide to help other nations. RTI is connected to USAID, to George Soros and has a history -- according to their own website -- of "mirror[ing] and support[ing}" the Obama administration. How much of your taxpayer dollars should be spent on a frivolous survey that an existing organization could conduct instead of giving Obama's supporters over six million dollars of your money to do the job?
I got the letter from a longtime friend who legitimately received it in the mail. He wasn't expecting to receive this letter, but he was not surprised to see that this administration was doing something so blatantly wrong. Thanks to my friend, I sent this information to Glenn Beck. I am also making sure Michelle Bachman and others know about it. I hope that they -- and that you -- will ask hard questions of the Obama administration and demand some real answers. Remember, it's your money. It's your right to ask questions about it and it's your right to demand that the government answer those questions. Contact the USPHS (they're the ones whose letterhead the letter is on) and
ask the USPHS why this survey, why now, and why RTI? Ask them under the the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Demand answers. It's your right to know.
Then, when you've asked the USPHS,
ask Obama, too. Use the FOIA to your advantage and get answers. Don't accept, "It's just a survey" as an answer. Find the TRUTH!
Research Triangle Institute and, to me, it's very questionable.
Why is it "very questionable"? First: Why on earth does the U.S. Government have to hire outside help to perform a U.S. Public Health Services survey? That's the header on the page; it's the U.S.P.H.S. letterhead. Why use an outside source to do this? After all, they have the resources and they have employees, or they could hire people to do the work without getting a third person involved. Why hire someone else to do this? And, why at this time (more on that later)?
Second: If you read the letter, they say that the people being interviewed are going to -- if qualified to participate in the actual survey (more on that later) -- receive thirty dollars each. There could be multiple people in the same household "chosen to participate", thus there could be almost one hundred dollars in the household given to people to answer questions regarding "health-related issues". So over 6 million taxpayer dollars are given to RTI to go house to house and ask "health-related issues" questions. Will you really be answering "health-related issues" questions, or will they be more related to something else?
Third: RTI states,
"Our activities both mirror and support national priorities and policies as well as diverse commercial, industrial, and academic endeavors." If they "both mirror and support" why choose them to give $6 million dollars walking around money to, when the administration could have and should have chosen an organization that is neutral. (BTW, was this contract put out to bid and if so, how many people/companies bid on this contract? What were the other bids? Who owns those other companies? What are the other companies' affiations [Soros?]?) Why choose an organization whose stated goals are "to mirror and support"? Why not choose a neutral organization unless there's a specific purpose to send the surveyors out to accomplish?
Fourth: Why the initial questions before you are "qualified" to participate? Are they looking for someone specific to give the money to? Someone, perhaps, who may be swayed by a little extra cash before they decide to vote for or against a certain person or idea? Why not just question everyone about their "health-related issues"? After all, we all have at least one thing to be thinking about, don't we? If we are healthy, we want to stay that way. If we are sick, we want to get treatment. If we are pregnant, we want a healthy baby and a good pregnancy and easy delivery. We all have "health-related issues" so why do they need to pre-screen the participants who will receive the thirty dollars? Is there another reason to do so?
Fifth: This survey is being conducted just prior to a mid-term election in which many of those who voted for shoving "health care reform" down our throats will be up for reelection. Where will these surveys be taking place: in whose districts? Will it be nationwide, no matter what? Or will it be only in those districts whose Senators/Congresspeople are facing defeat after voting in favor of "health care reform"? Isn't "healt care reform" a "health-related issue"? How many of those chosen to participate and receive that $30 will be those who will vote for the candidate up for reelection after they get that money? Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas, is having a difficult time due to her support and vote in favor of "health care reform". Is it coincidence that the surveys are being conducted here?
Sixth: How accountable are the people walking around with this money going to be to the taxpayers? Will they be keeping copious records? Will they be getting identification, Social Security numbers, drivers' license numbers, or any other type of record-enabling thing? What is the surveyor's responsibility to the taxpayer since they already have the money? Or will it be something that they can go spend the money however they wish once they get out into the neighborhood and there will be no accounting?
Seventh: Will they be bonded, licensed, insured? Will they be vetted prior to them being given identification and told to enter people's homes under the auspices of the federal government program they are working for? Or will it be similar to the U.S. Census in which several Census workers were found to be sex offenders after they had been employed by the Census? Or will they be more careful this time?
Will you be safe? Will your children be safe?
Eighth: Why do people need to be cleared to answer questions? Is there a set of particular people they are trying to question: i.e., is the survey being weighted? For instance: If they are trying to get people who were not going to vote for Kosmas to participate in the survey and they ask questions like, "Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas voted for the health care reform act. Does this tend to make you want to vote for Kosmas or against Kosmas?" Remember, it is a "health-related issues" survey. That question is related to health-related issues. After all, if it weren't for the people who voted for shoving the "Health Care Enslavement Act of 2010" we wouldn't have had that change and we wouldn't be facing the future difficulties we now are.
Ninth: If this information is being collected for "only for statistical purposes" why do the people need to be paid? And why screen people with initial questions? Why not ask the people in the household the questions, no matter their possible answers to the initial questions? Obviously, they are looking for a specific answer, a specific group of people, a specific result. So what result are they looking for? What statistic are they trying to secure: support for the "health care reform" supidity, or support for the candidate who supported it?
Tenth: Is this another "jobs" scam, similar to the
U.S. Census jobs? Remember how the U.S. Census kept getting busted for hiring people, having them work slowly for a few days, firing them, then re-hiring them for another portion of the U.S. Census? Remember that ridiculousness that made the summer jobs numbers supposedly better? Remember how all of that worked out? How about this stuff? Will all those RTI "surveyors" be part of the federal jobs program? And, if so, how about those people who take the survey and receive government money for participating? Will this administration be counting the survey takers as "government employees" also? What will that do to jobs numbers?
Eleventh: What benefits will the government get -- or does someone else benefit -- from this information? Find out the questions these RTI employees are going to be asking: both the initial questions and the survey questions. That will tell you the truth about what this survey is going to be doing for the "statistical purposes" of this administration. What will it benefit the government: or who within the government will it benefit? If it's benefiting the government, shouldn't we also get some benefit? After all, it is your six million dollars that is being spent, shouldn't you get some benefit of some sort?
Twelth: If RTI's stated goals and purposes are to "both mirror and support national priorities and policies", and it's going to be for "statistical purposes" that this survey is done, why bother spending six million dollars on a survey to be done by a company that already "mirrors and supports" the administration anyways? Does this make sense to you? Isn't that a bit like paying for an outcome that is already predetermined? Why pay six million dollars for something that is going to get the expected results anyways? Does this make any sense to you? Or is this being done for other purposes? After all, we already have the government agency upon whose letterhead this letter is written. Why hire an outside agency and pay give them six million dollars of walking around money, not to mention paying the employees to do this survey, and the contract amount? Why?
Which leads me to the last question:
Thirteenth: Is this Obama sending taxpayer dollars to his friends via another shady deal? Take a look at who RTI is. See any connections with this administration? How about
the fact that they lobby in favor of the health care issue? (Be sure to check out all of the tabs there, especially the "Issues" and the information on the group's lobbyists and revolving door info.) Or maybe you should consider
Erskine Bowles, President of the University fo North Carolina, which is part of RTI. Remember him?
He's part of the Obama appointed "Debt Commission". Nah. Nothing to see there. Then consider this RTI brochure that includes the line: "Education Reform Support, Soros Foundation/Bulgarian Ministry of Education (1998–2000)". Soros? As in George Soros? Is Obama paying back Soros with millions of your taxpayer dollars for the support Soros gave Obama in getting elected? Just asking, folks. Just asking. One more to look at would be
page five of
this RTI brochure. It has Soros in the brochure, too, as well as an organization called "USAID". There were 1,610 Google® search results for "Research Triangle Institute USAID Soros". RTI is the organization whose employees (vetted employees?) will be entering your house to ask you "health-related issues" questions.
USAID is a U.S. government aid organization that spends billions of your taxpayer dollars worldwide to help other nations. RTI is connected to USAID, to George Soros and has a history -- according to their own website -- of "mirror[ing] and support[ing}" the Obama administration. How much of your taxpayer dollars should be spent on a frivolous survey that an existing organization could conduct instead of giving Obama's supporters over six million dollars of your money to do the job?
I got the letter from a longtime friend who legitimately received it in the mail. He wasn't expecting to receive this letter, but he was not surprised to see that this administration was doing something so blatantly wrong. Thanks to my friend, I sent this information to Glenn Beck. I am also making sure Michelle Bachman and others know about it. I hope that they -- and that you -- will ask hard questions of the Obama administration and demand some real answers. Remember, it's your money. It's your right to ask questions about it and it's your right to demand that the government answer those questions. Contact the USPHS (they're the ones whose letterhead the letter is on) and
ask the USPHS why this survey, why now, and why RTI? Ask them under the the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Demand answers. It's your right to know.
Then, when you've asked the USPHS,
ask Obama, too. Use the FOIA to your advantage and get answers. Don't accept, "It's just a survey" as an answer. Find the TRUTH!
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
What the Left Has Forgotten
The obamination's Czars, advisors, financial supporters, confidants and mentors are either writing books, have written books, or are planning on doing so in the future. All have one favorite theme: the overthrow of America as we know it. Between Bill Ayers, Wade Rathke, Rahm Emmanuel and the rest of the "Radicals for Obama" group, there must be fifty books either already in print, or soon to be.
(Wonderful. More trees taken down for their own glorification and so that they can get some more devalued American money coming into their own pockets. I thought they cared about the environment and they believe that the free enterprise system and profit in America was evil. Oh, sorry. That's all talk. Action is reserved for the destruction of America as we know it.)
One of the books, "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinksy, is one of those books I decided to read in order to "Know thy enemy". It's not fun, but it can be eye-opening. It's an astonishing look into the mind of a "revolutionary"; albeit a so-far unsuccessful revolutionary in thought and deed. So far, I have read the Prologue and have a few thoughts on it which I share here.
To start with, the Alinsky Prologue states:
(Page xix) "As an organizer I start from where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be. That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be -- it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be. That means working in the system."
He then says that Dostoevsky teaches that the vast majority of the people should feel lost, frustrated, alienated, powerless and defeated (I paraphrase, of course), that "they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future" with revolutionary change. Without this acceptance of the idea and desire for change -- without the lost and powerless, frustration -- people will not be willing to accept revolutionary change. He says that organizers (could this be "community organizers"?) need to work among those of the lowest income brackets to form alliances with them or "they will move to the right." In other words, if the Liberal Lefties don't court the poor and promise them the moon, stars, a personal son and a chauffeur, then the poor people are going to naturally become conservative. "If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyways, but let's not let it happen by default." Does that tell you something?
Alinsky's point is that the Left should focus on the poorest of the poor, the disenfranchised in order to prevent them from becoming someone who wants to be able to keep what they have via hard work, get more via hard work, and stand on their own two feet. It is this realization -- that the Left acknowledges this reality -- that astonished me the most of all the words in the Prologue. Instead of wanting the poorest of the poor to learn to stand on their own two feet, he encourages radicals to court them, unite them with promises of power or whatever (that all-important "Change"!) and to use them as a united force to attack America's fundamental goodness.
Aren't you surprised that Alinsky acknowledges that the poor will become conservatives ("right") if not courted by the Left? He admits that the poor will become right-wingers if not courted by the welfare pushers! (What is it the Left is not willing to stoop to in order to have power?) Instead of encouraging people to stand on their own two feet, to work hard to get what they want, and to do it themselves, they get them "allied with" the Left in order to have a massive political hammer.
Another astonishing moment is when Alinsky acknowledges any fundamental goodness in America. Even though he acknowledges its fundamental goodness, it is apparently passed over by the radicals -- even Alinsky himself -- as he breaks what I think is the Leftist radical's first rule, "Nothing is good about America." in order to teach radicals how to go about taking away even that one "good thing" he mentions. Alinsky wrote on page xxi,
"Let us in the name of radical pragmatism not forget that in our system with all its repression we can still speak out and denounce the administration, attack its policies, work to build an opposition political base. True, there is government harassment, but there still is that relative freedom to fight. I can attack my government, try to organize to change it. That's more than I can do in Moscow, Peking, or Havana. Remember the reaction of the Red Guard to the 'cultural revolution' and the fate of the Chinese college students. Just a few of the violent episodes of the bombings or a courtroom shootout that we have experienced here would have resulted in a sweeping purge and mass executions in Russia, China, or Cuba. Let's keep some perspective."
Amazing. Admit that America is better than what you and your ilk are working toward changing America into, and then go on with the fight to change America into Russia, China, or Cuba. Isn't that smart?
The truth of the matter is, that it didn't matter to him -- Alinsky or any of the other radicals -- that he has to admit that America has offered himself and others that think like him the opportunity and freedom to do so. Alinsky didn't really want that freedom -- not for all Americans, at least. You and I would be hard pressed to have Alinsky or any other obamination supporter, cohort, advisor, financier, Czar who would stand up and support that right for us: the conservatives of America. Because the truth be known, they don't want to change America so that the underprivileged -- the poorest of the poor, the disenfranchised, the downtrodden -- will be able to have freedom of speech, or any other rights: the poor have those already. What the radicals surrounding obamination want is to use that power -- the power of the masses of the people who will turn right if not prevented from doing so -- to wield what they see as a "majority hammer" and get control of the country.
The Left truly believes that America should be run by themselves and no one conservative should have a voice in it, that none of the Founding Fathers' ideals, words, beliefs should remain in the American lexicon, and that in order to have the perfect world they all dream of that it has to be one in which every nation is part of all nations. We are not talking a U.N. situation here: we're talking one world currency, one world rule -- with the Left in charge.
What even the Left's DNA has forgotten is that the countries Alinsky mentioned above (Russia, China, Cuba) have been at this communist thing for so much longer than they or their grandfathers have even dreamed of and they -- the American Commies -- are such newbies to the game that they don't even rank when it comes to being a power player. China will just as soon kill them in front of their own mothers and children as allow them any rank in the power structure of their forever dreamed of, "New World Order". Russia will rape their wives, daughters and sons in front of them then kill them all in a horrible fire death before allowing them to be part of the ruling class. Their dreams of having a voice in the "revolutionary world" is so much bong smoke that they can't see the truth for the haze. They can't wake up for the ecstasies they envision while their delusions of grandeur fill their itty-bitty brains and their need to change their sheets in the morning is increased tenfold as their imaginings of their rise to the throne of power within the world to come enraptures them.
Well, lah-ti-dah.
It isn't going to happen, Lefties. The power structures you dream of are a bunch of smoke, mirrors, ego and sheet-changing dreams and will never come to pass. You will not rise to the thrones of communist power as you think you will. You will not be welcomed with open arms into the upper echelons of the ruling class as you desire. You will be a worthless worker bee, left to rot and starve because you are considered untrustworthy of the rulers of the new world you helped create. You'll be considered untrustworthy in their eyes because if you can betray your own country -- and in the process, your own mother, aunts and uncles, father, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, cousins and friends and, finally, your own spouse -- how can they trust you?
Wake up and smell the coffee (or should that be borscht?), Lefties. You cannot give America's founding principles the heave-ho and make believe that it's all for the best that we become a world without boundaries and that we'll all sing, "Everything is Beautiful" as we hold hands around the globe with the communist countries that do not have the freedom of dissent even Alinsky touts is America then ignores, and expect anyone in the other countries to think you did something that should put you at the height of the ruling class.
If you think that, name me one -- one -- spy who was feted and glorified for anything longer than an introductory period of glory that made it look like that spy had achieved something wonderful, and who stayed at that vaunted glory place. Name me one spy who gave up America (or any other country for that matter) to the communist countries that was given a glorified position within the power structure, given a substantial living allowance, a wonderful house to live in, and all the respect of the leaders of that country and kept that place of prominence. One. If you cannot do so, then you have to acknowledge that the communist countries won't treat you any better if you try to deliver America to them, hook, line and sinker. You're more likely to be roasted over an open fire in front of the world as the first example of what happens to those who do things their way. We all know that after the glory and when the newspapers leave they take that traitor and fling him into the gulags and ignore his self-aggrandized plea of, "Look what I did for you!"
The rest of us will be left to be repulsed both by your actions and by your grisly death, but we will not mourn nor martyr you. You will have earned your place in history.
Alinsky wrote:
(Page xxiv) "Thus, the greatest enemy of individual freedom is the individual himself."
As it is with the Left's idea of conservatives, so it is with the truth about himself and others like him. Their fates, their places in history and their glory will be determined by their own actions and how they treat, adore, respect, or betray America. I do not think they realize that. I do not think they remember that. I do think they are so eaten up with their own egos that they think it will be different for them. They're special.
Alinsky quoted Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America", saying, "It must not be forgotten that it is especially dangerous to enslave men in the minor details of life." I suppose for the left, the truth of what Communism really is and what it really does is one of those "minor details".
(Wonderful. More trees taken down for their own glorification and so that they can get some more devalued American money coming into their own pockets. I thought they cared about the environment and they believe that the free enterprise system and profit in America was evil. Oh, sorry. That's all talk. Action is reserved for the destruction of America as we know it.)
One of the books, "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinksy, is one of those books I decided to read in order to "Know thy enemy". It's not fun, but it can be eye-opening. It's an astonishing look into the mind of a "revolutionary"; albeit a so-far unsuccessful revolutionary in thought and deed. So far, I have read the Prologue and have a few thoughts on it which I share here.
To start with, the Alinsky Prologue states:
(Page xix) "As an organizer I start from where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be. That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be -- it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be. That means working in the system."
He then says that Dostoevsky teaches that the vast majority of the people should feel lost, frustrated, alienated, powerless and defeated (I paraphrase, of course), that "they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future" with revolutionary change. Without this acceptance of the idea and desire for change -- without the lost and powerless, frustration -- people will not be willing to accept revolutionary change. He says that organizers (could this be "community organizers"?) need to work among those of the lowest income brackets to form alliances with them or "they will move to the right." In other words, if the Liberal Lefties don't court the poor and promise them the moon, stars, a personal son and a chauffeur, then the poor people are going to naturally become conservative. "If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyways, but let's not let it happen by default." Does that tell you something?
Alinsky's point is that the Left should focus on the poorest of the poor, the disenfranchised in order to prevent them from becoming someone who wants to be able to keep what they have via hard work, get more via hard work, and stand on their own two feet. It is this realization -- that the Left acknowledges this reality -- that astonished me the most of all the words in the Prologue. Instead of wanting the poorest of the poor to learn to stand on their own two feet, he encourages radicals to court them, unite them with promises of power or whatever (that all-important "Change"!) and to use them as a united force to attack America's fundamental goodness.
Aren't you surprised that Alinsky acknowledges that the poor will become conservatives ("right") if not courted by the Left? He admits that the poor will become right-wingers if not courted by the welfare pushers! (What is it the Left is not willing to stoop to in order to have power?) Instead of encouraging people to stand on their own two feet, to work hard to get what they want, and to do it themselves, they get them "allied with" the Left in order to have a massive political hammer.
Another astonishing moment is when Alinsky acknowledges any fundamental goodness in America. Even though he acknowledges its fundamental goodness, it is apparently passed over by the radicals -- even Alinsky himself -- as he breaks what I think is the Leftist radical's first rule, "Nothing is good about America." in order to teach radicals how to go about taking away even that one "good thing" he mentions. Alinsky wrote on page xxi,
"Let us in the name of radical pragmatism not forget that in our system with all its repression we can still speak out and denounce the administration, attack its policies, work to build an opposition political base. True, there is government harassment, but there still is that relative freedom to fight. I can attack my government, try to organize to change it. That's more than I can do in Moscow, Peking, or Havana. Remember the reaction of the Red Guard to the 'cultural revolution' and the fate of the Chinese college students. Just a few of the violent episodes of the bombings or a courtroom shootout that we have experienced here would have resulted in a sweeping purge and mass executions in Russia, China, or Cuba. Let's keep some perspective."
Amazing. Admit that America is better than what you and your ilk are working toward changing America into, and then go on with the fight to change America into Russia, China, or Cuba. Isn't that smart?
The truth of the matter is, that it didn't matter to him -- Alinsky or any of the other radicals -- that he has to admit that America has offered himself and others that think like him the opportunity and freedom to do so. Alinsky didn't really want that freedom -- not for all Americans, at least. You and I would be hard pressed to have Alinsky or any other obamination supporter, cohort, advisor, financier, Czar who would stand up and support that right for us: the conservatives of America. Because the truth be known, they don't want to change America so that the underprivileged -- the poorest of the poor, the disenfranchised, the downtrodden -- will be able to have freedom of speech, or any other rights: the poor have those already. What the radicals surrounding obamination want is to use that power -- the power of the masses of the people who will turn right if not prevented from doing so -- to wield what they see as a "majority hammer" and get control of the country.
The Left truly believes that America should be run by themselves and no one conservative should have a voice in it, that none of the Founding Fathers' ideals, words, beliefs should remain in the American lexicon, and that in order to have the perfect world they all dream of that it has to be one in which every nation is part of all nations. We are not talking a U.N. situation here: we're talking one world currency, one world rule -- with the Left in charge.
What even the Left's DNA has forgotten is that the countries Alinsky mentioned above (Russia, China, Cuba) have been at this communist thing for so much longer than they or their grandfathers have even dreamed of and they -- the American Commies -- are such newbies to the game that they don't even rank when it comes to being a power player. China will just as soon kill them in front of their own mothers and children as allow them any rank in the power structure of their forever dreamed of, "New World Order". Russia will rape their wives, daughters and sons in front of them then kill them all in a horrible fire death before allowing them to be part of the ruling class. Their dreams of having a voice in the "revolutionary world" is so much bong smoke that they can't see the truth for the haze. They can't wake up for the ecstasies they envision while their delusions of grandeur fill their itty-bitty brains and their need to change their sheets in the morning is increased tenfold as their imaginings of their rise to the throne of power within the world to come enraptures them.
Well, lah-ti-dah.
It isn't going to happen, Lefties. The power structures you dream of are a bunch of smoke, mirrors, ego and sheet-changing dreams and will never come to pass. You will not rise to the thrones of communist power as you think you will. You will not be welcomed with open arms into the upper echelons of the ruling class as you desire. You will be a worthless worker bee, left to rot and starve because you are considered untrustworthy of the rulers of the new world you helped create. You'll be considered untrustworthy in their eyes because if you can betray your own country -- and in the process, your own mother, aunts and uncles, father, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, cousins and friends and, finally, your own spouse -- how can they trust you?
Wake up and smell the coffee (or should that be borscht?), Lefties. You cannot give America's founding principles the heave-ho and make believe that it's all for the best that we become a world without boundaries and that we'll all sing, "Everything is Beautiful" as we hold hands around the globe with the communist countries that do not have the freedom of dissent even Alinsky touts is America then ignores, and expect anyone in the other countries to think you did something that should put you at the height of the ruling class.
If you think that, name me one -- one -- spy who was feted and glorified for anything longer than an introductory period of glory that made it look like that spy had achieved something wonderful, and who stayed at that vaunted glory place. Name me one spy who gave up America (or any other country for that matter) to the communist countries that was given a glorified position within the power structure, given a substantial living allowance, a wonderful house to live in, and all the respect of the leaders of that country and kept that place of prominence. One. If you cannot do so, then you have to acknowledge that the communist countries won't treat you any better if you try to deliver America to them, hook, line and sinker. You're more likely to be roasted over an open fire in front of the world as the first example of what happens to those who do things their way. We all know that after the glory and when the newspapers leave they take that traitor and fling him into the gulags and ignore his self-aggrandized plea of, "Look what I did for you!"
The rest of us will be left to be repulsed both by your actions and by your grisly death, but we will not mourn nor martyr you. You will have earned your place in history.
Alinsky wrote:
(Page xxiv) "Thus, the greatest enemy of individual freedom is the individual himself."
As it is with the Left's idea of conservatives, so it is with the truth about himself and others like him. Their fates, their places in history and their glory will be determined by their own actions and how they treat, adore, respect, or betray America. I do not think they realize that. I do not think they remember that. I do think they are so eaten up with their own egos that they think it will be different for them. They're special.
Alinsky quoted Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America", saying, "It must not be forgotten that it is especially dangerous to enslave men in the minor details of life." I suppose for the left, the truth of what Communism really is and what it really does is one of those "minor details".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)