TRUTH IS AN AMAZING THING!
God bless,
JohnnyD
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Barack Obama, Spin Master
From: Townhall Magazine
by - Chuck Norris - Oct 31, 2012
The definition of spin is to apply a slant or particular emphasis to information, as to persuade or deceive.
President Barack Obama really has been pounding the pulpit the past few days, with the election right around the corner, with the help of his speechwriters. He sounds a lot like the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. About the only thing Obama hasn't said is "God damn America," as Wright did.
Obama has to pound his chest and beat the drum to rev up the Democratic base. Thank goodness that the only thing Mitt Romney has to do to rev up the Republican base -- and, I hope, independents and undecided voters -- is to talk common sense.
Obama can spin a fact, and even though it's wrong or untrue, we almost believe it. Then he sends his minions out to spin the same fact, hoping that if we hear it enough times, we finally will believe it. The attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, is a prime example. Even though Obama knew -- from the moment of the assault -- that it was a terrorist attack, he didn't let the American people know. We recently learned a drone was recording the attack in real time, and our president was watching from the Situation Room. It is clear that he chose to deceive the American people deliberately, saying it was a mob protest and blaming it on a video that nobody had seen.
My wife, Gena -- who is a lot tougher than I am -- and I are fighting mad with all the lies and distortions coming out of the White House. When I film a movie, I can kick the bad guy's butt. But here, all I can do is hope, pray and vote. So that is what we have to do! We have to get everyone out to vote for the only man who can get us out of this mess, Mitt Romney.
Unfortunately, Obama didn't have the experience to fix the economy, which he promised the American people he'd do. However, there were two things that would have been easy for him to accomplish. He promised to televise on C-SPAN all new bills presented to Congress, including Obamacare. However, Obama conveniently forgot that promise when his administration cut backroom deals with drug industry lobbyists, medical groups, union bosses, insurance industry representatives and lawmakers during Obamacare negotiations.
In a second broken promise, Obama assured us he wouldn't allow special interest groups and lobbyists to influence his policies. However, he regularly has granted exclusive White House access to his biggest donors, who bring their lobbyists with them. In fact, Democratic National Committee officials urged lobbyists to solicit personal checks from corporate executives and rewarded them with premium credentials and hotel rooms at the Democratic National Convention. So much for integrity and honesty!
Folks, we are at a crossroads this election. We could elect a president who would keep us on a losing streak, Obama, or we could elect a president who has the expertise to get us on a winning streak, Romney. Boy, is that a no-brainer!
I am a martial artist first and an actor second. I am definitely not a politician. I'll leave that to experienced people like Romney.
So I am going to evaluate this election as a martial artist. I am a 10th-degree grandmaster and have studied the martial arts for more than 50 years -- 15 of those years as a fighter and instructor, teaching thousands of students before going into the film business.
I was also able to achieve great success as a martial arts fighter and, through years of dedication and hard work, became a world champion. Why am I telling you all of this? Because Mitt Romney is that same kind of fighter. With his business acumen, he would be successful in turning our country around for a brighter future.
Romney is an incredibly successful businessman, which means he would focus on job growth and get small business up and running again. In a bipartisan fashion, Romney was very successful as the governor of Massachusetts. And he turned a failing Olympics around and made it one of the most successful Olympics in years. Most importantly, he and his wife, Ann, donate about 30 percent of their income to charity -- more than Obama and Vice President Joe Biden combined.
So if I were going to promote Romney to a belt rank based on all of his qualifications, it would be a black belt.
Now let's look at Obama's record. I already have mentioned a couple of his failures. Obama's failures are even more apparent when we look at his extremely limited background in the private sector and his complete lack of experience in running a business. That lack of experience means he doesn't fully appreciate the following:
1) Accountability to American consumers, employees and investors.
2) Balancing budgets, maximizing revenue and closely monitoring spending (at the risk of sinking your company if you fail).
3) Long hours, hard work and great personal investment with merely keeping a business afloat.
4) Intense competition with other businesses in the private market.
5) High personal risk and no taxpayer-funded safety net or bailout if your business flops.
6) A devastating impact from soaring tax hikes and government regulations on your ability to stay in business.
7) A solid understanding of free market principles and job creation strategies.
So, after evaluating all of Obama's qualifications, I would promote him to white belt, as I would all beginners. And I'm sure that if, God forbid, he were to get re-elected, at the end of four years he still would be a white belt.
Folks, Obama is the chief executive of our great nation. Without a firm understanding of these principles, how could he lead America back from the brink of economic collapse and even more widespread unemployment?
I will admit that Obama is a gifted speaker and very charismatic, but he is just not a leader, and our economy would only get worse in the next four years if he were to be re-elected. I'm not going to bring up all the things he has lied about. All I'm going to say is that a president who is dishonest with the American people does not deserve a second term.
God bless,
JohnnyD
by - Chuck Norris - Oct 31, 2012
The definition of spin is to apply a slant or particular emphasis to information, as to persuade or deceive.
President Barack Obama really has been pounding the pulpit the past few days, with the election right around the corner, with the help of his speechwriters. He sounds a lot like the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. About the only thing Obama hasn't said is "God damn America," as Wright did.
Obama has to pound his chest and beat the drum to rev up the Democratic base. Thank goodness that the only thing Mitt Romney has to do to rev up the Republican base -- and, I hope, independents and undecided voters -- is to talk common sense.
Obama can spin a fact, and even though it's wrong or untrue, we almost believe it. Then he sends his minions out to spin the same fact, hoping that if we hear it enough times, we finally will believe it. The attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, is a prime example. Even though Obama knew -- from the moment of the assault -- that it was a terrorist attack, he didn't let the American people know. We recently learned a drone was recording the attack in real time, and our president was watching from the Situation Room. It is clear that he chose to deceive the American people deliberately, saying it was a mob protest and blaming it on a video that nobody had seen.
My wife, Gena -- who is a lot tougher than I am -- and I are fighting mad with all the lies and distortions coming out of the White House. When I film a movie, I can kick the bad guy's butt. But here, all I can do is hope, pray and vote. So that is what we have to do! We have to get everyone out to vote for the only man who can get us out of this mess, Mitt Romney.
Unfortunately, Obama didn't have the experience to fix the economy, which he promised the American people he'd do. However, there were two things that would have been easy for him to accomplish. He promised to televise on C-SPAN all new bills presented to Congress, including Obamacare. However, Obama conveniently forgot that promise when his administration cut backroom deals with drug industry lobbyists, medical groups, union bosses, insurance industry representatives and lawmakers during Obamacare negotiations.
In a second broken promise, Obama assured us he wouldn't allow special interest groups and lobbyists to influence his policies. However, he regularly has granted exclusive White House access to his biggest donors, who bring their lobbyists with them. In fact, Democratic National Committee officials urged lobbyists to solicit personal checks from corporate executives and rewarded them with premium credentials and hotel rooms at the Democratic National Convention. So much for integrity and honesty!
Folks, we are at a crossroads this election. We could elect a president who would keep us on a losing streak, Obama, or we could elect a president who has the expertise to get us on a winning streak, Romney. Boy, is that a no-brainer!
I am a martial artist first and an actor second. I am definitely not a politician. I'll leave that to experienced people like Romney.
So I am going to evaluate this election as a martial artist. I am a 10th-degree grandmaster and have studied the martial arts for more than 50 years -- 15 of those years as a fighter and instructor, teaching thousands of students before going into the film business.
I was also able to achieve great success as a martial arts fighter and, through years of dedication and hard work, became a world champion. Why am I telling you all of this? Because Mitt Romney is that same kind of fighter. With his business acumen, he would be successful in turning our country around for a brighter future.
Romney is an incredibly successful businessman, which means he would focus on job growth and get small business up and running again. In a bipartisan fashion, Romney was very successful as the governor of Massachusetts. And he turned a failing Olympics around and made it one of the most successful Olympics in years. Most importantly, he and his wife, Ann, donate about 30 percent of their income to charity -- more than Obama and Vice President Joe Biden combined.
So if I were going to promote Romney to a belt rank based on all of his qualifications, it would be a black belt.
Now let's look at Obama's record. I already have mentioned a couple of his failures. Obama's failures are even more apparent when we look at his extremely limited background in the private sector and his complete lack of experience in running a business. That lack of experience means he doesn't fully appreciate the following:
1) Accountability to American consumers, employees and investors.
2) Balancing budgets, maximizing revenue and closely monitoring spending (at the risk of sinking your company if you fail).
3) Long hours, hard work and great personal investment with merely keeping a business afloat.
4) Intense competition with other businesses in the private market.
5) High personal risk and no taxpayer-funded safety net or bailout if your business flops.
6) A devastating impact from soaring tax hikes and government regulations on your ability to stay in business.
7) A solid understanding of free market principles and job creation strategies.
So, after evaluating all of Obama's qualifications, I would promote him to white belt, as I would all beginners. And I'm sure that if, God forbid, he were to get re-elected, at the end of four years he still would be a white belt.
Folks, Obama is the chief executive of our great nation. Without a firm understanding of these principles, how could he lead America back from the brink of economic collapse and even more widespread unemployment?
I will admit that Obama is a gifted speaker and very charismatic, but he is just not a leader, and our economy would only get worse in the next four years if he were to be re-elected. I'm not going to bring up all the things he has lied about. All I'm going to say is that a president who is dishonest with the American people does not deserve a second term.
God bless,
JohnnyD
Beware the 'lesser-of-two-evils' trap
From: World Net Daily
by David Kupelian - October 31, 2012
Wow. It’s one week before Election Day, the re-election of Obama is unthinkable, and the election is extremely close – every vote counts.
Against this backdrop, I am still seeing lots of articles and blog postings from self-described conservatives, Christians, constitutionalists, independents and patriots fervently proclaiming they will not vote for either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, because they refuse to choose “the lesser of two evils.”
“The lesser of two evils is still evil,” they intone, as though those magical words encapsulate some transcendent logic.
Ironically, most of these people revere America’s Founding Fathers, quote them and refer to them often – indeed they see themselves as following in the founders’ footsteps, or at least adhering to their principles.
But in this they are profoundly deluded. For in reality, the Founding Fathers, by drafting, ratifying and implementing the Constitution of the United States, engaged in the most monumental example in American history of deliberately choosing the lesser of two evils.
By 1787, under the flawed Articles of Confederation, the recently liberated union was already unraveling. States were growing increasingly hostile toward one another, engaging in tariff wars that paralyzed interstate commerce. The national government was too weak to have a usable currency or to raise a decent army or navy, leaving the nation vulnerable – in fact, the British were occupying forts in parts of the U.S.! In short, escalating national and international problems threatened to destroy everything for which so many patriots had sacrificed their lives, fortunes and sacred honor.
So, what did our nation’s founders – from James Madison (“Father of the Constitution”) to George Washington (“Father of our Country”) – do in Philadelphia 225 years ago?
These courageous and devout Christian statesmen consciously, deliberately, purposefully chose to accommodate slavery – in fact, to constitutionally protect it for the next two decades – in the newly independent United States of America.
Slavery is evil. Yet, to obtain the needed state ratifications, our nation’s founders chose to allow and preserve this evil (temporarily) in the Constitution, which provided for the continued “importation” of slaves until 1808 and prohibited citizens from helping escaped slaves, requiring they be returned to their owners.
The founders didn’t have to do this. They could have proclaimed with righteous indignation, “Slavery is evil, and we refuse to enshrine it in our new Constitution. It doesn’t matter if the republic dissolves, God will not hold us blameless if we elect to support slavery.” That, of course, would have been the end of the convention as the Southern states would have bolted immediately, and the young nation’s slide into chaos would have continued unabated.
The founders chose the lesser of two evils – because it led to the greater good. For them, the greater evil, worse than allowing slavery – which they realized would come to an end before too many decades – would have been to allow the disintegration of the United States of America to continue, to permit history’s greatest birth of liberty to be smothered in the cradle.
Therefore, to all those who today proclaim so high-mindedly that they cannot dishonor God by choosing “the lesser of two evils,” I would say this:
Our wise forefathers, seeing our nation disintegrate before their eyes, did what they did in Philadelphia because it was the only way forward – otherwise they would lose their country. Today, our nation is likewise disintegrating. Whether you like Mitt Romney or not is irrelevant, just as the founders’ attitude toward slavery didn’t deter them from doing what they had to do to save the nation. Electing Romney is simply the only possible way to stop Obama from continuing on as president. Everything else is folly.
So if, rather than casting your ballot for Romney/Ryan, you vote for a third-party presidential candidate like the Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson or the Constitution Party’s Virgil Goode, or write in some name like “Jesus” or “God” or “Ron Paul” (I cite these examples since some people are claiming this is how they will cast their vote for president), or if you refuse to vote, you are knowingly contributing to the continued reign of Barack Obama, the most catastrophic president in history, whose actions of late have bordered on treason and who has almost destroyed America in four years and will complete the job in four more.
As I said at the outset, this is a very close election. Every vote counts. Your vote counts. A few ballots in a few key states next week may well determine the destiny of America for all time.
God forbid that good people, believing they are honoring God, upholding higher principle and refraining from supporting evil, would be deceived through their own anger and pride into doing the opposite and betraying all that they love.
God bless,
JohnnyD
by David Kupelian - October 31, 2012
Exclusive: David Kupelian on how Founding Fathers would vote Nov. 6
Against this backdrop, I am still seeing lots of articles and blog postings from self-described conservatives, Christians, constitutionalists, independents and patriots fervently proclaiming they will not vote for either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, because they refuse to choose “the lesser of two evils.”
“The lesser of two evils is still evil,” they intone, as though those magical words encapsulate some transcendent logic.
Ironically, most of these people revere America’s Founding Fathers, quote them and refer to them often – indeed they see themselves as following in the founders’ footsteps, or at least adhering to their principles.
But in this they are profoundly deluded. For in reality, the Founding Fathers, by drafting, ratifying and implementing the Constitution of the United States, engaged in the most monumental example in American history of deliberately choosing the lesser of two evils.
By 1787, under the flawed Articles of Confederation, the recently liberated union was already unraveling. States were growing increasingly hostile toward one another, engaging in tariff wars that paralyzed interstate commerce. The national government was too weak to have a usable currency or to raise a decent army or navy, leaving the nation vulnerable – in fact, the British were occupying forts in parts of the U.S.! In short, escalating national and international problems threatened to destroy everything for which so many patriots had sacrificed their lives, fortunes and sacred honor.
So, what did our nation’s founders – from James Madison (“Father of the Constitution”) to George Washington (“Father of our Country”) – do in Philadelphia 225 years ago?
These courageous and devout Christian statesmen consciously, deliberately, purposefully chose to accommodate slavery – in fact, to constitutionally protect it for the next two decades – in the newly independent United States of America.
Slavery is evil. Yet, to obtain the needed state ratifications, our nation’s founders chose to allow and preserve this evil (temporarily) in the Constitution, which provided for the continued “importation” of slaves until 1808 and prohibited citizens from helping escaped slaves, requiring they be returned to their owners.
The founders didn’t have to do this. They could have proclaimed with righteous indignation, “Slavery is evil, and we refuse to enshrine it in our new Constitution. It doesn’t matter if the republic dissolves, God will not hold us blameless if we elect to support slavery.” That, of course, would have been the end of the convention as the Southern states would have bolted immediately, and the young nation’s slide into chaos would have continued unabated.
The founders chose the lesser of two evils – because it led to the greater good. For them, the greater evil, worse than allowing slavery – which they realized would come to an end before too many decades – would have been to allow the disintegration of the United States of America to continue, to permit history’s greatest birth of liberty to be smothered in the cradle.
Therefore, to all those who today proclaim so high-mindedly that they cannot dishonor God by choosing “the lesser of two evils,” I would say this:
Our wise forefathers, seeing our nation disintegrate before their eyes, did what they did in Philadelphia because it was the only way forward – otherwise they would lose their country. Today, our nation is likewise disintegrating. Whether you like Mitt Romney or not is irrelevant, just as the founders’ attitude toward slavery didn’t deter them from doing what they had to do to save the nation. Electing Romney is simply the only possible way to stop Obama from continuing on as president. Everything else is folly.
So if, rather than casting your ballot for Romney/Ryan, you vote for a third-party presidential candidate like the Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson or the Constitution Party’s Virgil Goode, or write in some name like “Jesus” or “God” or “Ron Paul” (I cite these examples since some people are claiming this is how they will cast their vote for president), or if you refuse to vote, you are knowingly contributing to the continued reign of Barack Obama, the most catastrophic president in history, whose actions of late have bordered on treason and who has almost destroyed America in four years and will complete the job in four more.
As I said at the outset, this is a very close election. Every vote counts. Your vote counts. A few ballots in a few key states next week may well determine the destiny of America for all time.
God forbid that good people, believing they are honoring God, upholding higher principle and refraining from supporting evil, would be deceived through their own anger and pride into doing the opposite and betraying all that they love.
God bless,
JohnnyD
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
The Lord of the Flies Administration
From: Townhall Magazine
by - David Limbaugh - 10-30-12
Two recent ads illustrate the great cultural divide in this nation and which parties and presidential candidates represent these competing worldviews.
In the handling of the economy and national security, President Obama has shown he's not capable of being the adult in the room. After four years of perpetual campaigning and cheerleading for his pet projects, he still isn't prepared to deal soberly with the consequences of his ideological indulgences.
His community organizing fantasy has been to remake America in his more socialistic image, and in the process, he's taken the nation dangerously close to financial ruin. Yet like the unsupervised children in "Lord of the Flies," he refuses to make mature decisions to reverse this fiscally suicidal trend.
In the same way, Obama eschews any responsibility for the destruction his policies have caused -- still preposterously blaming President George W. Bush four years later for his own scorched-earth ransacking of America's treasury and jobs market.
The American left simply will not graduate from its '60s radicalism, and under President Obama, these adolescents are firmly in charge. Thus, it should be no surprise that these same developmentally arrested people don't have the good sense to hide their intentions to permanently convert America into a land of rampant licentiousness and irresponsibility. Two ads connected with Team Obama make the point quite clearly and deserve universal distribution.
First, we have the Obama campaign ad comparing voting for Obama to having sex for the first time. Is nothing too vulgar for this bunch of MTV panderers? Probably not, as President Obama either showed us his true character or stooped to even lower pandering in his recent interview with Rolling Stone magazine, during which he called Mitt Romney a BSer -- only he, our sitting president, pronounced the full word. Now, back to the ads.
If you haven't had the misfortune of viewing this, actress Lena Dunham appears on a video appealing to young women to imagine their first time voting for Obama as being akin to losing their actual virginity. The references were explicit and unmistakable. You shouldn't expect anything subtle from this vulgar crew.
First, the sexual innuendo: "Your first time shouldn't be with just anybody. You want to do it with a great guy," says Dunham. "It should be with a guy with beautiful ... someone who really cares about and understands women."
Next, she segues seamlessly into policy: "A guy who cares whether you get health insurance -- and specifically whether you get birth control. The consequences are huge. You want to do it with the guy who brought the troops out of Iraq. You don't want a guy who says 'oh, hey, I'm at the library studying,' when really he's out not signing the Lilly Ledbetter Act."
After a short riff on gay marriage, she says, "It's also super-uncool to be out and about and someone says 'did you vote?' and (you reply), 'No, I didn't feel -- I wasn't ready.'" She closes by describing her first time voting as "amazing." It was like crossing that "line in the sand" to vote for Barack Obama. "Before I was a girl; now I was a woman."
Is this the type of ad we should expect from a president who has two young daughters? Is this really acceptable in today's hip America?
The next video features children singing about what an America under a Romney presidency would be like. This world -- kind of like the horror show the late Ted Kennedy predicted for women should Judge Robert Bork have been confirmed to the United States Supreme Court -- would be one in which sick people must "just die," our atmosphere would fry, oil would fill the sea and homosexuals could be "fixed." In that world, "we don't have to pay for freeways. Our schools are good enough. Give us endless wars on foreign shores and lots of Chinese stuff. ... You can't cut spending with elections pending -- unless it's welfare, though."
The mind-numbed, programmed "children of the future" sing in lock step about these ills and then squarely lay the blame on their own "mom and dad."
It is particularly sinister that these indoctrinated children are led to charge that Romney and the GOP would leave them "holding the bag," when the administration behind the ad is itself flagrantly guilty of that very charge.
It is not debatable that unless we dramatically reverse course, America will go over the cliff to national bankruptcy. It is equally unarguable that President Obama has no plans to avert our course.
The good news is that the grown-ups in America, I truly believe, are going to come out in droves on Election Day and demand that the controls of this nation be returned to their fellow responsible adults.
God bless,
JohnnyD
by - David Limbaugh - 10-30-12
Two recent ads illustrate the great cultural divide in this nation and which parties and presidential candidates represent these competing worldviews.
In the handling of the economy and national security, President Obama has shown he's not capable of being the adult in the room. After four years of perpetual campaigning and cheerleading for his pet projects, he still isn't prepared to deal soberly with the consequences of his ideological indulgences.
His community organizing fantasy has been to remake America in his more socialistic image, and in the process, he's taken the nation dangerously close to financial ruin. Yet like the unsupervised children in "Lord of the Flies," he refuses to make mature decisions to reverse this fiscally suicidal trend.
In the same way, Obama eschews any responsibility for the destruction his policies have caused -- still preposterously blaming President George W. Bush four years later for his own scorched-earth ransacking of America's treasury and jobs market.
The American left simply will not graduate from its '60s radicalism, and under President Obama, these adolescents are firmly in charge. Thus, it should be no surprise that these same developmentally arrested people don't have the good sense to hide their intentions to permanently convert America into a land of rampant licentiousness and irresponsibility. Two ads connected with Team Obama make the point quite clearly and deserve universal distribution.
First, we have the Obama campaign ad comparing voting for Obama to having sex for the first time. Is nothing too vulgar for this bunch of MTV panderers? Probably not, as President Obama either showed us his true character or stooped to even lower pandering in his recent interview with Rolling Stone magazine, during which he called Mitt Romney a BSer -- only he, our sitting president, pronounced the full word. Now, back to the ads.
If you haven't had the misfortune of viewing this, actress Lena Dunham appears on a video appealing to young women to imagine their first time voting for Obama as being akin to losing their actual virginity. The references were explicit and unmistakable. You shouldn't expect anything subtle from this vulgar crew.
First, the sexual innuendo: "Your first time shouldn't be with just anybody. You want to do it with a great guy," says Dunham. "It should be with a guy with beautiful ... someone who really cares about and understands women."
Next, she segues seamlessly into policy: "A guy who cares whether you get health insurance -- and specifically whether you get birth control. The consequences are huge. You want to do it with the guy who brought the troops out of Iraq. You don't want a guy who says 'oh, hey, I'm at the library studying,' when really he's out not signing the Lilly Ledbetter Act."
After a short riff on gay marriage, she says, "It's also super-uncool to be out and about and someone says 'did you vote?' and (you reply), 'No, I didn't feel -- I wasn't ready.'" She closes by describing her first time voting as "amazing." It was like crossing that "line in the sand" to vote for Barack Obama. "Before I was a girl; now I was a woman."
Is this the type of ad we should expect from a president who has two young daughters? Is this really acceptable in today's hip America?
The next video features children singing about what an America under a Romney presidency would be like. This world -- kind of like the horror show the late Ted Kennedy predicted for women should Judge Robert Bork have been confirmed to the United States Supreme Court -- would be one in which sick people must "just die," our atmosphere would fry, oil would fill the sea and homosexuals could be "fixed." In that world, "we don't have to pay for freeways. Our schools are good enough. Give us endless wars on foreign shores and lots of Chinese stuff. ... You can't cut spending with elections pending -- unless it's welfare, though."
The mind-numbed, programmed "children of the future" sing in lock step about these ills and then squarely lay the blame on their own "mom and dad."
It is particularly sinister that these indoctrinated children are led to charge that Romney and the GOP would leave them "holding the bag," when the administration behind the ad is itself flagrantly guilty of that very charge.
It is not debatable that unless we dramatically reverse course, America will go over the cliff to national bankruptcy. It is equally unarguable that President Obama has no plans to avert our course.
The good news is that the grown-ups in America, I truly believe, are going to come out in droves on Election Day and demand that the controls of this nation be returned to their fellow responsible adults.
God bless,
JohnnyD
Monday, October 29, 2012
The voodoo campaign
From: Human Events
John Hayward -
Pop singer Kelly Clarkson, ostensibly a Republican, told the UK Daily Star that she just can’t bring herself to vote for Mitt Romney. ”I can’t support Romney’s policies, as I have a lot of gay friends, and I don’t think it’s fair they can’t get married,” she explained.
Hopefully no one will tell Clarkson that Obama is completely useless in the matter of her gay friends getting married. Up until a few months ago, he held essentially the same position on gay marriage as Romney. Then he unveiled his great “evolution” on the issue… but said he remains convinced the issue should be decided at the state level. He repeated this position in a hard-hitting interview with that bastion of serious journalism, MTV, just a few days ago, insisting that “for us to try to legislate federally into this area is probably the wrong way to go.”
The state level is pretty much a stalemate on the gay marriage issue at this point, with most of them against it; the populace has voted against gay marriage every time it has been given the opportunity to do so. Obama doesn’t offer much beyond rhetorical support for the redefinition of marriage – which is not without value, since a campaign to sway popular opinion is generally helped by vocal support from the President. But for the likes of Kelly Clarkson, every other consideration shrivels away into nothingness compared to rhetorical support for this single social issue. All of the things Barack Obama has done to the United States – from permanent high unemployment and stagnant GDP growth, to crushing levels of national debt, to the bloody disaster in Benghazi – matter less than what he will say about gay marriage.
This is just one example of the voodoo atmosphere surrounding Obama’s campaign, in which symbolic gestures magically acquire importance beyond facts and figures. On Monday, the President assured MSNBC’s morning hosts that his “first order of business” in a second term would be… deficit reduction. Even the all-in cheerleaders at MSNBC should laugh out loud when the author of America’s $16 trillion debt, whose own fanciful budget proposals project titanic deficits until the end of time, claims to be concerned about the national debt.
And even though a panicked Obama was claiming he had nothing to do with those sequestration defense cuts or Taxmageddon in the presidential debates, today he was praising them as “forcing mechanisms” for “getting our deficits and debt under control.” The key to understanding how the biggest spender in the history of human civilization can claim to be a “deficit hawk” is to realize that for Obama, the phrase “deficit reduction” is merely a symbolic label for tax increases. The two phrases are utterly synonymous to him. If he secured $200 billion through tax increases but spent $800 billion more in the same year, he would still congratulate himself for “deficit reduction,” and he’d be able to pass a polygraph test while doing it.
This reliance on symbolism is one of the reasons Obama’s campaign appears so childish, and is increasingly pitched to an adolescent mindset. Much laughter ensued among conservatives when the Obama campaign was boasting of his fearless courage in protecting Big Bird’s lavish public subsidies, but the Big Bird thing was symbolic magic to Obama: he cares more about Sesame Street, therefore he cares more about children.
Likewise with the “binders full of women” comedy act, which was the political equivalent of putting a hex on Mitt Romney – his alleged habit of keeping the resumes of female applicants for government office inside binders was supposed to evoke a sense of callous indifference, the symbolic-magic equivalent of stuffing women into a drawer and forgetting about them. (To the extent that anyone who jumped on the Binders Full of Women Express actually cares about the details, during the second presidential debate Romney actually told a story about other people presenting him with binders full of qualified resumes, and the binders were prepared by Massachusetts womens’ groups.)
Now comes the ultimate expression of Obama’s voodoo campaign style: an incredibly creepy video created by a San Francisco public relations firm, in which somnolent children sing about a dystopian future in which Obama’s prospective ejection from office has destroyed both civil society and the planet: “Imagine an America where strip mines are fun and free, where gays can be ‘fixed’ and sick people just die, and oil fills the sea,” they croon. It’s a musical effort to conjure all of Barack Obama’s straw men from a haunted pumpkin patch. Once upon a time, Hillary Clinton wrote that it takes a village to raise a child; now it takes a Village of the Damned to re-elect a failed President.
Yes, it’s disgusting to use children as political props for this kind of hyperbolic nonsense, and American voters deserve better than to be stampeded into the polls like panicked sheep, but this continued focus by Obama and his supporters upon children and young people as props is a crucial element of this entirely symbolic re-election effort. The goal is to communicate a level of compassion within Obama, and corresponding level of frigid inhumanity in Romney, that trumps everything Obama has actually done, and failed to do. He deserves another chance because he cares so very much.
And if the targets of this messaging are willing to impart such deep, soulful wisdom to Obama – absorbing the symbolic content of the messages even if so many of the details are demonstrably false, or even absurd – they’ll become much more receptive to the core Obama 2012 message, which is that no one could possibly do a better job than he has, given the ravages of the immortal monster George Bush. It’s got to be working with someone, or else this wouldn’t be a close race.
God bless,
JohnnyD
John Hayward -
Pop singer Kelly Clarkson, ostensibly a Republican, told the UK Daily Star that she just can’t bring herself to vote for Mitt Romney. ”I can’t support Romney’s policies, as I have a lot of gay friends, and I don’t think it’s fair they can’t get married,” she explained.
Hopefully no one will tell Clarkson that Obama is completely useless in the matter of her gay friends getting married. Up until a few months ago, he held essentially the same position on gay marriage as Romney. Then he unveiled his great “evolution” on the issue… but said he remains convinced the issue should be decided at the state level. He repeated this position in a hard-hitting interview with that bastion of serious journalism, MTV, just a few days ago, insisting that “for us to try to legislate federally into this area is probably the wrong way to go.”
The state level is pretty much a stalemate on the gay marriage issue at this point, with most of them against it; the populace has voted against gay marriage every time it has been given the opportunity to do so. Obama doesn’t offer much beyond rhetorical support for the redefinition of marriage – which is not without value, since a campaign to sway popular opinion is generally helped by vocal support from the President. But for the likes of Kelly Clarkson, every other consideration shrivels away into nothingness compared to rhetorical support for this single social issue. All of the things Barack Obama has done to the United States – from permanent high unemployment and stagnant GDP growth, to crushing levels of national debt, to the bloody disaster in Benghazi – matter less than what he will say about gay marriage.
This is just one example of the voodoo atmosphere surrounding Obama’s campaign, in which symbolic gestures magically acquire importance beyond facts and figures. On Monday, the President assured MSNBC’s morning hosts that his “first order of business” in a second term would be… deficit reduction. Even the all-in cheerleaders at MSNBC should laugh out loud when the author of America’s $16 trillion debt, whose own fanciful budget proposals project titanic deficits until the end of time, claims to be concerned about the national debt.
And even though a panicked Obama was claiming he had nothing to do with those sequestration defense cuts or Taxmageddon in the presidential debates, today he was praising them as “forcing mechanisms” for “getting our deficits and debt under control.” The key to understanding how the biggest spender in the history of human civilization can claim to be a “deficit hawk” is to realize that for Obama, the phrase “deficit reduction” is merely a symbolic label for tax increases. The two phrases are utterly synonymous to him. If he secured $200 billion through tax increases but spent $800 billion more in the same year, he would still congratulate himself for “deficit reduction,” and he’d be able to pass a polygraph test while doing it.
This reliance on symbolism is one of the reasons Obama’s campaign appears so childish, and is increasingly pitched to an adolescent mindset. Much laughter ensued among conservatives when the Obama campaign was boasting of his fearless courage in protecting Big Bird’s lavish public subsidies, but the Big Bird thing was symbolic magic to Obama: he cares more about Sesame Street, therefore he cares more about children.
Likewise with the “binders full of women” comedy act, which was the political equivalent of putting a hex on Mitt Romney – his alleged habit of keeping the resumes of female applicants for government office inside binders was supposed to evoke a sense of callous indifference, the symbolic-magic equivalent of stuffing women into a drawer and forgetting about them. (To the extent that anyone who jumped on the Binders Full of Women Express actually cares about the details, during the second presidential debate Romney actually told a story about other people presenting him with binders full of qualified resumes, and the binders were prepared by Massachusetts womens’ groups.)
Now comes the ultimate expression of Obama’s voodoo campaign style: an incredibly creepy video created by a San Francisco public relations firm, in which somnolent children sing about a dystopian future in which Obama’s prospective ejection from office has destroyed both civil society and the planet: “Imagine an America where strip mines are fun and free, where gays can be ‘fixed’ and sick people just die, and oil fills the sea,” they croon. It’s a musical effort to conjure all of Barack Obama’s straw men from a haunted pumpkin patch. Once upon a time, Hillary Clinton wrote that it takes a village to raise a child; now it takes a Village of the Damned to re-elect a failed President.
Yes, it’s disgusting to use children as political props for this kind of hyperbolic nonsense, and American voters deserve better than to be stampeded into the polls like panicked sheep, but this continued focus by Obama and his supporters upon children and young people as props is a crucial element of this entirely symbolic re-election effort. The goal is to communicate a level of compassion within Obama, and corresponding level of frigid inhumanity in Romney, that trumps everything Obama has actually done, and failed to do. He deserves another chance because he cares so very much.
And if the targets of this messaging are willing to impart such deep, soulful wisdom to Obama – absorbing the symbolic content of the messages even if so many of the details are demonstrably false, or even absurd – they’ll become much more receptive to the core Obama 2012 message, which is that no one could possibly do a better job than he has, given the ravages of the immortal monster George Bush. It’s got to be working with someone, or else this wouldn’t be a close race.
God bless,
JohnnyD
Cheap Tricks and One Night Stands
From: Red State
Erick Erickson |
If you needed further proof about just how much the President has cheapened the Presidency, consider his latest ad, which not only compares voting for him for the first time to losing virginity, but also ridicules those who might not want to lose their virginity to just any politician. This is the peer group peer pressure people across the political aisle have complained about in high schools for years.
But our President is adopting it as a last minute campaign strategy. If you need any further proof we live in a fallen world destined for hell fire, consider the number of people who have no problem with the President of the United States, via a campaign ad, ridiculing virgins and comparing sex to voting.
This is the man who once said children were a punishment. At least we know he’s cool with abortion.
The reason Barack Obama is running this ad is because he is done trying to get independent voters. He’s given up. Despite campaign rhetoric about fighting for evangelicals, he’s given up there. He’s given up on Catholic voters. He’s given up on the South. He’s given up on men who have daughters. He’s given up on moms. He’s given up on everyone expect his core base of singles, gays, and minorities, including college kids he is desperate to get back to the polls.
I don’t see this ad helping him among remaining swing voters, including women, in Ohio, Iowa, and Wisconsin. Many of them still want a President who upholds the honor and dignity of the office without the pretension of trying to be the cool kid. On the bright side, he could have done nothing to better solidify those leaning toward Romney in the last two weeks of the campaign.
About the only honest bit of innuendo in the ad is that the people who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 have been screwed — economically. The problem for Barack Obama is that many of those people believe their vote for him was a one night stand that they’d prefer to forget. Additionally, we know now that Barack Obama, like that one night stand, probably won’t call you back. Just ask the American Consulate in Benghazi.
God bless,
JohnnyD
Erick Erickson |
If you needed further proof about just how much the President has cheapened the Presidency, consider his latest ad, which not only compares voting for him for the first time to losing virginity, but also ridicules those who might not want to lose their virginity to just any politician. This is the peer group peer pressure people across the political aisle have complained about in high schools for years.
But our President is adopting it as a last minute campaign strategy. If you need any further proof we live in a fallen world destined for hell fire, consider the number of people who have no problem with the President of the United States, via a campaign ad, ridiculing virgins and comparing sex to voting.
This is the man who once said children were a punishment. At least we know he’s cool with abortion.
The reason Barack Obama is running this ad is because he is done trying to get independent voters. He’s given up. Despite campaign rhetoric about fighting for evangelicals, he’s given up there. He’s given up on Catholic voters. He’s given up on the South. He’s given up on men who have daughters. He’s given up on moms. He’s given up on everyone expect his core base of singles, gays, and minorities, including college kids he is desperate to get back to the polls.
I don’t see this ad helping him among remaining swing voters, including women, in Ohio, Iowa, and Wisconsin. Many of them still want a President who upholds the honor and dignity of the office without the pretension of trying to be the cool kid. On the bright side, he could have done nothing to better solidify those leaning toward Romney in the last two weeks of the campaign.
About the only honest bit of innuendo in the ad is that the people who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 have been screwed — economically. The problem for Barack Obama is that many of those people believe their vote for him was a one night stand that they’d prefer to forget. Additionally, we know now that Barack Obama, like that one night stand, probably won’t call you back. Just ask the American Consulate in Benghazi.
God bless,
JohnnyD
Obama's imperial presidency is killing our economic recovery
From: The Washington Examiner
by - Conn Carroll - October 27, 2012
"This is the worst economic recovery America has ever had," "CBS Evening News'" Scott Pelley reported in July. And this past Friday's Gross Domestic Product report from the Commerce Department, showing the U.S. economy grew at an anemic 2 percent in the third quarter, confirmed Pelley's conclusion. Since the Obama recovery began more than three years ago, the economy has grown at the slowest rate of any recovery since World War II.
There are many reasons why President Obama's policies have failed to create an adequate environment for even an average economic recovery. But one of the most important was his decision to embrace a governing blueprint published by a progressive think tank, the Center for American Progress.
Published just days after Obama suffered a historic defeat at the polls in 2010, the CAP's "The Power of the President" report outlined how Obama could keep moving the ball on his progressive agenda without congressional approval.
"In the aftermath of this month's midterm congressional elections, pundits and politicians across the ideological spectrum are focusing on how difficult it will be for President Barack Obama to advance his policy priorities through Congress," CAP President John Podesta wrote in his preface.
"Some debate whether the administration should tack to the center and compromise with the new House leadership. As a former White House chief of staff, I believe those to be the wrong preoccupations. President Obama's ability to govern the country as chief executive presents an opportunity to demonstrate strength, resolve, and a capacity to get things done," Podesta concluded.
And "get things done" without Congress is exactly what Obama has done. This week, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., released a new report, titled "The Imperial Presidency," detailing more than 40 separate occasions where Obama has written, rewritten or ignored federal law without any input from Congress.
For example, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires all federal agencies to produce semiannual regulatory agendas in April and October every year. But after businesses freaked out over last year's Environmental Protection Agency agenda -- an agenda that self-reported more than $130 billion in annual regulatory costs -- Obama's EPA failed to issue either of the required regulatory plans this year. As a result of this illegal omission, businesses now lack the information necessary to make investment decisions. Regulatory uncertainty translates to less business investment. Less business investment means fewer jobs. That's a major reason why Obama is still a net job-killer as president. U.S. businesses employ 61,000 fewer Americans today than they did when Obama took office, even though the working-age population has increased by 9 million.
Even when issuing its regulations, Obama's EPA often fails to follow the law. In striking down an EPA rule regulating power plants earlier this year, a federal court said that Obama's EPA "seems reluctant to acknowledge any textual limits on its authority under" the Clean Air Act.
Conservatives are not the only ones who have documented Obama's assault on the rule of law and its impact on the U.S. economy. Every year, the World Economic Forum issues a Global Competitiveness Report, ranking more than 100 countries on a number of key economic indicators. When Obama was sworn into office, the United States was ranked as the best country in the world to do business. After just four years under Obama, the U.S. has dropped to seventh. The report specifically cites the collapse in the rule of law in explaining this decline.
Before Obama was president, the U.S. ranked 40th in "favoritism in decisions of government officials." Today, the U.S. ranks 59th, a fall of 19 places. Before Obama was president, the U.S. ranked 50th for lowest "burden of government regulation." Today, the U.S. ranks 76th, a fall of 26 places. Before Obama was president, the U.S. ranked 28th in "transparency of government policy making." Today, the U.S. ranks 56th, a fall of 28 places.
Our nation was founded on the idea that freedom could only be preserved if a strong executive branch of government was checked by an equally strong legislative branch. By choosing to assert his executive power over Congress at every turn, Obama has weakened our freedom. High unemployment and weak economic growth are direct results.
God bless,
JohnnyD
by - Conn Carroll - October 27, 2012
"This is the worst economic recovery America has ever had," "CBS Evening News'" Scott Pelley reported in July. And this past Friday's Gross Domestic Product report from the Commerce Department, showing the U.S. economy grew at an anemic 2 percent in the third quarter, confirmed Pelley's conclusion. Since the Obama recovery began more than three years ago, the economy has grown at the slowest rate of any recovery since World War II.
There are many reasons why President Obama's policies have failed to create an adequate environment for even an average economic recovery. But one of the most important was his decision to embrace a governing blueprint published by a progressive think tank, the Center for American Progress.
Published just days after Obama suffered a historic defeat at the polls in 2010, the CAP's "The Power of the President" report outlined how Obama could keep moving the ball on his progressive agenda without congressional approval.
"In the aftermath of this month's midterm congressional elections, pundits and politicians across the ideological spectrum are focusing on how difficult it will be for President Barack Obama to advance his policy priorities through Congress," CAP President John Podesta wrote in his preface.
"Some debate whether the administration should tack to the center and compromise with the new House leadership. As a former White House chief of staff, I believe those to be the wrong preoccupations. President Obama's ability to govern the country as chief executive presents an opportunity to demonstrate strength, resolve, and a capacity to get things done," Podesta concluded.
And "get things done" without Congress is exactly what Obama has done. This week, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., released a new report, titled "The Imperial Presidency," detailing more than 40 separate occasions where Obama has written, rewritten or ignored federal law without any input from Congress.
For example, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires all federal agencies to produce semiannual regulatory agendas in April and October every year. But after businesses freaked out over last year's Environmental Protection Agency agenda -- an agenda that self-reported more than $130 billion in annual regulatory costs -- Obama's EPA failed to issue either of the required regulatory plans this year. As a result of this illegal omission, businesses now lack the information necessary to make investment decisions. Regulatory uncertainty translates to less business investment. Less business investment means fewer jobs. That's a major reason why Obama is still a net job-killer as president. U.S. businesses employ 61,000 fewer Americans today than they did when Obama took office, even though the working-age population has increased by 9 million.
Even when issuing its regulations, Obama's EPA often fails to follow the law. In striking down an EPA rule regulating power plants earlier this year, a federal court said that Obama's EPA "seems reluctant to acknowledge any textual limits on its authority under" the Clean Air Act.
Conservatives are not the only ones who have documented Obama's assault on the rule of law and its impact on the U.S. economy. Every year, the World Economic Forum issues a Global Competitiveness Report, ranking more than 100 countries on a number of key economic indicators. When Obama was sworn into office, the United States was ranked as the best country in the world to do business. After just four years under Obama, the U.S. has dropped to seventh. The report specifically cites the collapse in the rule of law in explaining this decline.
Before Obama was president, the U.S. ranked 40th in "favoritism in decisions of government officials." Today, the U.S. ranks 59th, a fall of 19 places. Before Obama was president, the U.S. ranked 50th for lowest "burden of government regulation." Today, the U.S. ranks 76th, a fall of 26 places. Before Obama was president, the U.S. ranked 28th in "transparency of government policy making." Today, the U.S. ranks 56th, a fall of 28 places.
Our nation was founded on the idea that freedom could only be preserved if a strong executive branch of government was checked by an equally strong legislative branch. By choosing to assert his executive power over Congress at every turn, Obama has weakened our freedom. High unemployment and weak economic growth are direct results.
God bless,
JohnnyD
Mom and Dad, We’re Blaming You for Obama’s Failures
From: Canada Free Press
by - Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh - Monday, October 29, 2012
by - Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh - Monday, October 29, 2012
The Democrat factor of desperation and indoctrination is on full display
Voters have short memories and are easily duped by a charming smile, lies, and empty promises. Many voters lack a basic understanding of history, government, and economics.
Only an uninformed or welfare dependent American would vote for a person endorsing the repulsively obscene ad that presents a young woman urging Democrats to carefully pick their candidate in the same way they picked the guy they lost their virginity to.
The Democrat factor of desperation and indoctrination is on full display in the latest ad which uses young children, in chilling lyrics, blaming their parents for the economic failures of the Obama’s administration. The ad takes me back to the communist indoctrination I suffered under the communist regime when the absolute ruler, Ceausescu, and his wife, Elena, forced us to sing in school praises to them as our real father and mother. Our biological parents, we were told, were stupid and needed re-education.
The pro-Obama ad does not stop there; in carefully chosen rhyme, brainwashed children describe an apocalyptic future in which “sick people just die,” “the oil fills the sea,” “strip mines are fun and free,” and “the Earth is cracked/Big Bird is sacked/And the atmosphere is frying.”
I cannot imagine a more perverted image of America in the future, described by pro-Obama liberal supporters who shamelessly use children to propagate hate and advance their Marxist and environmentalist agenda.
The outrageous song ends in, “You did your best/ You failed the test/ Mom and Dad/ We’re blaming you!” I am speechless! We live in the Hollywood make-believe world inspired by the Matrix. No wonder our schools and curriculum are dumbed down.
The truth is, intelligent and informed American voters blame this President and his failed policies. It is not mom and dad who are endangering their children’s future unless they vote again for a President who has brought America to its knees and has no economic plan to save the best country in the world, the “shining city on the hill” that we love.
As a former professor, I know firsthand the level of economic ignorance among the American population at large, even those with college degrees. The curriculum taught at most colleges is based on the interpretation of meaningless graphs that most young people cannot correlate to reality. Students’ eyes glaze over when they see graphs – how can they understand them when they have rudimentary knowledge of mathematics?
When students pursue degrees in Social Studies, Anthropology, Women’s Studies, and other fluff degrees with slim possibility of finding a job much less a six-figure job promised by eager college advisors, they are never required to take science classes or Economics. Some students are incapable of balancing their own checkbooks and have no idea how our government runs.
If you add the lack of basic economics knowledge to the lack of historical facts and American government, you have the perfect Obama voter who is ill-informed, easily manipulated, but has very strong ignorant opinions, mostly based on feelings or the misinformation fed to them on a daily basis by the mainstream media, the aggressive promotional army of the Obama campaign
The main stream media spins the truth, hides the facts, and lies in order to provide cover for and to make their favorite candidate look innocent. How can you not adore the rich Messianic power of someone who represents the interests of the poor and the downtrodden with someone else’s money?
Sadder still, most young Americans get their information from CNN, MSNBC, and comedians like David Letterman and Jon Stuart.
Informed Americans with abundant economic, historic, and political knowledge get their information selectively from a variety of sources on the web. Nobody in this category believes the liberal media.
Comedians like Jay Leno go out into the streets to expose the glaring ignorance of the average voter with basic questions of history, government, and current politics. The ignorant Democrat voters are easily persuaded that Obama’s disastrous economic policies belong to Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate. These are people who cannot recognize political figures, the offices they hold, and the platforms of their darling politicians they vote for and financially support.
Democrat voters vandalize their opponents’ signs, deposit feces on porches with Romney signs in their yards, and deface the cars
of those who display bumper stickers supporting Republicans. Democrats have become the party of intolerance and cowardly hooliganism.
of those who display bumper stickers supporting Republicans. Democrats have become the party of intolerance and cowardly hooliganism.
Obama keeps blaming Republicans and the “mess he inherited.” Many former Presidents have inherited “messes” but they tried their best to rectify the situation. Our President exacerbated a fixable situation by making it worse, infinitely worse. He failed the economy, failed to protect the American citizens, and represented the interests of the world, of United Nations, not the interests of the United States and the American people.
President Obama has tripled the deficit and did everything possible to destroy the economy and the job creators. He caused huge unemployment among the oil and coal industries, doing the EPA’s bidding and the environmentalists’ will. The price of oil skyrocketed from $1.79 when Obama took office to $4 now while blaming others for his refusal to allow drilling domestically and to approve the Keystone XL pipeline.
His own economic ignorance was on full display during the presidential debate when he stated that gas was cheaper when he became President because the economy was about to collapse. Since he “saved” the economy, oil is now $4 a gallon.
In a few days, we are going to vote. We hope the producers and the informed will outnumber the ignorant liberal voters and voters on welfare who are only interested in “free stuff” from Obama. We conservatives who believe in the free market and self-reliance will eventually stop producing “free stuff” for welfare recipients and Obama will have to take benefits away. Before you vote, ask yourself, how much worse off you are when compared to four years ago. If you give an honest answer, the choice will be clear.
God bless,
JohnnyD
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Obama's Real Second Term Plan
From: The American Spectator
By Ned Ryun on 10.26.12
Now it's not that he can't because he doesn't have any ideas about what he wants to do. He does have big plans, but his vision of the future is profoundly different from that of most Americans. The America that Obama sees when he sits on the Truman Balcony at night and dreams about the next four years is radically altered reality for everyone. It should scare every American -- unless you happen to be getting Obama's free cell phone service.
Obama would like everyone to believe that his second-term policies will address what he sees as the great inequalities and unfairness inherent in the American system. He wants to level the playing field. What he can't tell you -- and what most Americans are realizing -- is that leveling out America will reduce freedom, opportunity, income, innovation, and upward mobility in favor of a government-driven economy. With a government-driven society will come statism, and collectivism follows right on the heels of statism, which will destroy America.
Here's the stark proof, keeping in mind that this is a mere snapshot of the "remaking" Obama has in store that will affect millions of American families and businesses. The President's proposed budget projects will have federal spending soaring to $5.820 trillion per year, making Obama the biggest government spender in the history of the world. With all the talk from the President about spending cuts to satisfy independent voters, the sum of all of Obama's spending over the next ten years could total more than $40 trillion that we simply don't have.
We can't afford Washington's spending now. Do we really think only the wealthy will foot the bill for such dramatic increases in government expenditures? The President's proposals will drive $100 billion in tax hikes next year and more than $2 trillion in tax increases over the next 10 years hitting every American.
With more than 40 million Americans on food stamps, welfare is the fastest-growing portion of the budget under Obama. Food stamp usage is up a staggering 46% and the cost of the program has increased by 72%. Over the next four years, the President is preparing to increase spending on these programs to enable the government to increase benefits and provide for an increasing share of the population.
The slow creep of dependency will see a smaller middle class and a larger dependent class of not just the poor but individuals and families who once could afford to live without the government's help, but due to inflation, lower wages, fewer jobs, and higher taxes must turn to the government for some form of assistance.
When it comes to crippling regulations to burden private enterprise, the Obama Administration is leading the charge to squash industry in favor of increasing government's power and reach.
New greenhouse gas regulations will cost $300 to $400 billion per year and increase gas prices. The President's insane "cow tax" will hit more than 37,000 farms and ranches and 90% of American livestock production. Obama's attempt to stop hydraulic fracking for natural gas has more than a dozen federal agencies developing new, expensive regulations to prevent energy companies from drilling. His war on the coal industry will continue, costing as much as $110 billion over the next two decades and killing more than 300,000 jobs in Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Missouri. So much for energy independence, and so much for job creation.
Despite the President's assurance that costs won't go up and jobs won't be lost over Obamacare, the 16,000 IRS workers who will administer the tax provisions of the program will be very busy hitting millions where it hurts. According to the Heritage Foundation, the Congressional Budget Office analysis found that nearly 80 percent of those who'll face tax penalties would be making between $55,850 and $115,250. They will all see their taxes go up starting next year.
Obama will add a $123 billion surtax on investment income, and new taxes on dividends despite the fact that more than half of all Americans invest in the market in one fashion or another. The $86 billion increase in the Medicare Payroll Tax is also coming down the pike, along with a $60 billion tax increase for health insurance companies.
In another uniquely-Obama effort to allegedly reduce healthcare costs, the President is also going to increase taxes by $32 billion on people who already have comprehensive healthcare coverage -- because they have coverage. Of course, people who have coverage now that's not up to the government's standards will find their plans eliminated and forced to purchase more expensive coverage. He's even going to tax medical device manufacturers to the tune of $20 billion because apparently that will help make Americans healthier.
In Obama's America, religious schools, hospitals and charities will be labeled as non-religious employers specifically because they serve the common good of society. Churches and other faith-based institutions will be forced to provide services and even hire employees based on government mandates rather than their own, deeply-held values and beliefs. If they don't, Obama's government will gladly step in with an expensive government backfill for the services.
Here's the good news -- we can prevent Obama's America from becoming a reality. We can stop statism and collectivism from taking us from "one out of many" to one of the many nations whose governments' thirst for power and control led to the decline of great societies and nations. The choice is ours November 6, and the results of the election, whichever way they go, will resonate for generations to come.
God bless,
JohnnyD
By Ned Ryun on 10.26.12
You won't recognize this country after his second term -- the obvious reason he's not telling you what he has in mind for it.
Mitt Romney said it best in the last debate when he informed the President that, "attacking me isn't an agenda," which prompted the Obama campaign to immediately release what they call a plan for the second term. This 20-page repackaging of speeches notwithstanding, President Obama remains perhaps the only president in history to run for reelection who not only can't talk about his record but also can't discuss his real agenda for a second term.
Now it's not that he can't because he doesn't have any ideas about what he wants to do. He does have big plans, but his vision of the future is profoundly different from that of most Americans. The America that Obama sees when he sits on the Truman Balcony at night and dreams about the next four years is radically altered reality for everyone. It should scare every American -- unless you happen to be getting Obama's free cell phone service.
Obama would like everyone to believe that his second-term policies will address what he sees as the great inequalities and unfairness inherent in the American system. He wants to level the playing field. What he can't tell you -- and what most Americans are realizing -- is that leveling out America will reduce freedom, opportunity, income, innovation, and upward mobility in favor of a government-driven economy. With a government-driven society will come statism, and collectivism follows right on the heels of statism, which will destroy America.
Here's the stark proof, keeping in mind that this is a mere snapshot of the "remaking" Obama has in store that will affect millions of American families and businesses. The President's proposed budget projects will have federal spending soaring to $5.820 trillion per year, making Obama the biggest government spender in the history of the world. With all the talk from the President about spending cuts to satisfy independent voters, the sum of all of Obama's spending over the next ten years could total more than $40 trillion that we simply don't have.
We can't afford Washington's spending now. Do we really think only the wealthy will foot the bill for such dramatic increases in government expenditures? The President's proposals will drive $100 billion in tax hikes next year and more than $2 trillion in tax increases over the next 10 years hitting every American.
With more than 40 million Americans on food stamps, welfare is the fastest-growing portion of the budget under Obama. Food stamp usage is up a staggering 46% and the cost of the program has increased by 72%. Over the next four years, the President is preparing to increase spending on these programs to enable the government to increase benefits and provide for an increasing share of the population.
The slow creep of dependency will see a smaller middle class and a larger dependent class of not just the poor but individuals and families who once could afford to live without the government's help, but due to inflation, lower wages, fewer jobs, and higher taxes must turn to the government for some form of assistance.
When it comes to crippling regulations to burden private enterprise, the Obama Administration is leading the charge to squash industry in favor of increasing government's power and reach.
New greenhouse gas regulations will cost $300 to $400 billion per year and increase gas prices. The President's insane "cow tax" will hit more than 37,000 farms and ranches and 90% of American livestock production. Obama's attempt to stop hydraulic fracking for natural gas has more than a dozen federal agencies developing new, expensive regulations to prevent energy companies from drilling. His war on the coal industry will continue, costing as much as $110 billion over the next two decades and killing more than 300,000 jobs in Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Missouri. So much for energy independence, and so much for job creation.
Despite the President's assurance that costs won't go up and jobs won't be lost over Obamacare, the 16,000 IRS workers who will administer the tax provisions of the program will be very busy hitting millions where it hurts. According to the Heritage Foundation, the Congressional Budget Office analysis found that nearly 80 percent of those who'll face tax penalties would be making between $55,850 and $115,250. They will all see their taxes go up starting next year.
Obama will add a $123 billion surtax on investment income, and new taxes on dividends despite the fact that more than half of all Americans invest in the market in one fashion or another. The $86 billion increase in the Medicare Payroll Tax is also coming down the pike, along with a $60 billion tax increase for health insurance companies.
In another uniquely-Obama effort to allegedly reduce healthcare costs, the President is also going to increase taxes by $32 billion on people who already have comprehensive healthcare coverage -- because they have coverage. Of course, people who have coverage now that's not up to the government's standards will find their plans eliminated and forced to purchase more expensive coverage. He's even going to tax medical device manufacturers to the tune of $20 billion because apparently that will help make Americans healthier.
In Obama's America, religious schools, hospitals and charities will be labeled as non-religious employers specifically because they serve the common good of society. Churches and other faith-based institutions will be forced to provide services and even hire employees based on government mandates rather than their own, deeply-held values and beliefs. If they don't, Obama's government will gladly step in with an expensive government backfill for the services.
Here's the good news -- we can prevent Obama's America from becoming a reality. We can stop statism and collectivism from taking us from "one out of many" to one of the many nations whose governments' thirst for power and control led to the decline of great societies and nations. The choice is ours November 6, and the results of the election, whichever way they go, will resonate for generations to come.
God bless,
JohnnyD
Chronic Fatigue Economy
October 26, 2012
From: The Wall Street Journal
We borrowed $5 trillion and all we got was this lousy 1.7% growth.
The economy plowed ahead at a 2% growth rate in the third quarter, which thrilled more than a few of our liberal friends who think it's enough to re-elect President Obama. We'll soon find out if they're right, but there's no doubt their prosperity standards are slipping. In the third quarter of 1992, growth came in at 4.2% (3.4% for the year) and Democrats called it a catastrophe.
The third-quarter figure means that growth for the first nine months of 2012 has been a paltry 1.7%. That's slower than last year (1.8%), which was slower than the year before (2.4%). The current recovery has had only two quarters, but not a single year, with growth above 3%.
As problematic is where the growth came from and where it has gone missing. Consumer spending provided the most lift, perhaps helped by the asset burst inspired by the Federal Reserve's money printing. If Mr. Obama is re-elected, he should buy dinner for Ben Bernanke and the Fed Governors for their in-kind political contributions. The problem is that consumers can't continue to spend if the overall economy doesn't grow fast enough to raise incomes faster than it is.
The other big third-quarter growth driver was federal government spending, which rose 9.6%. Overall government outlays rose 3.7% and accounted for about 0.7 percentage points of the 2% overall GDP increase. Economist David Malpass calculates that growth in private output was closer to 1.3%. So much for the private economy "doing fine" and the government slumming for dollars.
An even bigger worry is that private investment tanked in the quarter. Non-housing related investment contracted by 1.3%. Housing did rally thanks to new home construction. But the decline in business investment at this stage of a recovery signals a capital strike and a return to pessimism. Business investment is a leading indicator of future job and wage growth.
Comparing this recovery from the bottom in June 2009 with previous rebounds continues to be very unflattering to Mr. Obama. Republicans on the Joint Economic Committee report that the typical growth rate at this stage of the previous nine recoveries (13 quarters) averaged 16.8%, and 19.6% in the Reagan expansion. The figure for this recovery is a meager 7.2%. That's about $1.2 trillion in foregone output. The budget deficit would be half as large today if this were a normal expansion.
The question is whether there is a reason to expect better in 2013. It's hard to see the investment outlook brightening when Democrats want to raise taxes on investment (capital gains and dividends). Higher tax rates (to 41% from 35%) on small businesses and subchapter S firms won't help hiring. The National Association of Manufacturers says its members will shed factory jobs next year if Washington jumps off the tax cliff, and until recent months manufacturing has been one of the economy's few bright spots.
So this is the dreary tale of Obamanomics: Keep borrowing more than $1 trillion a year and keep the Fed printing money at historic levels, in return for mediocre growth and stagnant incomes. The alternative is to stop punishing the employers, investors and workers who are the real source of growth. The Romney plan to cut tax rates, reform the tax code, restrain spending and repeal ObamaCare would be a good start.
Mr. Obama will spend the next 10 days trying to persuade voters that 1.7% growth is the best we can do. If he's re-elected, he's probably right.
God bless,
JohnnyD
The hidden real truth about Benghazi
From: Canada Free Press
by - Doug Hagmann - Friday, October 26, 2012
The Mosaic of lies, deceits and state-sponsored terrorism:
Most people know that we’ve been lied to about the attacks in Benghazi,
but few realize the extent of those lies or the hidden secrets they
cover. After all, the lie is different at every level. Thanks to a well
placed source with extensive knowledge about the attack, the disturbing
truth is slowly beginning to emerge and is lining up with information
contained in my previous articles published here weeks ago (Here, Here and Here). The truth reveals the most serious situation in the world today as it involves the interests and destinies of us all.
A mosaic of lies
According to the U.S. government, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed during a spontaneous protest at the consulate office in Benghazi by a frenzied crowd of Muslims outraged over an obscure internet video. Recently released “sensitive but not classified e-mails” from Stevens to the U.S. Department of State painted a picture of poor security for U.S. personnel and the embassy, which was obviously true but had little to do with the events of September 11, 2012. The failure to dispatch an extraction team or otherwise rescue the men during a firefight that lasted upwards of nine grueling and tortuous hours was not the result of any intelligence failure, but caused by our unwillingness to widen the conflict and expose the nature and scale of our true mission in Benghazi.
Based on information provided by my source and corroborated elsewhere, the official account by administration officials is a mosaic of lies that were necessary to cover the unpalatable truth of covert actions taking place in Libya, Syria, Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. The primary objective of our covert actions was to secretly arm anti-Assad “rebels” in Syria by funneling arms from Libya to Syria via Turkey, with other destinations that included Jordan and Lebanon. Regarding the threat to Stevens and the other murdered Americans, the truth will reformat the persistent question posed to government officials, from UN Ambassador Susan Rice to White House Spokesman Jay Carney and others from “how could you not have known” to “how could you have done these things?”
First, it is important to understand that Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Dougherty and Tyrone Woods were not killed at a consulate office in Benghazi—as there is not such office there. They died at one of the largest CIA operations centers in the Middle East, which was located in Benghazi and served as the logistics headquarters for arms and weapons being shipped out of the post-Qaddafi Libya.
Although the U.S. government insisted that Stevens was involved in securing and destroying the numerous caches of arms and weapons once under the control of Qaddafi, the operation was more complex than that. The visual accounts of weapons being destroyed were indeed real, but those weapons were not operational. The working weapons were actually separated and transported to holding facilities for their eventual use in Syria. Russia was fully aware of this operation and warned the U.S. not to engage in the destabilization of Syria, as doing so would endanger their national security interests. Deposing Assad, as despotic as he might be, and replacing him with a Muslim Brotherhood-led regime would likely lead to unrestrained Islamic chaos across the region.
The Turkish warning
According to my source, Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 to meet with his Turkish counterpart, who reportedly warned Stevens that the operation was compromised. They met in person so that Stevens could be shown overhead satellite images, taken by the Russians, of nefarious activities taking place in Turkey. But just what were these nefarious activities?
It is reasonable to suspect that these activities were more dire than just your average “gun running” operation. Since the overthrow of Qaddafi, it is estimated that upwards of 40 million tons of weapons and arms were shipped out of Libya to Syria. But it was also known inside intelligence circles that Qaddafi possessed chemical weapons in addition to numerous surface-to-air missiles. Could it be that Russia obtained unmistakable surveillance footage of the anti-Assad “rebels” being shown how to load chemical payloads onto missiles inside Turkey near the border of Syria? Weapons, of course, that were shipped from Libya by the CIA in conjunction with various Muslim Brotherhood rebel groups. If so, such weapons could be used as a “false flag” type of operation—one that would be implemented to “set-up” Assad by making it appear that he was using these weapons on forces dedicated to his overthrow.
The blowback by the international community would be swift and punishing, and the entirety of the civilized world would be demanding his overthrow. NATO would then be used to expedite his ouster, and Russia’s moral position within the international community would be weakened. Was the meeting held to show Stevens that the operation was compromised and that they had to stop?
A Nation/State sponsored attack?
While the administration asserts that the attack in Benghazi was conducted by a group of rebels acting alone, the facts seem to indicate otherwise. The level of coordination was such that we did not deploy military assets, located just an hour or two away by air, to rescue Stevens and the others at the CIA operations center in their time of need. If, as the administration contends, that the attack was perpetuated by a group of frenzied rebels, our military could have easily handled them in short order. So why was there no rescue operation?
Perhaps the statements made yesterday by Leon Panetta, U.S. Secretary of Defense provides some insight if one analyzes the essence of those statements. Among other things, Panetta said that “...the basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on…” Well, it has been confirmed we did know what was taking place on the ground in Benghazi, so exactly what did Panetta mean by this statement?
Against the backdrop of the official story, it makes little sense. If, however, one considers the alternative, that the attack was coordinated and was a nation/state sponsored attack, then it becomes clearer. Panetta and the highest levels of this administration likely knew exactly what we were doing, and knew that the operation was compromised. They knew, or had reason to believe, that the attack was being conducted at a nation/state level in response to our covert operation in Libya and arming the anti-Assad Syrian opposition.
Although Russia figures prominently here, Iran now comes into focus as Russia is not likely to directly engage U.S. forces. They must, however, protect their interests. Much like we were using anti-Assad forces to advance our objectives in Syria, Russia was using Iranian-backed forces to protect theirs. It appears that the attacks were conducted or facilitated by Iranian assets—perhaps as many as three teams of assets in Benghazi.
As the White House and other agencies monitored intelligence in real-time, they faced a dilemma. They knew that the nation/state sponsored attack teams were lying in wait for U.S. rescue forces to arrive, which is the reason the fight did not conclusively end sooner. They did not know exactly where all of the attack teams were, but knew they were present based on signal communication intercepts. Could they risk such exposure by deploying a rescue team to Benghazi, only to end up with another Black Hawk down type scenario? In addition to that scenario, the entire operation now becomes exposed for what it is. Take another look at Panetta’s statement in that context. Does it now make more sense? Bad PR in an election year, no?
As daylight approached with no response from the U.S. and no aid to the Americans under fire, the attack teams had to disperse into the cover of the remaining darkness, but not before their mission was accomplished. And sadly, it was.
Fallout
From the day of attack in Benghazi, Iran has been engaged in a full spectrum attack on the U.S. and NATO across the board involving embassies, bombing and even cyber attacks. All of this is the fallout from the arms and weapons smuggling operation, which was far greater than understood by the Western media.
Russia has now moved their contingent of S-400 missiles into much of Syria in anticipation of NATO establishing an “air cap” over Syria. A ten-mile “buffer zone” along Syria’s border has been created for Syrian refugees, but it also acts as a catalyst for the encroachment into Syrian territory. It sets the stage for further advancement and erosion of Syrian land, incrementally, of course.
It is also of critical importance to note that last weekend, Russia completed large-scale exercises of their Strategic Nuclear Forces under the watchful command of President Vladimir Putin. These were the first such nuclear exercises conducted since the fall of the Soviet Union.
To those with discernment, it is obvious that we are at the precipice of World War III. Putin himself stated as much, noting that WW III will not start in Iran but Syria, his own “red line in the sand.”
God bless,
JohnnyD
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Cantor Takes Obama to Task for Imperial Presidency
From: Newsmax
Tuesday, 23 Oct 2012
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has produced an 8,000-word report assailing President Barack Obama for instituting an imperial presidency.
Even The New York Times noted recently on its front page “an increasingly deliberate pattern by the administration to circumvent lawmakers,” Cantor writes.
Pieces appearing over the course of the past several months in The Washington Post, National Review, and The Wall Street Journal have talked about his "imperial presidency."
The Obama administration’s lack of respect for the law is hampering economic growth and individual prosperity, particularly the jobs market, he says.
“Property rights and rule of law are essential for the proper and efficient functioning of society and the economy,” Cantor states.
“When ‘laws’ are created without going through Congress; when laws are selectively executed; when an administration intervenes into the normal judicial process and diminishes an individual's property rights; and when the normal regulatory process is circumvented, the rule of law is eroded.”
That’s exactly what has happened under Obama, Cantor says.
“While administrations of both political parties have been known to test the bounds of the limits of their power, the breadth of the breakdown in the rule of law in recent years has reached new levels,” he writes.
Cantor’s report cites more than 40 examples of the White House’s lack of respect for the law.
This includes:
• Ignoring Advise & Consent, such as through recess appointments;
• Creating laws outside of the Congressional process, such as changing the unionization process, telling businesses where they are allowed to locate, imposing propaganda mandates on employers, telling federal contractors who they have to hire, regulation of hydraulic fracturing, establishing a national ocean regulatory policy, creating a new land regulation program, global warming regulations, network neutrality regulations, auto efficiency mandate, claiming the power to define what constitutes religious employment, draconian regulation of coal;
• Ignoring the Plain Letter of the Law & Failing to Faithfully Execute the Law, such as waiving work requirements under welfare; the contraception mandate and the rights of religious employers, expansion of the refundable tax credit providing for premium assistance, Medicare Advantage quality bonus demonstration, medical loss ratio requirement for health insurers, termination of Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, rewriting bankruptcy law, failing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, recognition of Jerusalem, lobbying for abortion overseas, halting the airport screening partnership program, expedited airport screening for members of the Armed Forces, DREAM Act deferred action, administrative amnesty for illegal immigrants, withholding critical information about counterfeit goods, Medicare Solvency Requirements;
• Circumventing the Normal Regulatory Process, such as abuse of sue and settle tactics, re-write of coal regulations, abuse of guidance documents, refusing to disclose regulatory agenda, failing to list essential health benefits, Gulf drilling moratorium; banning uranium mining in Arizona;
• Government By Waiver, such as education policy by waiver and healthcare law waivers;
• Creating New Programs Not Authorized by Congress, such as the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, new “super” agencies, the healthcare Independent Payment Advisory Board, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
“There is no excuse for this continuous disregard of legislative authority and the Constitutionally-required separation of powers,” Cantor writes.
“This is no way to govern. The President has set a precedent that even his supporters should find troubling. . . . The Founding Fathers wisely gave the President many powers, but making law was not one of them.”
God bless,
JohnnyD
Tuesday, 23 Oct 2012
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has produced an 8,000-word report assailing President Barack Obama for instituting an imperial presidency.
Even The New York Times noted recently on its front page “an increasingly deliberate pattern by the administration to circumvent lawmakers,” Cantor writes.
Pieces appearing over the course of the past several months in The Washington Post, National Review, and The Wall Street Journal have talked about his "imperial presidency."
The Obama administration’s lack of respect for the law is hampering economic growth and individual prosperity, particularly the jobs market, he says.
“Property rights and rule of law are essential for the proper and efficient functioning of society and the economy,” Cantor states.
“When ‘laws’ are created without going through Congress; when laws are selectively executed; when an administration intervenes into the normal judicial process and diminishes an individual's property rights; and when the normal regulatory process is circumvented, the rule of law is eroded.”
That’s exactly what has happened under Obama, Cantor says.
“While administrations of both political parties have been known to test the bounds of the limits of their power, the breadth of the breakdown in the rule of law in recent years has reached new levels,” he writes.
Cantor’s report cites more than 40 examples of the White House’s lack of respect for the law.
This includes:
• Ignoring Advise & Consent, such as through recess appointments;
• Creating laws outside of the Congressional process, such as changing the unionization process, telling businesses where they are allowed to locate, imposing propaganda mandates on employers, telling federal contractors who they have to hire, regulation of hydraulic fracturing, establishing a national ocean regulatory policy, creating a new land regulation program, global warming regulations, network neutrality regulations, auto efficiency mandate, claiming the power to define what constitutes religious employment, draconian regulation of coal;
• Ignoring the Plain Letter of the Law & Failing to Faithfully Execute the Law, such as waiving work requirements under welfare; the contraception mandate and the rights of religious employers, expansion of the refundable tax credit providing for premium assistance, Medicare Advantage quality bonus demonstration, medical loss ratio requirement for health insurers, termination of Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, rewriting bankruptcy law, failing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, recognition of Jerusalem, lobbying for abortion overseas, halting the airport screening partnership program, expedited airport screening for members of the Armed Forces, DREAM Act deferred action, administrative amnesty for illegal immigrants, withholding critical information about counterfeit goods, Medicare Solvency Requirements;
• Circumventing the Normal Regulatory Process, such as abuse of sue and settle tactics, re-write of coal regulations, abuse of guidance documents, refusing to disclose regulatory agenda, failing to list essential health benefits, Gulf drilling moratorium; banning uranium mining in Arizona;
• Government By Waiver, such as education policy by waiver and healthcare law waivers;
• Creating New Programs Not Authorized by Congress, such as the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, new “super” agencies, the healthcare Independent Payment Advisory Board, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
“There is no excuse for this continuous disregard of legislative authority and the Constitutionally-required separation of powers,” Cantor writes.
“This is no way to govern. The President has set a precedent that even his supporters should find troubling. . . . The Founding Fathers wisely gave the President many powers, but making law was not one of them.”
God bless,
JohnnyD
Monday, October 22, 2012
Liberalism Only Seeks Power & is Happy with Nothing Less, Despite the Price
From: Canada Free Press
It Was Never About Obama in the First Place—Why Barack is Merely Puppet o’ Hope
by - Kelly OConnell - Monday, October 8, 2012
If the first debate between Barack and Mitt proved anything, besides
this emperor having no clothes, it’s that the point of electing Obama
was never about his “genius.” It was simply a convenient leftist power
grab, obscured by a ridiculous cartoon of leadership. As has been richly
illustrated, despite all his intellectual bluster—Barack is no
Einstein. After exposure as a cocky, know-nothing parrot of others’
words, it became startlingly obvious Barack has a very limited pool of
knowledge. Like a blind man searching for his cane all evening, was
Barack Obama “debating.”
Now certainly those working with Obama the past 5-10 years knew of his
inherent limitations, that he was essentially an unthinking figure head
for their movement. Further, they wagered with his grandiose self-image,
belief in his own inevitable rise, preposterously condescending manner,
and photogenic style, he’d be a perfect Trojan-horse to ride to
victory. But finally, Obama was revealed as a charlatan as silly as any
from a rock-n-roll opera:
Ever since I was a young boy I played the silver ball
From Soho down to Brighton I must have played them all
But I ain’t seen nothing like him in any amusement hall
That deaf, dumb and blind kid sure plays a mean pinball
From Soho down to Brighton I must have played them all
But I ain’t seen nothing like him in any amusement hall
That deaf, dumb and blind kid sure plays a mean pinball
So what has actually happened the last four years in the White House?
Obviously, an elaborate fraud has been foisted upon a credulous, tired
and intellectually inert American public. But why? Because liberalism is
a movement so inherently illogical, unstable and anti-intuitive it
needs leaders who are either dense blowhards, moral misfits, or
literally insane to head the cause (see Sources of Madness—The Insane Thinkers of the Modern Age).
Alarmingly, modern liberalism (socialism, Marxism, Fascism, etc) is a
political religion intent upon converting the world, even by sword, if
necessary. So the real star of Obama’s administration is this
quasi-religious, atheistic world movement which finds a surprising
ideological partner in classic Islam. This menacing, anti-liberty
movement will not rest until it has enslaved the globe.
I. Bait & Switch Puppet Dance Leads to Thousand Year Reign?
Let’s cut to the chase. Obama is so spectacularly unsuited to the rigors
of the presidency and his education so lacking, while his experience is
literally nonexistent. Further, temperamentally his instincts are those
of an anti-leader—a blamer-in-chief, avoider of tough decisions and an
achievement parasite. Yet, Obama qualified as the sacred lamb of
political correctness, and so his suspect bona fides could not be
challenged. Therefore, the thesis of this article is that Barack was a
hand-chosen proxy for the interests of more capable progressives who use
his presidency to push their agendas.
This theory was essentially proved when at the first debate he was
exposed as a ninny-without-teleprompter. Barack was so spectacularly
unsuccessful arguing he might have appeared a geek gobbling down live
fowl for all the abuse heaped on him afterward. This is the kind of
person who accepts a preemptive Nobel without a hint of irony. And
having been coddled and flattered his whole life, the slacker was simply
kneecapped by his own incompetence and appalling ignorance when he
could not use a lifeline.
The American Left obviously believed Barack could be camouflaged
permanently. First, his race protected him from any scrutiny from the
right. Second, his competence was utterly obscured by a constant
Praetorian media guard, 24/7. And Liberals were hoping Barack would be
the stalking horse they needed to move them into a position for a
permanent coup, like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, George Soros, etc. But
now the very thing that made Barack a breeze to control and manipulate,
his cynical ignorance and lack of interest in any details of
government—such as his laying down asleep during the Stimulus
legislation—have blown up in their faces. Because a
stupid-is-as-stupid-does leader is not what most Americans were
bargaining for in 2008.
II. What are the Key Elements of Socialism?
Socialism was the outcome of the philosophy of those radicals gathering
in Paris and London after the French Revolution. The so-called struggle
to help the poor and push back the excesses of religion ended in a blind
war against private property. Marxism, or the outlawry of private
property and imposition of government tyranny is also the death of rule
of law and democracy. It is presented as the logical end of socialism
and certainly exhausts every option for personal liberty and defaults
them into the state. And the mystic gate which invariably leads to
progressive paradise is the holy revolution.
Tracing the actual sources of socialism is a fascinating study, touched on by Librarian of Congress James H. Billington in Fire in the Minds of Men, Origins of the Revolutionary Faith. He says of the seeds of socialism:
The revolutionary faith was shaped not so much by the critical
rationalism of the French Enlightenment (as is generally believed) as by
the occultism and proto-romanticism of Germany. This faith was
incubated in France during the revolutionary era within a small
subculture of literary intellectuals who were immersed in journalism,
fascinated by secret societies, and subsequently infatuated with
“ideologies” as a secular surrogate for religious belief. The
professional revolutionaries who first appeared during the French
Revolution sought, above all, radical simplicity.
If we were to sum up the beliefs of the earliest socialists, it would be
a rejection of human liberty at all levels, and a replacement of
temporal authority with superhuman leadership transcending even
God—illustrated by how Marxists regimes flouted all of His commandments.
At heart is the deeply humanist and ultra-chaotic evolutionary reign of
men subjectively controlling other men without any ultimate standard
from which to rule-make or appeal. This is all achieved through
revolution, one meant to sweep across the globe and wipe out all
capitalism and democracy. This is the tradition Barack’s handlers
represent.
III. Obama’s Trinity: Liberation Theology, Islam & Socialism
Fascinatingly, all of the major influences of Barack’s life teach the
same standards on economics and salvation—being leftist Christianity,
Islam and socialism, share a core set of presuppositions. More
importantly, all socialists accept these as default positions.
A. Socialism as Economic Norm
First, all of these systems employ socialistic economics in their
practice. Socialized economies are the norm across the Middle East, and
Black Liberation theology is Marxist.
- For example, the pan-Arab Ba’ath party of Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan is progressive political ideology...“its main ideological objectives were secularism, socialism and pan-Arab unionism.”
- Obama’s home church Rev Wright’s Trinity church employed James Cone’s Liberation Theology, described here by Discover the Networks:
Working from a strong Marxist base, liberation theology teaches that the New Testament gospels can be understood only as calls for social activism, class struggle, and revolution aimed at overturning the existing capitalist order and installing, in its stead, a socialist utopia where today’s poor will unseat their “oppressors” and become liberated from their material (and, consequently, their spiritual) deprivations. An extension of this paradigm, black liberation theology seeks to foment a similar Marxist revolutionary fervor founded on racial rather than class solidarity.
3. And obviously socialism is itself collectivism.
B. Salvation by Group
On the subject of salvation, again we have a fascinating confluence of these diverse beliefs, all agreeing that only groups can save people.
1. Socialism/Marxism on Salvation:
Most obviously, socialism along with Marxism teach that only the group saves people. Eric Voegelin, in The New Science of Politics, taught that Marxism is a political religion which offers salvation only to those who accept its premises and join the group.
2. Black Liberation Theology & Group Salvation:
Most interestingly, the normally individualistic Christian Protestant-tinged Black Liberation Theology is also a belief system which preaches group salvation. One hint is the Marxist foundation. Writes one author,
Collective salvation is a concept contrived by the originators of liberation theology. This way of thinking was introduced in Latin America Catholic churches in the late 1950’s and adopted by many predominantly Black churches in the 1960’s. Liberation theology interprets the teachings of Jesus to mean that we must fight for those trapped in unjust economic, political, or social conditions or to engage in political activism to advance the cause of social justice. Check out the ELCA social issues webpage. In liberation theology, there are only two classes, the oppressors and the oppressed, those with power and those that are powerless. The concepts of collective salvation and liberation theology are the driving forces of the ELCA’s ministry. This fact will not be found on the home page of their website, but the ELCA Bishop, Mark Hanson, spoke about how important social justice is to him, when he referred to what he called the gospel of radical inclusiveness in his most recent town hall meeting. Most troubling is that while he was speaking about this social justice issue, was that he believed that it was as important to a Christian as is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Nothing is more important than our relationship with our Savior!
3. Islam & Collective Salvation:
Islam also embraces a kind of collective salvation. This is perhaps not as surprising when one realizes that the political model of Islam developed before the religious doctrines, as difficult as this may be to fathom. It also explains how Islam can demand conversion by sword, or heavy taxation and treaties for non-believers in Muslim lands without any irony. Both main sects of Islam, Shia and Sunni believe that membership in Muslim community saves one. Adbulaziz Abdulhussein Schedina writes in Islamic Messianism: The Idea of the Mahdi in Twelver Shi’ism,
The Islamic doctrine of salvation was conceived in the formation of an ideal religio-political community living under a fitting legal and social system of Islam on earth…the Sunnites looked upon salvation as possible only through the allegiance and loyalty of all believers in the community. As long as the community continued to be fully committed to the promulgation and observance of the Law (Shari’a), its salvation was guaranteed regardless of the qualities of the leaders.Shia agree with the foregoing, except that the leadership of the community must be pure for the community to be saved, as described in Understanding Bibi’s Urgency: Israel is Only Target of Iran’s Need for Islamic Apocalypse.
Barack has also stated he is a redistribution several times, and also acted like one. But, more fascinatingly, Obama himself has an admitted fixation with group salvation, claiming this as his own belief repeatedly. Barack claims of himself: “My individual salvation rests on our collective salvation.”
IV. Real Goal of Obama Puppet Theater: World Collectivism
The key to understanding the Obama phenomenon is to realize the entire mission of any properly educated socialist is to take over the town, city, state, country and world for socialism to save mankind. In other words, socialism aka Marxism, is a missionary political religion. It seeks to convert followers through the typical pamphleteer methods. But if these don’t work, it has shown itself to be perfectly capable of shifting into manipulating or even forcing, up to the point of death, others into the fold—exactly like Islam. Writes one author,Marxist politics ends with the establishment of global communism as a new world order and the dissolution of the state—these are inevitable evolutionary steps. In the same sense that humans, societies, economies, and politics are evolving, so the new world order is an evolutionary advance over former nations, states, tribes, and other race or class distinctions. Georgi Shakhnazarov, a top aide to former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, writes, “Our epoch is the epoch of the revolutionary transformation of capitalist society into communist.” In tracing the beginnings of the revolution, he says, “the building of a new world order…was begun in October 1917 by revolutionary Russia, proclaiming socialist principles.” The establishment of world communism, the ultimate aim of Marxism, puts the means of production in the hands of the people, abolishes classes, abolishes the state, and leads to a world society of cooperation and consensus.So the goal of all dedicated leftists is the overthrow of capitalism to make a world socialist state. Even here in America and even now.
Conclusion
We ought not worry ourselves about the exact beliefs of Barack since he is just a ridiculous pawn. Instead, let’s accept the obvious—his minders aim for world domination. They will stop at nothing in their attempts to “save” mankind into a Marxist paradise bereft of freedom or any rights, just as we see happening today with the UN’s Agenda 21, etc. We must brace ourselves for even spectacular attempts to retain power after their ridiculous fop Barack was exposed as a confidence man. Remember, as their only goal is power—whether in the form of radical atheism, leftist Christianity, or fundamentalist Islam—they are unlikely to give up without further contrived crises. These exist only to gin up fear and gain more power. While we cannot know for certain what is in store this next three weeks before the election, we ought not be afraid but steel ourselves to react properly and move to restore order after their latest scam is birthed. After all, it is our legacy which built America and they cannot ultimately win without our trembling acquiescence which, at this time we no longer deign to give. We have the Truth of God on our side and we cannot lose as long was we retain our composure.God bless,
JohnnyD
An Open Letter to Obama Voters
From: Townhall Magazine
by - Matt Barber
Did you vote for Barack Obama in 2008? A lot of people did – obviously.
What a time. There’s still room for improvement, but what a testimony to just how far we as a nation have come in terms of racial harmony, tolerance and diversity.
Only decades earlier a man like Barack Obama – a black man – couldn’t even drink from the same water fountain as a white man, let alone become president of the United States. A hundred years prior to that, and he may well have been counted another man’s property.
On Nov. 4, 2008, millions gathered at the ballot box to prove, once and for all, that, in large measure, we as a nation have healed from our disgraceful, self-inflicted wounds of racial abuse, bias and division.
That we could elect an African-American to lead the free world is indeed a very good thing.
We just happened to elect the wrong African-American.
In life, we sometimes find that the idea of a thing is far better than the thing itself. As a boy, I once ordered, from a comic book, a pair of X-ray glasses that promised to allow me to see the bones beneath my hand (my motives were a bit more ignoble). The two weeks it took for the glasses to arrive seemed like an eternity.
Once they did arrive, I ripped into the package and put them on, darting my head to-and-fro. It’s difficult to express my level of disappointment. As I quickly discovered, the glasses merely formed a halo effect around objects, creating the illusion of transparency. I felt embarrassed. I got took.
Barack Obama’s presidency has been a halo effect. Like I did so many years ago, in 2008 America fell victim to false advertising. As the past four years have demonstrated beyond any serious debate, the idea of President Obama was far better than the reality of President Obama. We were promised the world. We were promised transparency; but we were sold an illusion. We got took.
Indeed, during the 2008 campaign, a then-Sen. Barack Obama promised us that, if elected, we would look back upon the moment he took office and “tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.”
That was the idea of President Obama. That was what many good, well-meaning people voted for. That was the hope offered and the change promised.
That was not what we got.
Though it’s certainly not a comprehensive analysis, during the second presidential debate, Mitt Romney, in response to Mr. Obama’s attempts to gloss over his mounting leadership failures, summarized a few of the big ones. While addressing an audience member who, perhaps like you, voted for Obama in 2008, Romney observed, in part, the following:
That’s why I was so taken aback. Although we saw dozens of people wearing Romney stickers, we only saw one man wearing an Obama sticker.
We walked up to a fellow with a gray pony tail, John Lennon glasses and Birkenstocks. He was wearing a Romney sticker.
“Mind if I ask why you’re voting for Mitt Romney?” I asked. “I assume you are.”
His reply – and these were his words, not mine – was short and to the point: “Because I refuse to be that stupid twice.”
Changing one’s mind doesn’t always reveal a tendency toward indecision. Sometimes, changing one’s mind reveals a tendency toward wisdom.
God bless,
JohnnyD
by - Matt Barber
Did you vote for Barack Obama in 2008? A lot of people did – obviously.
What a time. There’s still room for improvement, but what a testimony to just how far we as a nation have come in terms of racial harmony, tolerance and diversity.
Only decades earlier a man like Barack Obama – a black man – couldn’t even drink from the same water fountain as a white man, let alone become president of the United States. A hundred years prior to that, and he may well have been counted another man’s property.
On Nov. 4, 2008, millions gathered at the ballot box to prove, once and for all, that, in large measure, we as a nation have healed from our disgraceful, self-inflicted wounds of racial abuse, bias and division.
That we could elect an African-American to lead the free world is indeed a very good thing.
We just happened to elect the wrong African-American.
In life, we sometimes find that the idea of a thing is far better than the thing itself. As a boy, I once ordered, from a comic book, a pair of X-ray glasses that promised to allow me to see the bones beneath my hand (my motives were a bit more ignoble). The two weeks it took for the glasses to arrive seemed like an eternity.
Once they did arrive, I ripped into the package and put them on, darting my head to-and-fro. It’s difficult to express my level of disappointment. As I quickly discovered, the glasses merely formed a halo effect around objects, creating the illusion of transparency. I felt embarrassed. I got took.
Barack Obama’s presidency has been a halo effect. Like I did so many years ago, in 2008 America fell victim to false advertising. As the past four years have demonstrated beyond any serious debate, the idea of President Obama was far better than the reality of President Obama. We were promised the world. We were promised transparency; but we were sold an illusion. We got took.
Indeed, during the 2008 campaign, a then-Sen. Barack Obama promised us that, if elected, we would look back upon the moment he took office and “tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.”
That was the idea of President Obama. That was what many good, well-meaning people voted for. That was the hope offered and the change promised.
That was not what we got.
Though it’s certainly not a comprehensive analysis, during the second presidential debate, Mitt Romney, in response to Mr. Obama’s attempts to gloss over his mounting leadership failures, summarized a few of the big ones. While addressing an audience member who, perhaps like you, voted for Obama in 2008, Romney observed, in part, the following:
I think you know better. I think you know that these last four years haven’t been so good as the president just described and that you don’t feel like you’re confident that the next four years are going to be much better either. …
He said that, by now, we’d have unemployment at 5.4 percent. The difference between where it is and 5.4 percent is 9 million Americans without work. …
He said he would have, by now, put forward a plan to reform Medicare and Social Security, because he pointed out they’re on the road to bankruptcy. He would reform them. He’d get that done. He hasn’t even made a proposal on either one.
He said in his first year he’d put out an immigration plan that would deal with our immigration challenges. Didn’t even file it.
This is a president who has not been able to do what he said he’d do. He said that he’d cut in half the deficit. He hasn’t done that either. In fact, he doubled it.
He said that by now middle-income families would have a reduction in their health insurance premiums by $2,500 a year. It’s gone up by $2,500 a year. And if Obamacare is … implemented fully, it’ll be another $2,500. …
The middle class is getting crushed under the policies of a president who has not understood what it takes to get the economy working again. … [T]he number of people who are still looking for work is still 23 million Americans.
There are more people in poverty, one out of six people in poverty.
How about food stamps? When he took office, 32 million people were on food stamps. Today, 47 million people are on food stamps. How about the growth of the economy? It’s growing more slowly this year than last year – and more slowly last year than the year before. …
The president has tried, but his policies haven’t worked.Recently, my wife and I attended an outdoor festival in central Virginia. Although the event was not political, there were people from both the Obama and Romney camps handing out campaign stickers and other items. I suspect that if a poll were taken, liberals out-numbered conservatives by about two-to-one.
That’s why I was so taken aback. Although we saw dozens of people wearing Romney stickers, we only saw one man wearing an Obama sticker.
We walked up to a fellow with a gray pony tail, John Lennon glasses and Birkenstocks. He was wearing a Romney sticker.
“Mind if I ask why you’re voting for Mitt Romney?” I asked. “I assume you are.”
His reply – and these were his words, not mine – was short and to the point: “Because I refuse to be that stupid twice.”
Changing one’s mind doesn’t always reveal a tendency toward indecision. Sometimes, changing one’s mind reveals a tendency toward wisdom.
God bless,
JohnnyD
Voter Fraud and the Most Important Election in History
From: Front Page Magazine
October 22, 2012 By
Senior editor at The American Spectator John Fund’s books, Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens our Democracy and Who’s Counting?: How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk (co-written with Hans von Spakovsky), for example, are replete with evidence of voter fraud. Former comedian Al Franken, to name a prominent example, wouldn’t be a senator without it.
But Democrats, immovably locked in the ludicrous mindset that racist Republicans just don’t want blacks to vote, claim that concern about voter fraud is simply another rightwing dog whistle, and that instances of voter fraud are rarer than being struck by lightning. So instead of insuring that fraud is eliminated altogether, Democrats hammer on this talking point that voter ID laws are nothing more than a scam to ensure that only Republicans win political office and that impoverished minorities are excluded from the democratic process.
This is the same left that counted on the criminal organization ACORN to further Obama’s career. The left also claims that ACORN was the victim of voter registration fraud, which it reported on its own. John Fund notes that
Another claim of the left is that the kinds of fraud committed are not the sort that voter ID laws will ameliorate; thus there is no point to them except to suppress Democratic votes. Von Spakovsky responds that
As for voter suppression and intimidation, Fund’s co-writer Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, says “The claim that ID suppresses votes has been disproved by election results in Georgia and Indiana. Their laws have been in place for more than five years and turnout of minorities and Democrats went up, not down.”
Democrats must resort to racial polemics, as they always do, on this issue in order to divert attention from their own political corruption, which is rampant in the large urban centers controlled by Democrats; voter fraud in those areas helps those corrupt politicians exploit and steal from their minority constituents. Even MSNBC’s most committed Obama cheerleader Chris Matthews admits that impersonation fraud has gone on since the 1950s in his native Philadelphia, for example. “It’s what went on, and I believe it still goes on.”
The fact of the matter is that the radical left depends on their own voter fraud to push unworthy, incompetent, ideologue candidates like Barack Obama into office. The minions of Saul Alinsky will happily subvert the democratic process in order to acquire and maintain power, just like in any totalitarian banana republic. And as Fund and von Spakovsky conclude in their introduction to Who’s Counting?,
God bless,
JohnnyD
October 22, 2012 By
Senior editor at The American Spectator John Fund’s books, Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens our Democracy and Who’s Counting?: How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk (co-written with Hans von Spakovsky), for example, are replete with evidence of voter fraud. Former comedian Al Franken, to name a prominent example, wouldn’t be a senator without it.
But Democrats, immovably locked in the ludicrous mindset that racist Republicans just don’t want blacks to vote, claim that concern about voter fraud is simply another rightwing dog whistle, and that instances of voter fraud are rarer than being struck by lightning. So instead of insuring that fraud is eliminated altogether, Democrats hammer on this talking point that voter ID laws are nothing more than a scam to ensure that only Republicans win political office and that impoverished minorities are excluded from the democratic process.
This is the same left that counted on the criminal organization ACORN to further Obama’s career. The left also claims that ACORN was the victim of voter registration fraud, which it reported on its own. John Fund notes that
ACORN was convicted in Nevada of subverting the election law and had to sign a consent decree in Seattle. 1.4 million registrations, of which 40% were fraudulent. How would we know if people used some of those names to vote? We frankly wouldn’t. ACORN was caught many times red-handed before they started turning in a few underlings to improve their image.This is also the same left that still goes apoplectic over their belief that Bush stole the 2000 election through – that’s right – voter fraud, and that insists that Al Franken was declared the winner by the State Supreme Court, which rejected charges of improperly counted absentee votes. Fund’s reply to the latter is that “1100 felon voters illegally swung the 2008 Al Franken election in Minnesota. That all came out after the State Supreme Court decision and is separate from absentee ballot questions.”
Another claim of the left is that the kinds of fraud committed are not the sort that voter ID laws will ameliorate; thus there is no point to them except to suppress Democratic votes. Von Spakovsky responds that
Voter ID is not the answer to all election fraud, just one of several solutions that should be implemented. It can prevent impersonation fraud, registration fraud, voting by illegal aliens, and double voting by individuals registered in two states if both states have an ID requirement. It can help with absentee ballot fraud if an ID requirement is applied to absentee ballots as Kansas, Alabama, and Pennsylvania have done. It can’t prevent felon voting. That requires better verification procedures by election officials.Poor minorities seem to have no problem working the welfare and Medicaid systems. They manage to get EBT cards and driver’s licenses. ID is required for almost every common transaction in contemporary society, and no one complains about the reasonableness of that. How then is it a burden for minorities to obtain and produce an ID at a voting booth as well? As Artur Davis, former Democratic congressman from Alabama, said,
The idea that people in low-income African-American communities are bothered or intimidated or burdened by attaching a few responsibilities to their all-important core right of voting – it’s a condescending idea. It’s a patronizing idea. If the law works the same with respect to everybody, it’s free and clear of whatever history or bigotry or racial animus.
As for voter suppression and intimidation, Fund’s co-writer Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, says “The claim that ID suppresses votes has been disproved by election results in Georgia and Indiana. Their laws have been in place for more than five years and turnout of minorities and Democrats went up, not down.”
Democrats must resort to racial polemics, as they always do, on this issue in order to divert attention from their own political corruption, which is rampant in the large urban centers controlled by Democrats; voter fraud in those areas helps those corrupt politicians exploit and steal from their minority constituents. Even MSNBC’s most committed Obama cheerleader Chris Matthews admits that impersonation fraud has gone on since the 1950s in his native Philadelphia, for example. “It’s what went on, and I believe it still goes on.”
The fact of the matter is that the radical left depends on their own voter fraud to push unworthy, incompetent, ideologue candidates like Barack Obama into office. The minions of Saul Alinsky will happily subvert the democratic process in order to acquire and maintain power, just like in any totalitarian banana republic. And as Fund and von Spakovsky conclude in their introduction to Who’s Counting?,
The refusal to insist on simple procedural changes like requiring a photo ID to vote, secure technology, and more vigorous prosecutions accelerates our drift toward banana-republic elections.
God bless,
JohnnyD
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)