Politics


LBJ: We were attacked (in the Gulf of Tonkin)!

Nixon: I am not a crook!

Clinton: I did not have sex with that woman… Miss Lewinski!

Bush – 41: Read my lips – No new taxes!

Obama:

I will have the most transparent administration in history.

TARP is to fund shovel-ready jobs.

I am focused like a laser on creating jobs.

The IRS is not targeting anyone.

It was a spontaneous riot about a movie.

If I had a son.

I will put an end to the type of politics that “breeds division, conflict and cynicism”.

You didn’t build that!

I will restore trust in Government.

The Cambridge cops acted stupidly.

The public will have 5 days to look at every bill that land on my desk

It’s not my red line – it is the world’s red line.

Whistle blowers will be protected in my administration.

We got back every dime we used to rescue the banks and auto companies, with interest.

I am not spying on American citizens.

Obama-Care will be good for America

You can keep your family doctor.

Premiums will be lowered by $2500.

If you like it, you can keep your current healthcare plan

It’s just like shopping at Amazon

I knew nothing about “Fast and Furious” gunrunning to Mexican drug cartels

I knew nothing about IRS targeting conservative groups

I knew nothing about what happened in Benghazi

And the biggest one of all:

“I, Barrack Hussein Obama, pledge to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America

Saul D. Alinsky

I began to read of Obama’s influences as far back as April of 2008, before Obama’s presidential election. From this I learned about Saul D. Alinksy and Cloward & Piven who are probably among the most important among Obama’s influences – directly or otherwise. When you read about them and the basis of their beliefs it is not difficult to see Obama’s beliefs among them.

So, who are these people?

Saul D. Alinksy

Consider Saul D. Alinksy. Known as the “father of modern American radicalism,” Saul D. Alinsky (1909-1972) developed strategies and tactics that take the enormous, unfocused emotional energy of grassroots groups and transform it into effective anti-government and anti-corporate activism. Activist organizations teach his ideas widely taught today as a set of model behaviors, and they use these principles to create an emotional commitment to victory – no matter what. This describes very well Obama’s community organizing work, which he did long before becoming a member of the U.S. Senate. It is not hard to see Alinksy’s work oozing from the pores of Obama. Obama’s most recent use of one of Alinsky’s rules was this past week when Obama ridiculed businessman Donald Trump’s efforts to get answers to questions surrounding the origin of Obama’s birth. These are questions of which the answer is owed to the American people.

“I know that he’s taken some flack lately,” Obama said of Trump. “But no one is happier, no one is prouder to put this birth certificate matter to rest than The Donald.”

But then the president quickly changed gears. “And that’s because he can finally get back to focusing on the issues that matter, like–did we fake the moon landing? What really happened in Roswell? And where are Biggie and Tupac?” Obama said, referencing rap icons Biggie Smalls and Tupac Shakur. – Barack Obama during his speach in front of a live televised audience at the annual White House Correspondents’ Association dinner in Washington, D.C. in late April of 2011.

At the end of the day Obama is ultimately at fault for his failure to disclose to the American people this most basic of information upon which his eligibility to be president of the United States rests. As Oprah Winfrey on her talk show asked him the day after his disclosure, “What took so long?”. Some analyst say the timing of his disclosure is directly related to his falling poll numbers.

Cloward-Piven

The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined by Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, then both sociologists and political activists at the Columbia University School of Social Work, in a 1966 article in The Nation entitled “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty”.

The two were critical of the public welfare system, and their strategy called for overloading that system to force a different set of policies to address poverty. They stated that many Americans who were eligible for welfare were not receiving benefits, and that a welfare enrollment drive would strain local budgets, precipitating a crisis at the state and local levels that would be a wake-up call for the federal government, particularly the Democratic Party, thus forcing it to implement a national solution to poverty. Cloward and Piven wrote that “the ultimate objective of this strategy [would be] to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income…” There would also be side consequences of this strategy, according to Cloward and Piven. These would include: easing the plight of the poor in the short-term (through their participation in the welfare system); shoring up support for the national Democratic Party then-splintered by pluralist interests (through its cultivation of poor and minority constituencies by implementing a national solution to poverty); relieving local governments of the financially and politically onerous burdens of public welfare (through a national solution to poverty).

The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

To capture the significance of Barack Obama’s Radical Left connections and his relation to the Cloward-Piven strategy, consider the following flow chart. It is by no means complete. There are simply too many radical individuals and organizations to include them all here. But these are perhaps the most significant.


They represent the organizations at work who believe America’s economic and political systems are worthy of begin destroyed. They represent the ardent support for Obama. The chart puts Barack Obama at the epicenter of American radical leftism. Not only are his connections significant, they practically define who he is. Taken together, they constitute a who’s who of the American radical left, and guiding all is the Cloward-Piven strategy.

Change and the Moral High Ground

Too many Americans today brush off Obama’s influences as another conspiracy theory worthy of being alongside Big Foot and UFO’s. There are two types; those who don’t take the claims seriously or if they do and already understand these claims to be truth, they don’t want that truth to be known. They are happy if the majority of Americans are oblivious to the reasons behind the changes taking place in America today. In either case, they defend Obama’s policies and characterize them as morally correct.

“I think this debate is on a higher ground of our values. It’s not about money. It’s about the morality of what we’re doing.” – Nancy Pelosi

One only needs to look to pre-Nazi Germany to understand how quickly the abnormal replaces the normal and how values and government can change in a matter of months. But try comparing Obama-era changes to Hitler-era changes and you’re instantly vilified. Not because of the comparison to a charismatic leader who tears down its long standing government to replace it with his own idea of what government should be to its people, but because his blind supporters are only capable of one-dimensional thinking and can only associate Hitler to the holocaust. They cannot see the truth.

The naive among Obama’s supporters truly believe he is trying to help its citizens. They cannot see how Obama’s vision of America will actually lead to its destruction and loss of standing on the world’s stage, just as Hitler’s leadership lead to Germany’s destruction.

Wayne Allyn Root

While the influences these people may have had upon the formation of Obama’s beliefs might be new to most, there is someone who has known this since Obama’s college years.

The author of what follows was a college classmate of Obama’s. His name is Wayne Allyn Root.

Wayne Allyn Root

Mr. Root was the 2008 Libertarian Party vice presidential nominee and serves on the Libertarian National Committee. The opinion piece that he wrote for the Las Vegas Review-Journal in June of 2010 helps to justify the belief that Obama really does want to grow government, destroy America’s economic leadership and make its citizens dependent upon its government and in-so-doing making Americans slaves to an overbearing government.

What follows is Mr. Root’s view of Obama, his view of America and its place in the world and how his policies are working to bring about Obama’s brand of “Hope and Change”.

Obama’s agenda: Overwhelm the system

Rahm Emanuel cynically said, “You never want a crisis to go to waste.” It is now becoming clear that the crisis he was referring to is Barack Obama’s presidency.

Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he’s doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos — thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.

Barack Obama is my college classmate (Columbia University, class of ’83). As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University. They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Taken individually they’re alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival … and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.

— Universal health care. The health care bill had very little to do with health care. It had everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and health care workers, as well as adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will join government employee unions). Obama doesn’t care that giving free health care to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national debt. What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression?

— Cap and trade. Like health care legislation having nothing to do with health care, cap and trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obama’s biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE, which owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants. They will kick-back hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama “spread the wealth around.”

— Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who’s asking for a 51st state? Who’s asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? Certainly not American taxpayers. But this has been Obama’s plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government.

— Legalize 12 million illegal immigrants. Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free health care alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America. But it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security.

— Stimulus and bailouts. Where did all that money go? It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions — including billions of dollars to save or create jobs of government employees across the country. It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues). All those public employees will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America. The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful. The ends justify the means.

— Raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama). Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition.

With the acts outlined above, Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system.

Add it up and you’ve got the perfect Marxist scheme — all devised by my Columbia University college classmate Barack Obama.

America needs to wake up. But I fear it may be too late.

The original opinion piece can be found here.

First, Obama says Republicans gotta sit in back (presumably, the bus) when it comes to participating in the county’s affairs.

Obama said Republicans had driven the economy into a ditch and then stood by and criticized while Democrats pulled it out. Now that progress has been made, he said,

“we can’t have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don’t mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.”

Source:

Then he flips his position about the Republicans, casting them as slurpee sippers because in his eyes, Republicans won’t participate in governing.

“We’re down there (trying to get the economic car out of the ditch). It’s hot. We were sweating. Bugs everywhere. We’re down there pushing, pushing, pushing on the car. Every once in a while we’d look up and see the Republicans standing there. They’re just standing there fanning themselves — sipping on a Slurpee.”

Source:

A week before the election Obama calls Republicans “enemies”.

President Barack Obama, speaking on Univision, advised Latino voters to punish their Republican Enemies by voting Democrat. Obama’s advice was sound, Latinos should vote against their political enemies in the GOP.

Source:

At the end of October, perhaps as a result of paying attention to the polls, the Obambastic urges Republicans to ease partisanship “Win, Lose, or Draw”

President Barack Obama challenged Republicans to set aside partisan difference after the election, “win lose or draw,” and pursue “practical steps” to invigorate the economy and create jobs.

“Whatever the outcome on Tuesday, we need to come together to help put people who are still looking for jobs back to work,” Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address.

Source:

On the day after the election, the Obambastic asks Republicans for “common ground”

US President Barack Obama told Republican congressional leaders that he wanted to find common ground after their crushing wins in mid-term elections, the White House said early on Wednesday, telling John Boehner and Mitch McConnell he was he was

“looking forward to working with him and the Republicans to find common ground, move the country forward, and get things done for the American people”

Source

You can’t have it both ways Mr. Obama.

You can’t chide, ridicule and blame your opposition, “enemies” as you call them, then come calling with your hat in hand to ask for a little cooperation.

In the weeks leading up to the mid-term election, you have been fond of telling your minions about how the mean ol’ slurpee-sippin’ Republicans drove the economic car into the ditch and how America can not afford to hand the keys back over to them.

Contrary to your pathetic view, Mr. Obama, the mounting and overwhelming evidence points to the fact many Democrats chose to drive while their eyes were closed, ignoring call after call to fix the problem and in some cases, belligerently and arrogantly denying any problem existed with their policies.

Some segments of the media recognize the Democrats are largely at fault and point to the new oversight laws pushed largely by Republicans.

This televised report aired in September 2004 and can be viewed here. In the space of four minutes, it attempts to time line the events leading to the greatest economic failure since the Great Depression.

On Tuesday, July 13, 2010, leaders of the country’s largest civil rights organization accused tea party activists of tolerating bigotry and approved a resolution condemning racism within the political movement.

If the NAACP can muster the backbone to condemn “racism within the political movement”, will they also condemn the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division for refusing to pursue black defendants?

In the case of the Tea Party, there was no federal investigation into the allegations of racism but it did little to stop the NAACP from condemning the Tea Party.

In the case of the Civil Rights Division, however, evidence against the division was advanced by an ex-Justice official who raised “grave questions” about whether the division is “color blind” in its enforcement of the law.

“This testimony raised serious concerns as to whether the Civil Rights Division’s enforcement policies are being pursued in a race-neutral fashion and further calls into question the department’s decision to change course in the New Black Panther Party litigation,” Chairman Gerald Reynolds wrote.

The probe stems from an incident on Election Day in 2008 in Philadelphia, where members of the New Black Panther Party were videotaped in front of a polling place dressed in military-style uniforms and allegedly hurling racial slurs while one brandished a night stick.

Former Justice attorney J. Christian Adams testified last week before the commission that his former employer not only abandoned the Black Panther voter intimidation case for racial reasons, but had instructed attorneys in the division to ignore cases that involve black defendants and white victims.

With the evidence at hand, unless the NAACP holds true to its principles and condemns Eric Holder’s Civil Rights Division, then the NAACP can be declared irrelevant.

Upon taking office, each president recites the following oath, in accordance with Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

If a president works against the Constitution of the United States (COTUS), specifically, if he instructs the DOJ to sue states which have passed local law to pursue and fulfill its obligation to defend its borders as mandated by Article IV, Section 4 of the COTUS …

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

… it raises questions about the president being seen as an enemy of the Constitution.

If that argument were not convincing, on June 24, Joint Chiefs chairman Adm. Mike Mullen had this to say about the nation’s mounting debt:

“I was shown the figures the other day by the comptroller of the Pentagon that said that the interest on our debt is $571 billion in 2012,” Mullen said at a breakfast hosted by The Hill. “That is, noticeably, about the size of the defense budget. It is not sustainable.”

Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn warned in June of 2010 that in order to find $100 billion in savings, Pentagon leaders, working with the military services, will have to identify “lower-priority programs” that are not going to be part of future budgets.

Already this year, we have seen this president slash NASA’s Constellation program to a mere pittance of its initial mission design resulting in an estimated 20,000 jobs lost in the space exploration sector. In addition, we have seen Obama’s critical thinking lead to banning off-shore oil drilling leading to thousands of more jobs being lost in the industry.

Pulling all of this together and reflecting upon the impact his decisions have on industry, the country’s diminishing lead in space exploration and now demonstrating an overt willingness to work against the Constitution by suing states who have passed laws in pursuit of their Constitutional obligation to defend their borders, we can safely surmise that the president’s policies are placing the country’s overall security into jeopardy and should be viewed as an enemy of the state.

On June 3, our community organizer-president was interviewed by Larry King on the subject of the BP oil spill:

KING: I know you appear so calm. Are you angry at BP?

OBAMA: You know, I am furious at this entire situation because this is an example where somebody didn’t think through the consequences of their actions. It’s imperiling not just a handful of people. This is imperiling an entire way of life and an entire region for potentially years.

http://www.examiner.com/x-37619-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m6d5-Obama-tells-Larry-King-he-is-furious-about-BP-now-will-people-shut-up

The next day, in his wisdom and no doubt reflecting upon the words he spoke on the previous day, the Obambastic decides that what is in order is a 6 month ban on new offshore drilling while a commission investigates. It’s like halting all automobile manufacturers from making cars because of an accident on 59. No matter. Obambastic’s plan to halt drilling is just as wise.

The moratorium will cost as many as 20,000 Louisiana jobs in the next 12 months to 18 months during “one of the most challenging economic periods in decades,” Governor Bobby Jindal said in a letter to Obama released recently. Each drilling platform idled by the ban puts 1,400 jobs at risk, according to the National Ocean Industries Association, a Washington-based group for drillers and companies that support oil production.

http://preview.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-03/jindal-says-obama-s-moratorium-on-drilling-may-cost-louisiana-20-000-jobs.html

So there we have it; Obama lambastes from his ivory tower while his arrogance prevents him from seeing his own hypocrisy. It is why he yet again wins the “I have my head up my ass award.”

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and searches him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.

For their own protection, police may perform a quick surface search of the person’s outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on “specific and articulable facts” and not merely upon an officer’s hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a “stop and frisk,” or simply a “Terry stop”. The Terry standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops.

The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, “the exclusionary rule has its limitations.” The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).

The Scenario

A man (or woman), of any race, robs a bank (breaking the law). In the act of getting away the person runs through a red light while being observed by a police officer. The police officer, aware of the bank robbery and aware this might be the suspect gives chase and pulls the driver, now guilty of breaking a second law, over to the side of the curb.

After arresting the offender, the officer suspects the person might not be a legal citizen and asks for the appropriate papers to substantiate foreign citizenship which itself has been a law for over 70 years.

So the question is, how can the request for the citizenship documents (required by law to be on the person) be an act of racism?

Furthermore, if asking for citizenship papers is racism, is it not also racism to arrest the offender for robbing the bank?

I’ll advance this notion; those who advance the argument Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070 is based on racism are themselves racists.

Under Federal law, federal law enforcement officials are not prevented from asking anyone for citizenship papers and may do it without an established reasonable doubt. In fact, federal law enforcement officials may pull over anyone for any reason and ask for name, date and place of birth. However, Arizona state law enforcement officials are prevented by law from asking the same questions. In the first place, they must have legal reason for pull anyone over before obtaining a legal footing to ask any questions at all.

One final thing; the United State Constitution obligates states to protect the borders from foreign invasion. That means every state carries that obligation. Even Arizona.

So to the critics of this bill….. STFU or get out of the United States.

Next Page »