Several years ago there was a book written with a title of "The Red President" in which the President of the United States was really working against the welfare of the citizens who elected him and was instead working for the enemies of the United States.
I was reminded of that book when I saw the video a couple of days ago of Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, head to head in an intimate conversation, in which Obama was recorded as saying "after my election I have more flexibility" with the missile defense treaty with Russia, and Medvedev said "I will transmit this information to Vladimir" (meaning his boss, Vladimir Putin). Then they shook hands sincerely and parted.
Think back to a few months ago when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in Washington to see Obama concerning potential war in the middle east with Iran and how Obama kept Netanyahu waiting in an outer office, hat-in-hand, showing complete disrespect for one of our closest allies. And also recall at the beginning of Obama's administration when Obama said that under his Presidency Republicans would be relegated to the back of the bus, or words very close to those.
Our president shows contempt for our allies and his fellow citizens, while going out of his way to beg for more time to meet the demands of an enemy that swears to destroy us: Russia. And what exactly was Obama promising Russia with the increased "flexibility" following his certainty of being re-elected? I tremble at the question.
Obama is scum and filth. To think that an American president would ask our enemies for additional time to meet their demands while he stiffs fellow Americans and our allies is beyond anything we could have imagined when our child president was elected.
We MUST make certain that Obama is not re-elected or this nasty man will plot with more of our enemies and further hurt the security and prosperity of America. He's gone a long way toward underming our national welfare in three years, just think of the harm he could in four more years.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Steven Chu is a Failure and a Bald-Faced Liar
At a recent House Oversight Committee hearing about the high price of gasoline, Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu was asked what grade he should be given for the way gasoline prices have increased since the Omama Administration took office 3 years ago, and our brave and humble Mr. Chu stated the his grade should be a little higher than an A-minus because he has tried hard and valiantly to keep prices of energy down.
Setting aside for a moment that every statement made by Chu or Obama since 2008 has been in favor of the reduced production of oil, coal and natural gas in favor of windmills and solar cells, and that their actions accurately reflect those sentiments and are opposed to actually giving Americans access to the supply of energy that is abundant in the United States, Mr. Chu is making the typical liberal position that he and Obama shouldn't be judged by the results of their actions and efforts but should instead be judged by their noble intentions. Mr. Chu needs to be reminded that grades are not issued based on intent, but instead are awarded by actual measurable results, and Mr. Chu gets a grade of F-minus for the disastrous results of 3 years of halting oil and gas production (which makes these necessary commodities more scarce and expensive while also killing the jobs that would result from greater production and refining efforts) and throwing billions of tax-payer dollars at wasteful companies like Solyndra which quickly go out of business but manage to give hefty donations to Obama's re-elect committees.
Liberals are always insisting that we grade them high on good intentions and forget how they've virtually enslaved poor people by keeping them dependent on government hand-outs, which barely keep people alive but insure a steady stream of Democrat voters, generation after generation, thus destroying millions of lives to poverty. Now Mr. Chu wants a good grade for the high price of gas and electricity, possibly because in the past he's stated that high energy prices are exactly what he and Obama are striving for.
But Mr. Chu is of the privileged class and is chauffeured about in a government-provided Chevy Suburban, so he is insulated from the expenses he has forced on the rest of the nation via his disastrous policies. The price of a gallon of gasoline has increased 100 percent under Obama and Chu, and they should be ashamed of themselves.
Setting aside for a moment that every statement made by Chu or Obama since 2008 has been in favor of the reduced production of oil, coal and natural gas in favor of windmills and solar cells, and that their actions accurately reflect those sentiments and are opposed to actually giving Americans access to the supply of energy that is abundant in the United States, Mr. Chu is making the typical liberal position that he and Obama shouldn't be judged by the results of their actions and efforts but should instead be judged by their noble intentions. Mr. Chu needs to be reminded that grades are not issued based on intent, but instead are awarded by actual measurable results, and Mr. Chu gets a grade of F-minus for the disastrous results of 3 years of halting oil and gas production (which makes these necessary commodities more scarce and expensive while also killing the jobs that would result from greater production and refining efforts) and throwing billions of tax-payer dollars at wasteful companies like Solyndra which quickly go out of business but manage to give hefty donations to Obama's re-elect committees.
Liberals are always insisting that we grade them high on good intentions and forget how they've virtually enslaved poor people by keeping them dependent on government hand-outs, which barely keep people alive but insure a steady stream of Democrat voters, generation after generation, thus destroying millions of lives to poverty. Now Mr. Chu wants a good grade for the high price of gas and electricity, possibly because in the past he's stated that high energy prices are exactly what he and Obama are striving for.
But Mr. Chu is of the privileged class and is chauffeured about in a government-provided Chevy Suburban, so he is insulated from the expenses he has forced on the rest of the nation via his disastrous policies. The price of a gallon of gasoline has increased 100 percent under Obama and Chu, and they should be ashamed of themselves.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Why Is Obama A Candidate For Re-Election?
The term "public service" suggests a selfless service to fellow citizens and future generations by donating one's time to make life better and allowing citizens to enjoy more productive lives. Everything Obama has done is a contradiction to that principle. Americans are less free, their lives are more costly, the tone of daily life is more strident, racial feelings are more raw, the political tone is harsher, the continuation of social security is now in doubt, Medicare as we know it will soon end, the most prosperous nation in history is on a steep decline, the greatest healthcare system in the world is grinding to a halt, our industries and factories are shutting down and moving overseas, the price of gasoline is equal to Europe's, joblessness is at an all-time high and would be higher if the government were not cooking the books, the number of welfare recipients is at an all-time high, Obama himself has stated that he wants electric rates to "necessarily sky-rocket", his administration has stated that they want gasoline prices to increase substantially, our debt to other, and often unfriendly, nations is so high that even apologists for Obama don't know how it will ever be paid without impoverishing us, the Obama administration is serving the ends of the United Nations which is trying to take our land and tax us for being a successful nation, and Obama is personally and figuratively turning his back on Israel at its hour of greatest need against Iran. And with the increasing cost of electricity and gasoline one must not forget that Obama has halted the private production of much-needed fuel in the Gulf, Alaska and importation of oil from Canada, while wasting billions of tax-payer dollars on still-developing alternative sources of energy that remain decades away from being a replacement for oil or coal. In short, Obama has intentionally caused prices to increase for all Americans for everything they use and buy, while making the supply of these essential products more at-risk and making their lives less convenient and more uncomfortable and costly. And let's not forget that Obama's National Labor Relations Board prohibited Boeing from manufacturing aircraft in Charleston, South Carloina at a time he was pretending to be staying awake nights, losing sleep, in an attempt to think of ways to create more jobs (but of course our valiant president didn't lose so much sleep that he couldn't play golf the next day). Who would ever have believed that a President of the United States would actively work to make life for Americans more expensive and less free, setting an atmosphere in which there are fewer jobs, as a direct result of his policies of halting production of the things our society cannot live without for one day?
With all of these problems, caused or made worse by him, why would Obama seek re-election and why would the people serving that end continue working for him when they can see the problems themselves and know that the futures of their children are at great risk? Only two answers are possible:
1) They are so caught up with the celebrity status and personal gains of this administration that they can't picture the nation months or years into the future and visualize the destruction they are doing,
2) They are intentionally destroying this great nation by ripping tradition, common sense and the Constitution to shreds.
Author Edward Banfield once wrote that criminals commit their crimes because they don't have the ability to understand the future outcomes of their criminal actions and can't visualize an eventual punishment. They just commit the crime and the punishment flows without them understanding what has happened or how they got involved with the law. Most likely they think they are victims and are resentful of the law enforcement officers who arrested them and placed them on trial.
This phenomenon of not being able to see a cause and effect relationship could explain why liberals cause so much damage to personal lives and to our nation: they just do stuff (such as endless welfare, nationalized healthcare, pandering to totalitarian threats as Neville Chamberlain pandered to Germany, and as Obama is pandering to Iran and North Korea) and then wonder how everything goes to hell after they've done their best to be, and play, nice.
The second option above would suggest that they really intend to undermine America's prosperity, security and comfort and want to increase the daily cost of living to a point where everyone has to depend on government to stay fed and sheltered.
My personal opinion is that both options are true: Obamaites really want to create a situation where government becomes central to everyone's lives, and they are unable to see that future generations will suffer greatly from the destruction of this wonderful nation, that they are causing.
In short, liberals (and Obama is the main liberal in our lives at the moment) are stupid as well as evil. They want immediate personal gain and popularity but are unable to see the suffering their current actions will cause our children and grandchildren. The destruction Obama has caused in three years will be magnified enormously if he is re-elected and has four more years to block progress and prosperity without worry of having to get elected another time and without having to pretend to care about the destruction to the lives of most Americans with his totalitarian rule of the nation via executive orders and radical administrative agencies like the E.P.A.
There was a movie a few years ago titled "Not Evil, Just Wrong" that exposed the lies and destruction that resulted from liberal claims of global warming, or climate change, or whatever these fools are calling it at present. But the excellent film got one thing wrong: liberals, and the Obama administration in particular, are evil as well as wrong, and they are bent on the destruction of the lives of every one of us.
If we don't tear down the governmental utopia that leftists have built over the last 60 or so years and get rid of the Departments of Energy and Education, and the E.P.A. in particular, and if we don't defeat Obama in November, we'll never be able to regain our Constitutional protections and our children will lead very crude, impoverished lives for decades, and possibly forever.
With all of these problems, caused or made worse by him, why would Obama seek re-election and why would the people serving that end continue working for him when they can see the problems themselves and know that the futures of their children are at great risk? Only two answers are possible:
1) They are so caught up with the celebrity status and personal gains of this administration that they can't picture the nation months or years into the future and visualize the destruction they are doing,
2) They are intentionally destroying this great nation by ripping tradition, common sense and the Constitution to shreds.
Author Edward Banfield once wrote that criminals commit their crimes because they don't have the ability to understand the future outcomes of their criminal actions and can't visualize an eventual punishment. They just commit the crime and the punishment flows without them understanding what has happened or how they got involved with the law. Most likely they think they are victims and are resentful of the law enforcement officers who arrested them and placed them on trial.
This phenomenon of not being able to see a cause and effect relationship could explain why liberals cause so much damage to personal lives and to our nation: they just do stuff (such as endless welfare, nationalized healthcare, pandering to totalitarian threats as Neville Chamberlain pandered to Germany, and as Obama is pandering to Iran and North Korea) and then wonder how everything goes to hell after they've done their best to be, and play, nice.
The second option above would suggest that they really intend to undermine America's prosperity, security and comfort and want to increase the daily cost of living to a point where everyone has to depend on government to stay fed and sheltered.
My personal opinion is that both options are true: Obamaites really want to create a situation where government becomes central to everyone's lives, and they are unable to see that future generations will suffer greatly from the destruction of this wonderful nation, that they are causing.
In short, liberals (and Obama is the main liberal in our lives at the moment) are stupid as well as evil. They want immediate personal gain and popularity but are unable to see the suffering their current actions will cause our children and grandchildren. The destruction Obama has caused in three years will be magnified enormously if he is re-elected and has four more years to block progress and prosperity without worry of having to get elected another time and without having to pretend to care about the destruction to the lives of most Americans with his totalitarian rule of the nation via executive orders and radical administrative agencies like the E.P.A.
There was a movie a few years ago titled "Not Evil, Just Wrong" that exposed the lies and destruction that resulted from liberal claims of global warming, or climate change, or whatever these fools are calling it at present. But the excellent film got one thing wrong: liberals, and the Obama administration in particular, are evil as well as wrong, and they are bent on the destruction of the lives of every one of us.
If we don't tear down the governmental utopia that leftists have built over the last 60 or so years and get rid of the Departments of Energy and Education, and the E.P.A. in particular, and if we don't defeat Obama in November, we'll never be able to regain our Constitutional protections and our children will lead very crude, impoverished lives for decades, and possibly forever.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Keeping Liberals Out Of Our Bedrooms
The old leftist complaint from the 1960s was that the government was trying to edict and control how a couple should behave in their bedroom, which complaint was largely justified. But now the tables have turned on the leftists, and it's conservatives who are shouting to be left alone concerning bedroom issues.
The big difference between the government intrusiveness then and now is that the intrusiveness of the 1960s was largely societal, mostly a state of mind and not codified in any law, whereas the invasiveness today is part and parcel of the Obama Administration and Obamacare and has the full force (and punishment) of the law, which will be fully enforced by the left so as to make people behave as they dictate.
The current situation of the government edicting that a Catholic employer must, under penalty of law, provide contraceptive care to its employees (or that an insurance company must provide this coverage free of charge) is over the top and must be opposed by all Americans who want to preserve the little liberty left to us under the Obama regime. In fact, we now know that the issue of contraceptive care is a contrived political stance intended to keep the liberal sheep in Obama's camp, because the abortion issue is losing ground with the entire nation and is not as divisive and attractive to leftists as it once was.
So far we've been unsuccessful at keeping government out of our bathrooms, our healthcare, our gas tanks, our foods and diets, our classrooms, our energy supply, our electric generating plants, and they're even controlling the carbon dioxide we exhale as part of their lies about the existence of global warming, but in November of this year we must begin rolling back big government by getting rid of Obama and his cherished Obamacare, abolishing the EPA and the Departments of Energy and Education and repealing the Financial Reform Act, or we will have no liberties at all left to defend.
As an aside, isn't it interesting that it's largely the same age group who protested anything and everything in the 1960s, who are now opposed to liberal attempts to control our lives in the 2010s under Obama? It appears true that the older we get, the wiser and more conservative we become.
The big difference between the government intrusiveness then and now is that the intrusiveness of the 1960s was largely societal, mostly a state of mind and not codified in any law, whereas the invasiveness today is part and parcel of the Obama Administration and Obamacare and has the full force (and punishment) of the law, which will be fully enforced by the left so as to make people behave as they dictate.
The current situation of the government edicting that a Catholic employer must, under penalty of law, provide contraceptive care to its employees (or that an insurance company must provide this coverage free of charge) is over the top and must be opposed by all Americans who want to preserve the little liberty left to us under the Obama regime. In fact, we now know that the issue of contraceptive care is a contrived political stance intended to keep the liberal sheep in Obama's camp, because the abortion issue is losing ground with the entire nation and is not as divisive and attractive to leftists as it once was.
So far we've been unsuccessful at keeping government out of our bathrooms, our healthcare, our gas tanks, our foods and diets, our classrooms, our energy supply, our electric generating plants, and they're even controlling the carbon dioxide we exhale as part of their lies about the existence of global warming, but in November of this year we must begin rolling back big government by getting rid of Obama and his cherished Obamacare, abolishing the EPA and the Departments of Energy and Education and repealing the Financial Reform Act, or we will have no liberties at all left to defend.
As an aside, isn't it interesting that it's largely the same age group who protested anything and everything in the 1960s, who are now opposed to liberal attempts to control our lives in the 2010s under Obama? It appears true that the older we get, the wiser and more conservative we become.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)