by Penbrook Johannson
When Solomon ordered his court to cut a baby in half to settle the dispute of two women claiming to be it's mother, he was exercising wisdom and measured grace.
Solomon understood that the genuine nature of a real stakeholder was one who has risked much and invested everything to respond righteously to prevent the destruction of their value and worth. He knew the real mother of the child would never allow the child to be killed, even at the cost of giving it over, alive and well, to a reprobate liar worthy of death herself.
Where is King Solomon's legacy when you need it?
In an attempt to back the Obama Administration 3.6 Trillion dollar budget, the United States Treasury is taking measures to monetize our economy by cleaving our worth while printing money at an unprecedented rate.
For each dollar printed by the Obama treasurer, the value of all subsequent notes loses value at an accelerated rate. This means that Americans must work harder, longer and impossibly, just to maintain the quality of their former life.
As a consequence, world markets have now begun a mass exodus out of their investments in American securities. This, combined with the message that our current condition is the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, is pushing the America people into a slow submission to Obama’s insidious socialist agenda.
Simple minded Americans, and most of Obama’s liberal constituency, fail to grasp the concept that the value of money is not legitimized in the fact that it merely exists, nor do they understand that the value of money actually decreases when the government prints it faster than our society can valuate it with our industrial markets, products, and services. The baby must be alive and well, not just two halves of barbarianized carnage given over in equal portions to those in dispute.
Monetizing our economy is the equivalent of putting the sword to the infant. When this happens, no one wants what's left. Other governments lose confidence in our value and refuse to do business with us. Then, Obama’s fetish to make us like the rest of the world is becoming reality. Unfortunately, he is failing to make the world like us.
By diminishing the value of our monetary system, Barack Obama has imposed a situation in which we are now borrowing money from the value of what he thinks we will be in the future. Simply put, he is putting our grandchildren into debt before they are even born.
While he conducts press conferences professing his disadvantage by way of inherited circumstances, the passage of his government-expanding, market-destroying budget only reinforces what right-thinking Americans have known all along. That Barack Obama has taken a challenging financial situation and turned it into a disgraceful cataclysm of irrevocable indebtedness. He has done little more than tell us how unfair it was that he was limited to one step forward when he came into a two-step office. And, so, his response was to take 4 steps back.
Obama’s response to this situation has failed to address the essential and material causes while he implements a ongoing series of further destructive anti-solutions. So much so, that the “B” word is actually being whispered among the ranks of America’s essential financial populous.
The American government has lost touch with the reasons that, historically, have made America the most advanced economic representation of humanity. It is failing the people it serves by selling us short to a discount status based on a global standard that neither matches our qualifications, nor promotes the capability to bring value to human existence.
Eventually, as the vaults empty, and more money is pushed into our midst, the quantity of dollars in our market will diminish our value, while the mere printing of money will only cause a global inflationary crisis. At that point, the production of money descends into the near criminal activity of counterfeiting because it is not backed by a standard of value demanded by anyone.
The only way America will get out of this deficit is by vesting its hope and worth into the best members of our society qualified to redefine the valuation of our existence. Whether by discovery, faith or innovation, we will only become a viable nation again when the most qualified members of our society are unburdened of the liberal obstacles of socialism and entitlement based monetization systems. Only then will there be freedom to declare what is worth spending our worth for.
Our cause is to undertake the epic American endeavor of forging this grand path further into the darkness of this moment. In recognizing our true salvation, we are now demanded by the requirements of our creator to stand on the rock of our grandfather’s sacrifice and determine in “myself” the reasons for a new accountability.
We are in default. There is a keeping of right, and banishment of wrong, that must come. And when it does, it will call on margin the warrants of an excruciating recompense bringing forth the derivative of extraordinary change. This change will not permit the corrupt minions of our current rulership to make a nation into a visage of liberal idolatry, as is being manifest under the Obama directive.
Many will not survive, and this change will force upon us the necessary and hard to embrace questions of to what do we attribute our great worth, and what is worth our hard and committed endeavoring.
This change will destroy the wrong and exalt the righteous to which has been accounted treasures in grace. But, for those without shame for this malfeasance, the natural order of our economic dynamic will hand them over to their own reprobate minds by which they will commit acts of destruction upon each other and receive into themselves the penalty of their error, which was long over due.
And, no……..we are NOT all in this together.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
AIG, Barney Frank Are The Same Pathology
by Pen Johannson
There is a threshold of fiscal destruction that America has failed to identify for 50 years. It is an event horizon finally presenting itself as a malignant deformation called the American International Group (AIG). But, we could call it any number of other agents of fiduciary failure. Barney Frank, Barack Obama, Bernard Madoff, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, CitiGroup, Washington Mutual and Merrill Lynch are just a few alternative names for the same disease.
The audacity in giving bonuses to misfits who should actually be thrown in jail can only come from the reprobate nature of our current generation of leadership in America. Perhaps calling for their execution is more punishment than most of them deserve, but banishing them from America's economic system is not.
When politicians hide stuff that we know is to exist, bad things happen to politicians. But the proposal of $165 million in bonuses to the very people who caused the failure of companies like AIG is just another symptom of the fatal sickness. If it wasn't so insidious, it would be comical.
Fortunately, we can identify the illness with a simple, quantifiable observation. When potential loss is no longer worth what we are paying to insure against it, the financial securities industry, at a minimum, no longer has purpose. At most, it becomes the very destructive agent we paid it to protect us from.
Exacerbating American International Group's (AIG) malignancy, rather than cut it out of our economic body, Obama's liberal government confiscated our money and, by giving it to reprobates, essentially forced upon the American people his appalling declaration that AIG is bigger, and more important, than America itself.
So, AIG took its 30 pieces of silver. And, like all traitors and betrayers, AIG will fail.......eventually. It will file bankruptcy, and, the 200 billion in welfare it received will evaporate into impotence and ineffectual disbursement throughout the worthlessness of our society. It will be paid to lawyers, politicians and speculators, all vying for a piece of America's treasure. But, in the end, they will squander it too. They will fail because they have no honor or decency and lack every sort of viable quality that defines America's true wealth.
The reason AIG will fail is not so much because the bail out money it received wouldn't pay its debts to our economy. It will fail because the character deficiencies of the people who received the money are much deeper than the fiscal deficiencies of the company they work for. This, and the fact that the American people will now destroy AIG by refusing to do business with anyone associated with it.
Perhaps many years from now, the value of a company like AIG will rightfully be entrusted to better men and women with a better way of doing business. They will reconstitute an authentic demand for the kinds of services AIG once provided, only better, and the people of America will confide in its value by exercising the choice afforded by a capitalist society. They will determine what is equitable and what is not by sharing their value and hard earned worth with a better, more honorable company. That is the foundation of a free society.
This is why no business entity is bigger than the market they serve.
Welcome to America.
In essence, the pathology exhibited by AIG, and our government, is characterized by our passive devaluation. It is the result of the disgusting unwillingness of these degenerates to produce and contribute anything of worth or viable demand which, in turn, drives the desire of the masses of decent people to work hard, produce much and seek honest prosperity.
They are the takers and burdeners of the world. They are truly obsolete.
The maliform they have caused America to become is the result of inferior members of our society rising to positions of leadership and authority they have no qualifications to assume. They have become the paper heads within organizations and government that have become so big, and so evil, they have become the facade blocking the ugly failure we are becoming because of them. And, worse, they place us in the impossible choice of having to either sacrifice our lives or sell our souls. They become our destruction rather than the prevention of it. They have failed to protect the very resources that prosper them. And, by natural order, they must fiscally die by being disqualified from participation in our economic system.
And, the most harmful results come when our good money falls into the hands of these bad people. The American people reject the expenditure of 2.2 trillion dollars to correct the mismanagement of inferior people because they realize that if you continue to empower irresponsibility it will only grow and metastasize. They understand that this amount of money will never bring the miracle needed to resolve our problem, not because of the amount of money, but because of who it is being given to. They understand it’s like giving a blank check to a drug addict. It is almost unfathomable. And, the true atrocity is that our kids will pay for it.
Vitriolic nut cases of the liberal establishment would like to blame our current demise on the Bush Administration. And, in their ignorant shortsightedness they have failed to realize this entire debacle is the legacy of an entire generation, not just a single presidency. All the choices along the road of our journey over the past 200 years have led us here.
We might call this generation the baby-boomers, but they have a much more insidious definition. Their manifestation over the past 60+ years is the moment in human history when our direction, as a nation, officially turned toward destruction. They are the people in positions of leadership in America who hold the offices of our government and dictate over the resources of working Americans. They are the CEOs and the figureheads of industry who have made egregious errors in judgment based on their selfish addiction to everything “me”. They have wrought financial destruction upon America’s future because of their insidious lifestyle replete with a doctrine of fairness that has established the act of taking, rather than giving, as its prime directive. And, their reprobate nature has worked within America this massive destruction which confronts us with the appalling questions of “What is our security, our confidence and our future actually worth?”
Are they worth this?
AIG has just become an inappropriate answer to that generational question. It is a condition that has remained dormant and infectious waiting for the right time to become gangrenous. And, now that it has, we have only one option to save our life. Amputation.
Organizations like AIG, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch were created for the sole purpose of preventing and managing loss and risk. But, now, they have become the loss. They have become our destruction. The liability preventers have officially become a deeper liability than the ones they were meant to prevent.
Risk management has become a bigger risk than actually suffering the loss.
Our government is contributing to our destruction. While Barack Obama redistributes the value of successful people to those who seem to exist for the purpose of burdening them, he is creating a world in which monsters like AIG can justify their sins to force us to pay for their horrific negligence and malfeasance.
Washington D.C. has become the east coast version of Hollywood, for unattractive slime merchants. The indignant hypocrisy of men like Barney Frank is laughable. This idiot deserves to be the pariah of our government’s involvement in this entire mess. An individual who profited from the greed of financial institutions for years, he now seats himself in the virus incubator with the rest of the strains, clinching his teeth and waving his arms in fake disgust.
And, as the moral indigents of AIG receive death threats from an enraged America, perhaps Barney Frank, and the remaining slew of defamatory hacks on the hill should receive a portion of that same risk. Then they can see what its like when we fail them.
There is a threshold of fiscal destruction that America has failed to identify for 50 years. It is an event horizon finally presenting itself as a malignant deformation called the American International Group (AIG). But, we could call it any number of other agents of fiduciary failure. Barney Frank, Barack Obama, Bernard Madoff, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, CitiGroup, Washington Mutual and Merrill Lynch are just a few alternative names for the same disease.
The audacity in giving bonuses to misfits who should actually be thrown in jail can only come from the reprobate nature of our current generation of leadership in America. Perhaps calling for their execution is more punishment than most of them deserve, but banishing them from America's economic system is not.
When politicians hide stuff that we know is to exist, bad things happen to politicians. But the proposal of $165 million in bonuses to the very people who caused the failure of companies like AIG is just another symptom of the fatal sickness. If it wasn't so insidious, it would be comical.
Fortunately, we can identify the illness with a simple, quantifiable observation. When potential loss is no longer worth what we are paying to insure against it, the financial securities industry, at a minimum, no longer has purpose. At most, it becomes the very destructive agent we paid it to protect us from.
Exacerbating American International Group's (AIG) malignancy, rather than cut it out of our economic body, Obama's liberal government confiscated our money and, by giving it to reprobates, essentially forced upon the American people his appalling declaration that AIG is bigger, and more important, than America itself.
So, AIG took its 30 pieces of silver. And, like all traitors and betrayers, AIG will fail.......eventually. It will file bankruptcy, and, the 200 billion in welfare it received will evaporate into impotence and ineffectual disbursement throughout the worthlessness of our society. It will be paid to lawyers, politicians and speculators, all vying for a piece of America's treasure. But, in the end, they will squander it too. They will fail because they have no honor or decency and lack every sort of viable quality that defines America's true wealth.
The reason AIG will fail is not so much because the bail out money it received wouldn't pay its debts to our economy. It will fail because the character deficiencies of the people who received the money are much deeper than the fiscal deficiencies of the company they work for. This, and the fact that the American people will now destroy AIG by refusing to do business with anyone associated with it.
Perhaps many years from now, the value of a company like AIG will rightfully be entrusted to better men and women with a better way of doing business. They will reconstitute an authentic demand for the kinds of services AIG once provided, only better, and the people of America will confide in its value by exercising the choice afforded by a capitalist society. They will determine what is equitable and what is not by sharing their value and hard earned worth with a better, more honorable company. That is the foundation of a free society.
This is why no business entity is bigger than the market they serve.
Welcome to America.
In essence, the pathology exhibited by AIG, and our government, is characterized by our passive devaluation. It is the result of the disgusting unwillingness of these degenerates to produce and contribute anything of worth or viable demand which, in turn, drives the desire of the masses of decent people to work hard, produce much and seek honest prosperity.
They are the takers and burdeners of the world. They are truly obsolete.
The maliform they have caused America to become is the result of inferior members of our society rising to positions of leadership and authority they have no qualifications to assume. They have become the paper heads within organizations and government that have become so big, and so evil, they have become the facade blocking the ugly failure we are becoming because of them. And, worse, they place us in the impossible choice of having to either sacrifice our lives or sell our souls. They become our destruction rather than the prevention of it. They have failed to protect the very resources that prosper them. And, by natural order, they must fiscally die by being disqualified from participation in our economic system.
And, the most harmful results come when our good money falls into the hands of these bad people. The American people reject the expenditure of 2.2 trillion dollars to correct the mismanagement of inferior people because they realize that if you continue to empower irresponsibility it will only grow and metastasize. They understand that this amount of money will never bring the miracle needed to resolve our problem, not because of the amount of money, but because of who it is being given to. They understand it’s like giving a blank check to a drug addict. It is almost unfathomable. And, the true atrocity is that our kids will pay for it.
Vitriolic nut cases of the liberal establishment would like to blame our current demise on the Bush Administration. And, in their ignorant shortsightedness they have failed to realize this entire debacle is the legacy of an entire generation, not just a single presidency. All the choices along the road of our journey over the past 200 years have led us here.
We might call this generation the baby-boomers, but they have a much more insidious definition. Their manifestation over the past 60+ years is the moment in human history when our direction, as a nation, officially turned toward destruction. They are the people in positions of leadership in America who hold the offices of our government and dictate over the resources of working Americans. They are the CEOs and the figureheads of industry who have made egregious errors in judgment based on their selfish addiction to everything “me”. They have wrought financial destruction upon America’s future because of their insidious lifestyle replete with a doctrine of fairness that has established the act of taking, rather than giving, as its prime directive. And, their reprobate nature has worked within America this massive destruction which confronts us with the appalling questions of “What is our security, our confidence and our future actually worth?”
Are they worth this?
AIG has just become an inappropriate answer to that generational question. It is a condition that has remained dormant and infectious waiting for the right time to become gangrenous. And, now that it has, we have only one option to save our life. Amputation.
Organizations like AIG, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch were created for the sole purpose of preventing and managing loss and risk. But, now, they have become the loss. They have become our destruction. The liability preventers have officially become a deeper liability than the ones they were meant to prevent.
Risk management has become a bigger risk than actually suffering the loss.
Our government is contributing to our destruction. While Barack Obama redistributes the value of successful people to those who seem to exist for the purpose of burdening them, he is creating a world in which monsters like AIG can justify their sins to force us to pay for their horrific negligence and malfeasance.
Washington D.C. has become the east coast version of Hollywood, for unattractive slime merchants. The indignant hypocrisy of men like Barney Frank is laughable. This idiot deserves to be the pariah of our government’s involvement in this entire mess. An individual who profited from the greed of financial institutions for years, he now seats himself in the virus incubator with the rest of the strains, clinching his teeth and waving his arms in fake disgust.
And, as the moral indigents of AIG receive death threats from an enraged America, perhaps Barney Frank, and the remaining slew of defamatory hacks on the hill should receive a portion of that same risk. Then they can see what its like when we fail them.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Who's Putting Lipstick On Pigs Now?
by Penbrook Johannson
Offering another irrelevant token intended to cancel the Bush Administration’s anti-terrorism measures, Barack Obama is rescinding official terminology previously used to accurately describe accused terror suspects held at Guantanamo Prison.
The Obama Administration appears more willing to change how we label evil, without the resolve to actually prevent it from happening. Obama has made the decree, in concert with a decision to shut down the detention facility, without offering any alternative how the detainees will be classified, or where they will be held, in the future.
But, what else should we expect from such a talented word-smith?
By implementing the ornamental directive, Obama continues to diminish America’s aversion to death-by-terrorism, this time, by prohibiting the use of the terms “enemy combatants” within his administration. These terms were created by the Bush Administration to describe unarraigned detainees arrested on the battle field.
In an attempt to cosmetically enhance American opinion about alleged terrorist prisoners, Obama has recently engaged a massive public relations campaign to “redistribute” America’s prevailing support for the theory that, since terrorists want to kill us, they indeed must be bad. Describing them as "enemies" and "combative" appears to oppose Obama's insidious policy against violating the rights of terrorists to not be offended. In doing so, he hopes to undermine the effective asceticism of the Bush Administration while gaining global support for his rendition of a softer, more legally friendly, anti-terror stratagem.
It appears another version of the proverbial “Lipstick On a Pig” joke is making the rounds on our political stage. Only, this time, its not about soccer moms.
And, it’s not funny.
Throwing adjectives and superlatives at our terrorist enemies until they run out of bullets and bombs is not an acceptable strategy. Disregarding the fact that the Bush Administration provided eight years of safety and zero domestic casualties since 9/11, Obama is demonstrating to the world that we are less willing to heed the tragic requiem of American victims than we are to afford inalienable rights to murderous aliens. And, we do this in betrayal of our battlefield heroes, while we receive into ourselves a definition of terrorism that alleviates liberal guilt for having the audacity to not want to be murdered.
Most frightening, however, the Obama administration is implementing a strategy against terrorism by putting the interests and sentiments of our enemies before our own. By merely overhauling public relations and diplomacy as his primary weapon to combat religiously self-justified murderers, it appears Obama is more concerned about offending Islamic radicals than he is about protecting Americans in the future. Meanwhile, thousands of terrorists all over the world will take account of Obama's decisions and conclude their tactics must actually be working.
And, rather than remember the reasons 3000 victims and their families have given us to remain vigilant and unrelenting, Obama is choosing to acknowledge individuals who “communicate” with the world through the language of homicidal annihilation. Unfortunately, the terrorists Obama hopes to accommodate through this extraneous “redefinitive” gesture are not even in Guantanamo Prison, and couldn't care less about his politics, or his anti-Bush strategy. The suspects captured thus far are not diplomatic, and the only relations future terrorists desire with the public are ones in which we act like good, little unprotected targets submitting to their destruction.
The lack of willingness to use the harshest terms possible in reference to any captured radical reveals a startling weakness in the Obama administration’s priority to uphold American security ahead of offending foreign governments. It makes one question whether or not Mr. Obama would have the substance of character to respond in the harshest way to another cataclysmic event at the hands of Islamic murderers.
America can only hope that Obama begins to take less advice from his public relations apparatus and more from his joint chiefs.
Offering another irrelevant token intended to cancel the Bush Administration’s anti-terrorism measures, Barack Obama is rescinding official terminology previously used to accurately describe accused terror suspects held at Guantanamo Prison.
The Obama Administration appears more willing to change how we label evil, without the resolve to actually prevent it from happening. Obama has made the decree, in concert with a decision to shut down the detention facility, without offering any alternative how the detainees will be classified, or where they will be held, in the future.
But, what else should we expect from such a talented word-smith?
By implementing the ornamental directive, Obama continues to diminish America’s aversion to death-by-terrorism, this time, by prohibiting the use of the terms “enemy combatants” within his administration. These terms were created by the Bush Administration to describe unarraigned detainees arrested on the battle field.
In an attempt to cosmetically enhance American opinion about alleged terrorist prisoners, Obama has recently engaged a massive public relations campaign to “redistribute” America’s prevailing support for the theory that, since terrorists want to kill us, they indeed must be bad. Describing them as "enemies" and "combative" appears to oppose Obama's insidious policy against violating the rights of terrorists to not be offended. In doing so, he hopes to undermine the effective asceticism of the Bush Administration while gaining global support for his rendition of a softer, more legally friendly, anti-terror stratagem.
It appears another version of the proverbial “Lipstick On a Pig” joke is making the rounds on our political stage. Only, this time, its not about soccer moms.
And, it’s not funny.
Throwing adjectives and superlatives at our terrorist enemies until they run out of bullets and bombs is not an acceptable strategy. Disregarding the fact that the Bush Administration provided eight years of safety and zero domestic casualties since 9/11, Obama is demonstrating to the world that we are less willing to heed the tragic requiem of American victims than we are to afford inalienable rights to murderous aliens. And, we do this in betrayal of our battlefield heroes, while we receive into ourselves a definition of terrorism that alleviates liberal guilt for having the audacity to not want to be murdered.
Most frightening, however, the Obama administration is implementing a strategy against terrorism by putting the interests and sentiments of our enemies before our own. By merely overhauling public relations and diplomacy as his primary weapon to combat religiously self-justified murderers, it appears Obama is more concerned about offending Islamic radicals than he is about protecting Americans in the future. Meanwhile, thousands of terrorists all over the world will take account of Obama's decisions and conclude their tactics must actually be working.
And, rather than remember the reasons 3000 victims and their families have given us to remain vigilant and unrelenting, Obama is choosing to acknowledge individuals who “communicate” with the world through the language of homicidal annihilation. Unfortunately, the terrorists Obama hopes to accommodate through this extraneous “redefinitive” gesture are not even in Guantanamo Prison, and couldn't care less about his politics, or his anti-Bush strategy. The suspects captured thus far are not diplomatic, and the only relations future terrorists desire with the public are ones in which we act like good, little unprotected targets submitting to their destruction.
The lack of willingness to use the harshest terms possible in reference to any captured radical reveals a startling weakness in the Obama administration’s priority to uphold American security ahead of offending foreign governments. It makes one question whether or not Mr. Obama would have the substance of character to respond in the harshest way to another cataclysmic event at the hands of Islamic murderers.
America can only hope that Obama begins to take less advice from his public relations apparatus and more from his joint chiefs.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Obama's Victory Is The Gift Of Bush's Legacy
by Pen Johannson
Vastly exceeding the necessary spending required to resolve our current economic challenges, Barack Obama remains obstinate to concede the favorable circumstances inherited from the previous administration which have provided his opportunity to build on our national security and strengthen our fundamental survivability.
Without the basic rights of safety and existence, enforced by the Bush administration, Barack Obama would not even have the current opportunity to improve our economic situation, and thus, the American quality of life.
Because of Bush’s hard work in the field, Obama has the opportunity to now get the house in order.
Primarily, among the obvious circumstances benefitting Barack Obama's tenancy, is the opportunity to serve as president in a world without the menacing presence of Saddam Hussein. For decades, the Iraqi dictator terrorized the Middle East and threatened world stability while murdering and torturing more than a half million Iraqi citizens. His execution made the world a better place.
This reality brutally confronts the weakness of liberal dissonance and forces upon the conscience of Bush hating lackies the appalling question of our responsibility, as a super power, to help oppressed people in underdeveloped and distressed nations. Sometimes the threat is not the weather or an earthquake. When the threat is evil, sending bottled water and hemp blankets is appreciated, but inappropriate. Sometimes, its actually necessary to send men with guns on a destructive mission.
In the course of America's response to the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, Saddam Hussein presented himself as the convenient evil idiot justifying both his removal and the American military's proactive establishment of an overwhelming presence amid the region of the world where our terrorist enemies breed and conspire against us.
Despite the liberal establishment's personal disdain for the former president, their failure to appreciate Bush’s unwillingness to cower until the next act of mass murder, is a frightening insight into their desolate politics and their acceptance of fatalism. Impudence remains the defining characteristic of this large segment of America, who are subject to a culture of death and derelict to imagine effective, and feasible, global solutions to this lethal world-wide fanaticism.
Obama’s incapacity to understand the brilliance of the Bush Administration’s initiation of a proactive military presence in the Middle East is just one example of his profound ignorance in matters of quelling violence and hate. And, the minions of the Democrat party have failed to associate the reasons for being alive, even at the most trivial level, with Bush's prevention of another cataclysmic terror attack, to date. And, tragically, this may serve as a potential doorway through which terrorists can find another opportunity to murder innocent Americans.
Secondly, Obama gets to be president in a country that was made safer, and kept safe, for 8 years after the worst terror attack in American history. The murder of 3000 innocent people, from 90 different countries, at the hands of radical Islamic terrorists, took America, and the world, by surprise and prompted the efforts of our most powerful leaders to never allow it to happen again.
Let’s remember who is really to blame for this atrocity. This crime against humanity is the fault of insidious creatures who hijacked planes, full of innocent passengers, and used them as weapons to implement hatefully justified destruction and death.
The Bush administration took on the endeavor to realize a safer world by implementing controversial, but effective policy intended to fight against our terrorist enemies. And, to many Americans, his policies were not severe enough, or broad sweeping enough. Many called for the use of nuclear weaponry on several selected major cities in the Middle East as retaliation for ALL terror attacks in the past 50 years. Bush's destruction of Saddam Hussein's government, and the subsequent liberation of the people of Iraq, were amazing demonstrations of restraint and responsible application of American military might, in lieu of the alternatives Bush was called to consider.
Of course, the policies of the Bush Administration were extraordinary for our time. But, the fight against global terrorists and radical Islamic violence is an extraordinary matter requiring extraordinary responsibility. And, Obama’s liberal herd must be forced to understand, either by reason or apocalypse, that our response to terrorist violence should never be measured by a need to merely defend our lifestyle. Rather, it should always be measured by the necessity to live, as the priority. What good is preserving our lifestyle at the cost of not being alive to experience it?
Bush supporters are confident that he understood this pragmatic difference. But, they are doubtful that Obama understands it. In Obama's narrow focus to tinker with economic leakage, he is failing to appreciate the implications of a breach in the dam Bush built to contain the terrorist threat. Whereas Bush was willing to go to the headwaters of terrorism and fight at the confluence and tributaries, we can only hope, desperately, that Obama will not withdraw completely, resigning our nation to finger plugging a collapsing structure at the precipice of our greatest vulnerability.
Most of Obama's supporters simply lack the mentality to realize the pointlessness of American citizenship without the resolve and predestructive methods to defend it in accordance with the level of lethality being employed to destroy it. There is nothing more important than our security and the responsibility we have to ourselves, and the world, to remain eternally prepared to respond to terrorism with every available resource at anytime, everywhere. Our safety is no longer dependent on our geography, so we must prioritize our response to terror in every decision we make, regardless whether or not it concerns foreign or domestic matters. At a minimum, we owe this to the victims lost.
And, this is the biggest problem vintage America has with Barack Obama, himself. Prevailing as the macrocosm of his party, there is nothing particularly honorable about the man. How can we find safety from our foreign enemies under the administration of a man so alien to the fundamental truths of America? His character deficiencies present fodder for opinion, but it remains an obvious truth that his past offers nothing extraordinary to which we might attribute our confidence, or dispel his "otherness".
So, rather than merely squat on a constituency’s fawning lust for his media darlingness, perhaps if he had invented a useful implement, or submitted to some form of military service, or led a national charity, or even presented some evidence of physical sacrifice for America, we might have more favorable reasons to embrace him.But, aside from merely being the man opposing the party of the “evil Bush horde”, what grand, selfless act has Obama committed to express his appreciation for the privilege of being a member of America’s advanced citizenry?
Though liberals will disdain it eternally, President Bush will be remembered in history as the father of the global war against terrorism. He was not a perfect leader, nor was he absolutely right in all decisions. But, along with the relinquishment of executive challenges, like many presidents before him, Bush has given Obama some extraordinary opportunities for success and distinction. It rests upon the mind and conveyance of the successor to make the most of the grand stage foreset by the fundamental actions of an unfairly and ignorantly reviled historic figure.
Vastly exceeding the necessary spending required to resolve our current economic challenges, Barack Obama remains obstinate to concede the favorable circumstances inherited from the previous administration which have provided his opportunity to build on our national security and strengthen our fundamental survivability.
Without the basic rights of safety and existence, enforced by the Bush administration, Barack Obama would not even have the current opportunity to improve our economic situation, and thus, the American quality of life.
Because of Bush’s hard work in the field, Obama has the opportunity to now get the house in order.
Primarily, among the obvious circumstances benefitting Barack Obama's tenancy, is the opportunity to serve as president in a world without the menacing presence of Saddam Hussein. For decades, the Iraqi dictator terrorized the Middle East and threatened world stability while murdering and torturing more than a half million Iraqi citizens. His execution made the world a better place.
This reality brutally confronts the weakness of liberal dissonance and forces upon the conscience of Bush hating lackies the appalling question of our responsibility, as a super power, to help oppressed people in underdeveloped and distressed nations. Sometimes the threat is not the weather or an earthquake. When the threat is evil, sending bottled water and hemp blankets is appreciated, but inappropriate. Sometimes, its actually necessary to send men with guns on a destructive mission.
In the course of America's response to the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, Saddam Hussein presented himself as the convenient evil idiot justifying both his removal and the American military's proactive establishment of an overwhelming presence amid the region of the world where our terrorist enemies breed and conspire against us.
Despite the liberal establishment's personal disdain for the former president, their failure to appreciate Bush’s unwillingness to cower until the next act of mass murder, is a frightening insight into their desolate politics and their acceptance of fatalism. Impudence remains the defining characteristic of this large segment of America, who are subject to a culture of death and derelict to imagine effective, and feasible, global solutions to this lethal world-wide fanaticism.
Obama’s incapacity to understand the brilliance of the Bush Administration’s initiation of a proactive military presence in the Middle East is just one example of his profound ignorance in matters of quelling violence and hate. And, the minions of the Democrat party have failed to associate the reasons for being alive, even at the most trivial level, with Bush's prevention of another cataclysmic terror attack, to date. And, tragically, this may serve as a potential doorway through which terrorists can find another opportunity to murder innocent Americans.
Secondly, Obama gets to be president in a country that was made safer, and kept safe, for 8 years after the worst terror attack in American history. The murder of 3000 innocent people, from 90 different countries, at the hands of radical Islamic terrorists, took America, and the world, by surprise and prompted the efforts of our most powerful leaders to never allow it to happen again.
Let’s remember who is really to blame for this atrocity. This crime against humanity is the fault of insidious creatures who hijacked planes, full of innocent passengers, and used them as weapons to implement hatefully justified destruction and death.
The Bush administration took on the endeavor to realize a safer world by implementing controversial, but effective policy intended to fight against our terrorist enemies. And, to many Americans, his policies were not severe enough, or broad sweeping enough. Many called for the use of nuclear weaponry on several selected major cities in the Middle East as retaliation for ALL terror attacks in the past 50 years. Bush's destruction of Saddam Hussein's government, and the subsequent liberation of the people of Iraq, were amazing demonstrations of restraint and responsible application of American military might, in lieu of the alternatives Bush was called to consider.
Of course, the policies of the Bush Administration were extraordinary for our time. But, the fight against global terrorists and radical Islamic violence is an extraordinary matter requiring extraordinary responsibility. And, Obama’s liberal herd must be forced to understand, either by reason or apocalypse, that our response to terrorist violence should never be measured by a need to merely defend our lifestyle. Rather, it should always be measured by the necessity to live, as the priority. What good is preserving our lifestyle at the cost of not being alive to experience it?
Bush supporters are confident that he understood this pragmatic difference. But, they are doubtful that Obama understands it. In Obama's narrow focus to tinker with economic leakage, he is failing to appreciate the implications of a breach in the dam Bush built to contain the terrorist threat. Whereas Bush was willing to go to the headwaters of terrorism and fight at the confluence and tributaries, we can only hope, desperately, that Obama will not withdraw completely, resigning our nation to finger plugging a collapsing structure at the precipice of our greatest vulnerability.
Most of Obama's supporters simply lack the mentality to realize the pointlessness of American citizenship without the resolve and predestructive methods to defend it in accordance with the level of lethality being employed to destroy it. There is nothing more important than our security and the responsibility we have to ourselves, and the world, to remain eternally prepared to respond to terrorism with every available resource at anytime, everywhere. Our safety is no longer dependent on our geography, so we must prioritize our response to terror in every decision we make, regardless whether or not it concerns foreign or domestic matters. At a minimum, we owe this to the victims lost.
And, this is the biggest problem vintage America has with Barack Obama, himself. Prevailing as the macrocosm of his party, there is nothing particularly honorable about the man. How can we find safety from our foreign enemies under the administration of a man so alien to the fundamental truths of America? His character deficiencies present fodder for opinion, but it remains an obvious truth that his past offers nothing extraordinary to which we might attribute our confidence, or dispel his "otherness".
So, rather than merely squat on a constituency’s fawning lust for his media darlingness, perhaps if he had invented a useful implement, or submitted to some form of military service, or led a national charity, or even presented some evidence of physical sacrifice for America, we might have more favorable reasons to embrace him.But, aside from merely being the man opposing the party of the “evil Bush horde”, what grand, selfless act has Obama committed to express his appreciation for the privilege of being a member of America’s advanced citizenry?
Though liberals will disdain it eternally, President Bush will be remembered in history as the father of the global war against terrorism. He was not a perfect leader, nor was he absolutely right in all decisions. But, along with the relinquishment of executive challenges, like many presidents before him, Bush has given Obama some extraordinary opportunities for success and distinction. It rests upon the mind and conveyance of the successor to make the most of the grand stage foreset by the fundamental actions of an unfairly and ignorantly reviled historic figure.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Obama's True Inheritance: The Privilege To Serve
by Penbrook Johannson
Compounding the stress of America’s difficult economic challenges, it remains a mission of liberals to evoke hatred for Obama’s predecessor in response to what Democrats view as the unfavorable circumstances Obama “inherited” as president.
Disregarding the historical fact that our president's terms in office rarely begin or end coincidentally with the resolution of America's common problems, the liberal establishment is differentiating Obama's first 50 days, from other president's, as abnormally deprived.
Much of this vitriol is enhanced by the subjectivity of the pro-Obama liberal media complex consisting of broadcast networks CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS, as well as major publications, most notably, the New York Times, and hundreds of leftwing internet sites.
However, the nature of executive responsibility obligates the president to the will of the people who hire him. And, as America's political history reveals, a president's performance is evaluated benignly, in the long run, without comparison to the performance of previous office holders. History will not blame George Bush for Obama's failures. Nor will it blame Obama for the next president's conduct. In some cases, the new president must take on challenges which, as determined by the people, are within his capacity to resolve.
Rather than engaging the discussion like infantile, blame mongers, perhaps it is overdue to acknowledge the decisions made by the successor which have made the problems much worse than they would have been if he had done nothing at all.
And, let's make sure we account blame accurately among all the suspects. Let us not forget the members of Obama's own party, including Barney Frank, John Murtha, Chris Dodd and Chuck Rangel, serving in high ranking committee positions with influential ties to our banking and mortgage industries, who played illicit roles in undermining our economic situation during the previous administration.
Many of these congressional Democrats used their political leverage to pressure lending institutions into issuing mortgage loans to customers they knew could not afford them. The lending industry acted in accordance with the desolate intentions of liberals to redistribute opportunities in the housing market, by their inferior standards, to the less affluent, high risk demographics of our society.
The disasterous result of this utter stupidity was the fastest increase in foreclosures in American history, leading to the collapse of the housing market and the mortgage lending industry. Since then, more than 700 Billion dollars in tax payer money has been used to rescue the mortgage and banking industry, to date. And, it appears this still will not be enough to solve the problem. We will borrow more of our grandchildren's worth because Barney Frank thought it "fair" for recent, jobless immigrants, some of them residing here illegally, to live in ponzi-mortgaged houses.
The executive branch of our government has no appreciable culpability, comparatively, for this realm of the economic down turn. So, finger pointing by a president sends a message to the American people that his appointment was the wrong choice and that his abilities to resolve the issues for which he was hired were overestimated. When a president tells America that his job was made harder by his predecessor, America concludes that he was the wrong person for the position. They want somebody who knows he is bigger than any problem he faces, no matter the reasons for it. And, we need a man willing to acknowledge the benefits of his successive place in the legacy of American presidents.
The following are the favorable conditions into which Obama has been deposited.
OBAMA IS AN HEIR TO AMERICAN SOCIETY
After being received by America, Obama was afforded the opportunity for an education, and the means to pay for it, by a generous society. He was afforded professional opportunities available nowhere else on earth and he was blessed to be a part of a family structure reinforced by advanced social and economic resources. Just by the fact that he existed in America, even if he did nothing with his life, he inherited a greater socioeconomic advantage than 90% of the world's population.
American institutions, and the financial system that supports them, were established by far worthier pedagogues and social engineers than Obama. His American predecessors pioneered innovation and built our society, developing a scholastic standard, establishing industry and creating our quality of life, long before Obama arrived to benefit from them.
Of course, Obama’s academic accomplishments are recognized, and his command of language is appreciable, but millions of Americans have completed higher levels of academic achievement worthy of far more veneration. And, without the availability of American scholarships, institutions, and industry, Obama may have been relegated to just another third world existence.
In his willingness to acknowledge the challenges he inherited from the previous administration, Obama might promote himself better to a larger number of Americans if he would also recognize the benefits of inheriting his social opportunities from those who came before him.
OBAMA IS AN HEIR TO AMERICAN SACRIFICE
By the time Obama was ensconced as president in 2009, America’s history had progressed for 250 years......without him.
America had survived two major economic depressions and several smaller, but no less significant, ones. We had elected 43 other men before him who presided over far more challenging eras of our history than Obama ever will, and we fought and survived eight major genocidal wars in which millions of Americans sacrificed their lives and safety to secure the rights and liberties Obama now enjoys.
Though we are all better off for having emerged from the Civil War, certainly, we would wish that we didn’t have to engage in such a terrible conflict. But, we did.
So, with this historical fact securely in place, let it not be ignored that Obama is a particularly special beneficiary of the results of that conflict, by way of his heritage. Sadly, however, Obama seems to lack a genealogical appreciation for the sacrifices of our ancestors to bring him, and all black Americans, equality in a free society.
There is a sense that Obama secretly believes that, because of his one sided view of the history of our struggle for civil rights, he is somehow entitled to a privileged position in leadership. And, this does not sit well with the citizens of America that actually have the ability, and power, to change it.
Of course, slavery is a part of an unfortunate chapter in our history as a species, and as Americans. But, equally, so is the fight we've engaged for freedom from it.....for all humanity. Throughout the history of humanity, the suffering incurred to abolish slavery, and to emancipate its victims, is equally tragic. Emerging from the horrors and loss of our civil war, America was brought to a better place in time, where Obama is rightly embraced, without regard for his race.
However, in a political irony, one teeth-gnashing reality which liberals hate to acknowledge is that the end of slavery in America was the result of legislation passed under a white, republican president. And, the Emancipation Proclamation which followed led to the amendment of our constitution after the deaths of hundreds of thousands of white abolishionists on both sides of the Civil War.
But, the radical left in our country, hell bent on redefining the significance of history for the purposes of promoting a Reparative agenda, deny the sacrifices made by millions of Americans to bring an end to slavery. America remains the only developed nation in human history to fight a nation-wide civil war over the issue of slavery.
Perhaps this, in itself, is seen as irrelevant by some. Our society has become too depraved to appreciate the association of its venerated extravagances with the blood shed by heroes to provide it.
And, as Obama continues to rob future generations of their worth to pay for his liberal dreams, we are beginning to realize that slavery has not been abolished, after all.
Ironically, it appears Obama is remanifesting slavery, in a new form. He is acting as a fiscal agent serving the interests of radical left Reparative ideology. By his assumption of power, Obama is enabling a systematic economic slavery, much to the joyful redemption of ashamed whites who voted for him, for the purpose of avenging the victim mentality rooted in plantation slavery.
But, Obama might command more respect if he expressed an appreciation for some of the positive things he, and all Americans, have inherited from the legacy of those warrior's commitment to freedom through sacrifice.
OBAMA IS AN HEIR TO AMERICAN HERITAGE
It remains a valid point of debate that Obama’s success is not the result of his black heritage, but rather the result of being rejected by it. In this case, rather than relegating Obama’s upbringing to the proverbial single parent stigma, it appears the absence of his black father actually enhanced Obama’s chances for success, while being raised by his white mother, in predominantly white society, linked him with the necessary facets of our heritage to propel his success.
Obama’s father was obviously not a man prepared for fatherhood, let alone raising a mysogenated son in an interracial marriage, in 1960’s American society. But, obviously, neither was his mother prepared to abort her pregnancy. But, who could blame either of them?
The presence of Obama’s father, during his impressionable years, would have probably been a detriment in many ways to Obama’s personal success in the long run.
.
Thankfully, for Obama, his mother was blessed to be a part of a generous, supportive extended family, willing to provide for their grandson.
If he is thankful for this amazing salvation, it does not show in his demeanor as a president.
OBAMA IS AN HEIR TO AMERICAN TOLERANCE
Despite being the socially illegitimate reproductive consequence of a dead-beat African descendent and an indiscretionary pubescent mother, Obama has made the most of his inherited opportunities as an American. But, there still remain a slew of ominous, unanswered questions about the circumstances surrounding his early life.
But, why is this important? Regarding the matter of birthright, (that’s birthright........NOT birthplace), does Barack Obama have an inherent right, as a direct consequence of a birthright, to serve as president?
Most would agree that the opportunity to be President is not a right, or an entitlement. It is a privilege. And, throughout our history, that privilege has fallen on men who, regardless of wealth or social standing, meet specific social, political, legal and genealogical criteria which demonstrate a general alignment with America's founding values and the prescriptions set forth by our Constitution. These values typically, though not always, are a legacy perpetuated through generations of family-inspired leadership and honorability.
In light of this truth, Obama is the first man put into the oval office whose parents were not U.S. citizens, as defined by the laws in effect, at the time of his birth. Obama’s mother, though born in the U.S., had not physically resided in the United States long enough after the age of 14, as prescribed by immigration laws in effect in the 1960’s, to be a U.S. citizen.
After returning to America from Africa, Ann Dunham had to have resided in the U.S. for five years after her 14th birthday, in order to be given the rights of full citizenship at the time Obama was born in 1961. She was only 17 when Obama was born. His father was a Kenyan national, perhaps with British citizenship, though this is not confirmed. Regardless, he was not an American citizen.
All legalities and conspiracies aside, this is historic in the case of Barack Obama because it represents the first instance in our history in which we’ve failed to accurately define the plurality of our elected leader’s national identification, even if it were not for the purposes of recusal.
OBAMA AN HEIR TO OUR WAY OF GOVERNMENT
These questions are not premised to suggest that Obama is traitorous, nor do they suggest he has broken constitutional law.
However, it speaks to the antecedence of presidential validation and how failure to establish a candidate’s sovereign identity from birth sets precedence for future social tolerance of leaders who possibly possess plurality in their national loyalties and interests.
If we, as a nation, misinterpret the eligibility standards required for our leaders to serve and protect us, we make it easier for foreign influence to take advantage of our national resources and our people. Without the constitutional prescriptions for sovereignty in the identity of our leaders, America is potentially made vulnerable to foreign authority and, worse, the harmful intentions of our enemies, through the exploitation of our leader’s insecurity.
Barack Obama has been allowed to serve in our government despite possessing an ambiguously plural national identity. Whereas, any other nation on earth, in defense of its leadership’s sovereignty, would require verifiable acceptance of personal data metrics, or an accepted native citizenry by legal exception, Barack Obama’s presidency is the result of inheriting the position, in part, as a result of progressively relaxing standards in leadership sovereignty and a failing method used to establish singular national identity.
This is something never before seen in modern times. He has been allowed the privilege of serving as president amid unanswered questions and unsatisfactorily disclosed information about his basic genealogic, demographic, education and immigration history. Despite a complete lack of disclosure supporting Obama’s compliance with the people’s Constitutional prescriptions, he has been allowed the privilege to serve in the American government.
Tragically, ignoring legitimate requests for assistance, our derelict Supreme Court justices have divorced themselves from any role in helping America interpret the laws in this matter. And, sadly, since the Daily Kos, The Huffington Post, The New York Times and the Annenburg Foundation vouch for Obama, the Constitution is no longer consulted in such matters.
Barack Obama was brought to this moment in our history for a reason. Whether it serves the political interests of any party or individual, is unknown. But, what is known is that America is facing challenges, and, to some degree, these challenges have been ongoing for years, irrespective of the president serving at the time. But, also, the President’s experience has been given a wonderful legacy inherited by each of its successive office holders.
Barack Obama might benefit more from telling America more about this positive inheritance than the one he has used to denigrate and criticize his opposition. Blaming others may be justified for the American public, but for the President to do it only compromises the respect of the office while disqualifying his image as a refined, confident, secure statesmen. And, it only causes further division between American’s with competing ideologies.
The Civil War should have taught this lesson to all of us. Especially, Barack Obama.
Compounding the stress of America’s difficult economic challenges, it remains a mission of liberals to evoke hatred for Obama’s predecessor in response to what Democrats view as the unfavorable circumstances Obama “inherited” as president.
Disregarding the historical fact that our president's terms in office rarely begin or end coincidentally with the resolution of America's common problems, the liberal establishment is differentiating Obama's first 50 days, from other president's, as abnormally deprived.
Much of this vitriol is enhanced by the subjectivity of the pro-Obama liberal media complex consisting of broadcast networks CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS, as well as major publications, most notably, the New York Times, and hundreds of leftwing internet sites.
However, the nature of executive responsibility obligates the president to the will of the people who hire him. And, as America's political history reveals, a president's performance is evaluated benignly, in the long run, without comparison to the performance of previous office holders. History will not blame George Bush for Obama's failures. Nor will it blame Obama for the next president's conduct. In some cases, the new president must take on challenges which, as determined by the people, are within his capacity to resolve.
Rather than engaging the discussion like infantile, blame mongers, perhaps it is overdue to acknowledge the decisions made by the successor which have made the problems much worse than they would have been if he had done nothing at all.
And, let's make sure we account blame accurately among all the suspects. Let us not forget the members of Obama's own party, including Barney Frank, John Murtha, Chris Dodd and Chuck Rangel, serving in high ranking committee positions with influential ties to our banking and mortgage industries, who played illicit roles in undermining our economic situation during the previous administration.
Many of these congressional Democrats used their political leverage to pressure lending institutions into issuing mortgage loans to customers they knew could not afford them. The lending industry acted in accordance with the desolate intentions of liberals to redistribute opportunities in the housing market, by their inferior standards, to the less affluent, high risk demographics of our society.
The disasterous result of this utter stupidity was the fastest increase in foreclosures in American history, leading to the collapse of the housing market and the mortgage lending industry. Since then, more than 700 Billion dollars in tax payer money has been used to rescue the mortgage and banking industry, to date. And, it appears this still will not be enough to solve the problem. We will borrow more of our grandchildren's worth because Barney Frank thought it "fair" for recent, jobless immigrants, some of them residing here illegally, to live in ponzi-mortgaged houses.
The executive branch of our government has no appreciable culpability, comparatively, for this realm of the economic down turn. So, finger pointing by a president sends a message to the American people that his appointment was the wrong choice and that his abilities to resolve the issues for which he was hired were overestimated. When a president tells America that his job was made harder by his predecessor, America concludes that he was the wrong person for the position. They want somebody who knows he is bigger than any problem he faces, no matter the reasons for it. And, we need a man willing to acknowledge the benefits of his successive place in the legacy of American presidents.
The following are the favorable conditions into which Obama has been deposited.
OBAMA IS AN HEIR TO AMERICAN SOCIETY
After being received by America, Obama was afforded the opportunity for an education, and the means to pay for it, by a generous society. He was afforded professional opportunities available nowhere else on earth and he was blessed to be a part of a family structure reinforced by advanced social and economic resources. Just by the fact that he existed in America, even if he did nothing with his life, he inherited a greater socioeconomic advantage than 90% of the world's population.
American institutions, and the financial system that supports them, were established by far worthier pedagogues and social engineers than Obama. His American predecessors pioneered innovation and built our society, developing a scholastic standard, establishing industry and creating our quality of life, long before Obama arrived to benefit from them.
Of course, Obama’s academic accomplishments are recognized, and his command of language is appreciable, but millions of Americans have completed higher levels of academic achievement worthy of far more veneration. And, without the availability of American scholarships, institutions, and industry, Obama may have been relegated to just another third world existence.
In his willingness to acknowledge the challenges he inherited from the previous administration, Obama might promote himself better to a larger number of Americans if he would also recognize the benefits of inheriting his social opportunities from those who came before him.
OBAMA IS AN HEIR TO AMERICAN SACRIFICE
By the time Obama was ensconced as president in 2009, America’s history had progressed for 250 years......without him.
America had survived two major economic depressions and several smaller, but no less significant, ones. We had elected 43 other men before him who presided over far more challenging eras of our history than Obama ever will, and we fought and survived eight major genocidal wars in which millions of Americans sacrificed their lives and safety to secure the rights and liberties Obama now enjoys.
Though we are all better off for having emerged from the Civil War, certainly, we would wish that we didn’t have to engage in such a terrible conflict. But, we did.
So, with this historical fact securely in place, let it not be ignored that Obama is a particularly special beneficiary of the results of that conflict, by way of his heritage. Sadly, however, Obama seems to lack a genealogical appreciation for the sacrifices of our ancestors to bring him, and all black Americans, equality in a free society.
There is a sense that Obama secretly believes that, because of his one sided view of the history of our struggle for civil rights, he is somehow entitled to a privileged position in leadership. And, this does not sit well with the citizens of America that actually have the ability, and power, to change it.
Of course, slavery is a part of an unfortunate chapter in our history as a species, and as Americans. But, equally, so is the fight we've engaged for freedom from it.....for all humanity. Throughout the history of humanity, the suffering incurred to abolish slavery, and to emancipate its victims, is equally tragic. Emerging from the horrors and loss of our civil war, America was brought to a better place in time, where Obama is rightly embraced, without regard for his race.
However, in a political irony, one teeth-gnashing reality which liberals hate to acknowledge is that the end of slavery in America was the result of legislation passed under a white, republican president. And, the Emancipation Proclamation which followed led to the amendment of our constitution after the deaths of hundreds of thousands of white abolishionists on both sides of the Civil War.
But, the radical left in our country, hell bent on redefining the significance of history for the purposes of promoting a Reparative agenda, deny the sacrifices made by millions of Americans to bring an end to slavery. America remains the only developed nation in human history to fight a nation-wide civil war over the issue of slavery.
Perhaps this, in itself, is seen as irrelevant by some. Our society has become too depraved to appreciate the association of its venerated extravagances with the blood shed by heroes to provide it.
And, as Obama continues to rob future generations of their worth to pay for his liberal dreams, we are beginning to realize that slavery has not been abolished, after all.
Ironically, it appears Obama is remanifesting slavery, in a new form. He is acting as a fiscal agent serving the interests of radical left Reparative ideology. By his assumption of power, Obama is enabling a systematic economic slavery, much to the joyful redemption of ashamed whites who voted for him, for the purpose of avenging the victim mentality rooted in plantation slavery.
But, Obama might command more respect if he expressed an appreciation for some of the positive things he, and all Americans, have inherited from the legacy of those warrior's commitment to freedom through sacrifice.
OBAMA IS AN HEIR TO AMERICAN HERITAGE
It remains a valid point of debate that Obama’s success is not the result of his black heritage, but rather the result of being rejected by it. In this case, rather than relegating Obama’s upbringing to the proverbial single parent stigma, it appears the absence of his black father actually enhanced Obama’s chances for success, while being raised by his white mother, in predominantly white society, linked him with the necessary facets of our heritage to propel his success.
Obama’s father was obviously not a man prepared for fatherhood, let alone raising a mysogenated son in an interracial marriage, in 1960’s American society. But, obviously, neither was his mother prepared to abort her pregnancy. But, who could blame either of them?
The presence of Obama’s father, during his impressionable years, would have probably been a detriment in many ways to Obama’s personal success in the long run.
.
Thankfully, for Obama, his mother was blessed to be a part of a generous, supportive extended family, willing to provide for their grandson.
If he is thankful for this amazing salvation, it does not show in his demeanor as a president.
OBAMA IS AN HEIR TO AMERICAN TOLERANCE
Despite being the socially illegitimate reproductive consequence of a dead-beat African descendent and an indiscretionary pubescent mother, Obama has made the most of his inherited opportunities as an American. But, there still remain a slew of ominous, unanswered questions about the circumstances surrounding his early life.
But, why is this important? Regarding the matter of birthright, (that’s birthright........NOT birthplace), does Barack Obama have an inherent right, as a direct consequence of a birthright, to serve as president?
Most would agree that the opportunity to be President is not a right, or an entitlement. It is a privilege. And, throughout our history, that privilege has fallen on men who, regardless of wealth or social standing, meet specific social, political, legal and genealogical criteria which demonstrate a general alignment with America's founding values and the prescriptions set forth by our Constitution. These values typically, though not always, are a legacy perpetuated through generations of family-inspired leadership and honorability.
In light of this truth, Obama is the first man put into the oval office whose parents were not U.S. citizens, as defined by the laws in effect, at the time of his birth. Obama’s mother, though born in the U.S., had not physically resided in the United States long enough after the age of 14, as prescribed by immigration laws in effect in the 1960’s, to be a U.S. citizen.
After returning to America from Africa, Ann Dunham had to have resided in the U.S. for five years after her 14th birthday, in order to be given the rights of full citizenship at the time Obama was born in 1961. She was only 17 when Obama was born. His father was a Kenyan national, perhaps with British citizenship, though this is not confirmed. Regardless, he was not an American citizen.
All legalities and conspiracies aside, this is historic in the case of Barack Obama because it represents the first instance in our history in which we’ve failed to accurately define the plurality of our elected leader’s national identification, even if it were not for the purposes of recusal.
OBAMA AN HEIR TO OUR WAY OF GOVERNMENT
These questions are not premised to suggest that Obama is traitorous, nor do they suggest he has broken constitutional law.
However, it speaks to the antecedence of presidential validation and how failure to establish a candidate’s sovereign identity from birth sets precedence for future social tolerance of leaders who possibly possess plurality in their national loyalties and interests.
If we, as a nation, misinterpret the eligibility standards required for our leaders to serve and protect us, we make it easier for foreign influence to take advantage of our national resources and our people. Without the constitutional prescriptions for sovereignty in the identity of our leaders, America is potentially made vulnerable to foreign authority and, worse, the harmful intentions of our enemies, through the exploitation of our leader’s insecurity.
Barack Obama has been allowed to serve in our government despite possessing an ambiguously plural national identity. Whereas, any other nation on earth, in defense of its leadership’s sovereignty, would require verifiable acceptance of personal data metrics, or an accepted native citizenry by legal exception, Barack Obama’s presidency is the result of inheriting the position, in part, as a result of progressively relaxing standards in leadership sovereignty and a failing method used to establish singular national identity.
This is something never before seen in modern times. He has been allowed the privilege of serving as president amid unanswered questions and unsatisfactorily disclosed information about his basic genealogic, demographic, education and immigration history. Despite a complete lack of disclosure supporting Obama’s compliance with the people’s Constitutional prescriptions, he has been allowed the privilege to serve in the American government.
Tragically, ignoring legitimate requests for assistance, our derelict Supreme Court justices have divorced themselves from any role in helping America interpret the laws in this matter. And, sadly, since the Daily Kos, The Huffington Post, The New York Times and the Annenburg Foundation vouch for Obama, the Constitution is no longer consulted in such matters.
Barack Obama was brought to this moment in our history for a reason. Whether it serves the political interests of any party or individual, is unknown. But, what is known is that America is facing challenges, and, to some degree, these challenges have been ongoing for years, irrespective of the president serving at the time. But, also, the President’s experience has been given a wonderful legacy inherited by each of its successive office holders.
Barack Obama might benefit more from telling America more about this positive inheritance than the one he has used to denigrate and criticize his opposition. Blaming others may be justified for the American public, but for the President to do it only compromises the respect of the office while disqualifying his image as a refined, confident, secure statesmen. And, it only causes further division between American’s with competing ideologies.
The Civil War should have taught this lesson to all of us. Especially, Barack Obama.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Obama's Fear Of Limbaugh Conservatives
by Penbrook Johannson
...
For the first time in American history, the members of a minority party are actually benefitting from losing an election. And, they are getting help......from the winners.
This help is coming in the form of Obama's failed attempt to target the strongest components of the Republican party. Bypassing the obvious chinks in the Republican political armor, Obama is hoping to paint Republicans as extreme by associating them with media icon, Rush Limbaugh, thinking this is somehow, a bad thing for the minority party.
Unfortunately for Obama, the Republican party has accomplished alot during one of the most challenging decades in American history.
Republicans, not Democrats, were called to respond to the largest mass murder on American soil in our history. And, despite the debate that rages about the methods used, it is unarguable that Republicans, not Democrats, have kept America safe since. Whereas every psychotic, islamo-fascist is, at this very moment, actively planning to invade America and kill us all, Republicans, not Democrats, have kept other such events from occurring over the last 8 years.
Subsequently, America's defenders, led by Republicans, greatly depleted the threat of a global terrorist horde by destroying its members and exiling its leadership to an abysmal existence. Republicans deposed, and facilitated the execution of a murderous, tyrannical despot who murdered hundreds of thousands of people. And, they established a strategic military presence in a place America previously had none, where our enemies breed.
Republicans provided the opportunity for the establishment of a society, providing opportunity for free elections and establishment of a representative government, in a place where democracy and capitalism previously did not exist.
Republicans have held back the tide of liberal destruction in America. And, most importantly, they have established an international identity as American leadership of the modern war against global terrorism by being the first country in history to instigate proactive military action to secure domestic safety.
So, it should be no surprise that the Republicans are engaged in a well deserved transcendent period. They deserve it.
In the mean time, Republicans have every confidence that America understands the ebbs and flows of party dominance, from election to election. America knows these fluctuations are just the normal pattern through which the party improves their message, redefines their identity and works to enhance their popularity. And, America knows the Republican party is no exception to this. So, of course, America realizes the liberal fantasy to the see the end of the Republican party is nonsense, and that it is driven by irrational fear.
Certainly, liberals imagine the demise of conservatives. But, Obama's attempt at pushing Rush Limbaugh as the Republican leadership is just helping his opposition while solidifying the aforementioned truths about the Republican party.
Obama is learning a tough lesson about winning elections in America. He is learning that it is possible to win an election, and actually lose the game. An election is just a personnel selection process for the job to come. It does not guarantee success at the job itself.
This is very frightening to Obama. Already burdened by doubts about his fitness to be president, he would rather dismiss the importance of his legitimacy than face the fact he may lack the qualities needed to be successful at leadership.
Also, Obama's paranoia raises doubts that Democrats actually understand that they are the majority party in power. Driven by insecurity about his own fitness to even be president, Obama seems easily drawn into trivial political squabbles, perhaps due to a compelling need to validate himself, and the Democrats, as the ruling party. It appears their irrational fear of a deranged, gun-wielding, religiously zealous Republican death squad is getting the best of their judgment.
And, even though the entire ruse might resemble an underhanded conspiracy to paint Republicans as lost, extreme and beaten, Limbaugh is gleefully tormenting the Obama democrats with a taunting message that a Republican mob is planning to march on them in the dark of night, pitchforks in hand, led by Limbaugh, himself.
The behavior exhibited here, on the part of Obama's executive staff, along with other prolific liberals, exposes an organic weakness in the party. Democrats have actually become so narcissistic, they can't even tell when they are winning. And, it only invigorates the confidence of Republicans, despite their recent election losses.
“And, what’s worse, exploiting an icon like Limbaugh is probably not real smart,” explains Marian Veinara, professor at the National Center for Media Studies, “Remember, even as their own arson was burning Rome to the ground, the despot, fearing reprisal from his own, accused the innocuous bystanders, spurring the greatest expansion of any human religious movement in history. Nero's Rome was destroyed, but the Christians are still here. Democrats should pay more attention to the troubles they were elected to address.”
There are many reasons for Obama to be afraid of Limbaugh.
First, the liberal establishment is taking a huge risk by engaging Republicans and Limbaugh's conservatives in this way. The democrats are already walking a political tight rope, perhaps one mistake, or one passive moment, from the catastrophe that exonerates conservative persecutions against Obama and turns moderate American’s away from him for good.
Calling Limbaugh the leader of the GOP is like calling Warren Buffett the Leader of the DNC. Basically, it’s the equivalent of calling Limbaugh a “Big PooPoo head” on the playground. He’s probably not very scared and, yet, he is now emboldened to assume a renewed aggression against the weaknesses of liberals.
Another teeth-gnashing reality motivating Obama to target a man like Rush Limbaugh is that Limbaugh's success is self-generated. Obama's is not.
.
.
"....The American left dropped the bar so far below decency, in their treatment of Bush during the past decade, they had to dig a hole where their integrity used to be just to get over, and it just so happened that a guy named Barack Obama fit the character void and fell into it. So, by proxy, they made him their leader......"
Limbaugh has built his world through a potent application of talents in a competitive, free-market industry. Obama's success has been the result of a political party lowering the standards to a cultish lust for someone.....anyone, willing to oppose those who disagree with them. The American left dropped the bar so far below decency, in their treatment of Bush during the past decade, they had to dig a hole in the place their integrity used to be just to get over, and it just so happened that some guy named Barack Obama fit the character void and fell into it. So, by proxy, they made him their leader.
Obama is primarily the creation of other people's contribution to his image, and the subsequent byproduct of a liberal constituency’s psychotic hatred for his predecessor. Rush Limbaugh is the American success story everyone loves, regardless of political loyalties. Limbaugh's achievements are attributed to the advanced citizenry of a vintage American. Obama's achievements are attributed to advantages afforded to him by a welcoming society.
Obama was merely deposited here and found his way to the White House by circumstances of exception, rather than inclusion. His professional origins are less than lustrous, and, in the light of his time in the corrupt environment of Chicago politics, somewhat troublesome. Questions about Obama’s personal identity, immigration status, educational records and political intentions are simply issues Rush Limbaugh is free of. And, it seems ludicrous that Obama would pick a squabble with a man like Limbaugh.
"That's like a martial artist challenging a ping pong player to a fight," says media research staffer, Michael Yeda, "Obama is just enough of a coward to know how far to stay away from the guy while paddling little plastic balls at him. Meanwhile, Limbaugh is arming himself with medieval weaponry."
Finally, Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. But, he is also a potent truth merchant. And, what's most frightening to inferior characters like Obama, is that Limbaugh is an ingenious inciter of American inquisition. His ability to prod America into asking questions that liberals hate to answer, about the substance and motives of our politicians, is unmatched. Not to mention, his broadcast aptitude is reinforced by a strong research staff, and production personnel, at the EIB Network.
Voices like Limbaugh present a very effective docket for rejecting, not only the policies of liberals, but also the character of Obama. Limbaugh is able to present Obama as a commoner lacking the decency, and mentality, to appreciate the most important principles of American society, and the foundations upon which it was built. And, fair-minded individuals listen, in agreement, to much of what Limbaugh says.
Overall, the perspective presented by conservative media, in general, directly confronts the Obama Administration with some truthful indictments. The ramifications of a bankrupt American government, or a massive terror attack on American soil, would certainly bury Obama in abysmal failure with his liberal minions in congress, forever, while obliterating the credibility of the democrat party for decades, if not generations.
How quickly the pendulum swings.
...
For the first time in American history, the members of a minority party are actually benefitting from losing an election. And, they are getting help......from the winners.
This help is coming in the form of Obama's failed attempt to target the strongest components of the Republican party. Bypassing the obvious chinks in the Republican political armor, Obama is hoping to paint Republicans as extreme by associating them with media icon, Rush Limbaugh, thinking this is somehow, a bad thing for the minority party.
Unfortunately for Obama, the Republican party has accomplished alot during one of the most challenging decades in American history.
Republicans, not Democrats, were called to respond to the largest mass murder on American soil in our history. And, despite the debate that rages about the methods used, it is unarguable that Republicans, not Democrats, have kept America safe since. Whereas every psychotic, islamo-fascist is, at this very moment, actively planning to invade America and kill us all, Republicans, not Democrats, have kept other such events from occurring over the last 8 years.
Subsequently, America's defenders, led by Republicans, greatly depleted the threat of a global terrorist horde by destroying its members and exiling its leadership to an abysmal existence. Republicans deposed, and facilitated the execution of a murderous, tyrannical despot who murdered hundreds of thousands of people. And, they established a strategic military presence in a place America previously had none, where our enemies breed.
Republicans provided the opportunity for the establishment of a society, providing opportunity for free elections and establishment of a representative government, in a place where democracy and capitalism previously did not exist.
Republicans have held back the tide of liberal destruction in America. And, most importantly, they have established an international identity as American leadership of the modern war against global terrorism by being the first country in history to instigate proactive military action to secure domestic safety.
So, it should be no surprise that the Republicans are engaged in a well deserved transcendent period. They deserve it.
In the mean time, Republicans have every confidence that America understands the ebbs and flows of party dominance, from election to election. America knows these fluctuations are just the normal pattern through which the party improves their message, redefines their identity and works to enhance their popularity. And, America knows the Republican party is no exception to this. So, of course, America realizes the liberal fantasy to the see the end of the Republican party is nonsense, and that it is driven by irrational fear.
Certainly, liberals imagine the demise of conservatives. But, Obama's attempt at pushing Rush Limbaugh as the Republican leadership is just helping his opposition while solidifying the aforementioned truths about the Republican party.
Obama is learning a tough lesson about winning elections in America. He is learning that it is possible to win an election, and actually lose the game. An election is just a personnel selection process for the job to come. It does not guarantee success at the job itself.
This is very frightening to Obama. Already burdened by doubts about his fitness to be president, he would rather dismiss the importance of his legitimacy than face the fact he may lack the qualities needed to be successful at leadership.
Also, Obama's paranoia raises doubts that Democrats actually understand that they are the majority party in power. Driven by insecurity about his own fitness to even be president, Obama seems easily drawn into trivial political squabbles, perhaps due to a compelling need to validate himself, and the Democrats, as the ruling party. It appears their irrational fear of a deranged, gun-wielding, religiously zealous Republican death squad is getting the best of their judgment.
And, even though the entire ruse might resemble an underhanded conspiracy to paint Republicans as lost, extreme and beaten, Limbaugh is gleefully tormenting the Obama democrats with a taunting message that a Republican mob is planning to march on them in the dark of night, pitchforks in hand, led by Limbaugh, himself.
The behavior exhibited here, on the part of Obama's executive staff, along with other prolific liberals, exposes an organic weakness in the party. Democrats have actually become so narcissistic, they can't even tell when they are winning. And, it only invigorates the confidence of Republicans, despite their recent election losses.
“And, what’s worse, exploiting an icon like Limbaugh is probably not real smart,” explains Marian Veinara, professor at the National Center for Media Studies, “Remember, even as their own arson was burning Rome to the ground, the despot, fearing reprisal from his own, accused the innocuous bystanders, spurring the greatest expansion of any human religious movement in history. Nero's Rome was destroyed, but the Christians are still here. Democrats should pay more attention to the troubles they were elected to address.”
There are many reasons for Obama to be afraid of Limbaugh.
First, the liberal establishment is taking a huge risk by engaging Republicans and Limbaugh's conservatives in this way. The democrats are already walking a political tight rope, perhaps one mistake, or one passive moment, from the catastrophe that exonerates conservative persecutions against Obama and turns moderate American’s away from him for good.
Calling Limbaugh the leader of the GOP is like calling Warren Buffett the Leader of the DNC. Basically, it’s the equivalent of calling Limbaugh a “Big PooPoo head” on the playground. He’s probably not very scared and, yet, he is now emboldened to assume a renewed aggression against the weaknesses of liberals.
Another teeth-gnashing reality motivating Obama to target a man like Rush Limbaugh is that Limbaugh's success is self-generated. Obama's is not.
.
.
"....The American left dropped the bar so far below decency, in their treatment of Bush during the past decade, they had to dig a hole where their integrity used to be just to get over, and it just so happened that a guy named Barack Obama fit the character void and fell into it. So, by proxy, they made him their leader......"
Limbaugh has built his world through a potent application of talents in a competitive, free-market industry. Obama's success has been the result of a political party lowering the standards to a cultish lust for someone.....anyone, willing to oppose those who disagree with them. The American left dropped the bar so far below decency, in their treatment of Bush during the past decade, they had to dig a hole in the place their integrity used to be just to get over, and it just so happened that some guy named Barack Obama fit the character void and fell into it. So, by proxy, they made him their leader.
Obama is primarily the creation of other people's contribution to his image, and the subsequent byproduct of a liberal constituency’s psychotic hatred for his predecessor. Rush Limbaugh is the American success story everyone loves, regardless of political loyalties. Limbaugh's achievements are attributed to the advanced citizenry of a vintage American. Obama's achievements are attributed to advantages afforded to him by a welcoming society.
Obama was merely deposited here and found his way to the White House by circumstances of exception, rather than inclusion. His professional origins are less than lustrous, and, in the light of his time in the corrupt environment of Chicago politics, somewhat troublesome. Questions about Obama’s personal identity, immigration status, educational records and political intentions are simply issues Rush Limbaugh is free of. And, it seems ludicrous that Obama would pick a squabble with a man like Limbaugh.
"That's like a martial artist challenging a ping pong player to a fight," says media research staffer, Michael Yeda, "Obama is just enough of a coward to know how far to stay away from the guy while paddling little plastic balls at him. Meanwhile, Limbaugh is arming himself with medieval weaponry."
Finally, Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. But, he is also a potent truth merchant. And, what's most frightening to inferior characters like Obama, is that Limbaugh is an ingenious inciter of American inquisition. His ability to prod America into asking questions that liberals hate to answer, about the substance and motives of our politicians, is unmatched. Not to mention, his broadcast aptitude is reinforced by a strong research staff, and production personnel, at the EIB Network.
Voices like Limbaugh present a very effective docket for rejecting, not only the policies of liberals, but also the character of Obama. Limbaugh is able to present Obama as a commoner lacking the decency, and mentality, to appreciate the most important principles of American society, and the foundations upon which it was built. And, fair-minded individuals listen, in agreement, to much of what Limbaugh says.
Overall, the perspective presented by conservative media, in general, directly confronts the Obama Administration with some truthful indictments. The ramifications of a bankrupt American government, or a massive terror attack on American soil, would certainly bury Obama in abysmal failure with his liberal minions in congress, forever, while obliterating the credibility of the democrat party for decades, if not generations.
How quickly the pendulum swings.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Obama Is Creating Black Lists As America Burns
....
Using obvious tactics to distract the American people from Obama’s deteriorating economic apocalypse, the propaganda cabal of Rahm Emanuel, David Plouffe, Paul Begala and James Carville has conspired with other liberals to roster a list of individuals they deem enemies to the Obama Administration.
One subsequent surprise in this “black listing” is the liberal’s effort to associate conservative media icon, Rush Limbaugh, with a leadership role in the Republican Party.
In a strange development, Limbaugh, often confined in the minds of Democrats to the realm of entertainment, has broken down their deniability of his legitimate impact on Obama. He is now commanding attention from White House senior staff as a viable political threat.
Despite favoring Republican political values, in general, Limbaugh has never exclusively identitfied himself with the Republican Party as much as he has carried a longstanding, consistent alliance with conservatism. Earning his share of criticism from the left, he offers no apologies for his contention with the liberal establishment, or the current White House tenancy. Limbaugh is widely considered the most successful talk radio broadcast host in American history and has been in the profession since the early 1980's.
One subsequent surprise in this “black listing” is the liberal’s effort to associate conservative media icon, Rush Limbaugh, with a leadership role in the Republican Party.
In a strange development, Limbaugh, often confined in the minds of Democrats to the realm of entertainment, has broken down their deniability of his legitimate impact on Obama. He is now commanding attention from White House senior staff as a viable political threat.
Despite favoring Republican political values, in general, Limbaugh has never exclusively identitfied himself with the Republican Party as much as he has carried a longstanding, consistent alliance with conservatism. Earning his share of criticism from the left, he offers no apologies for his contention with the liberal establishment, or the current White House tenancy. Limbaugh is widely considered the most successful talk radio broadcast host in American history and has been in the profession since the early 1980's.
.....The delusion of a Limbaugh-lead GOP is an obvious liberal manifestation intended to drive an unseemly fetish that Republicans have, somehow, fallen so far they need to be further degraded by what liberals believe is an association with conservative media “extremism”......
Intertwining suggestions that congressional Democrats seek to revive a modernized form of the Fairness Doctrine, Emanuel, the White House Chief of Staff, hopes to exploit the left's unfavorable opinion of Limbaugh to undermine the image of a changing Republican Party. However, the demise of Emanuel’s smear team might come in realizing the GOP is far from disintegration as it currently upgrades itself during this well deserved rest from its normal position as the majority.
Emanuel may also be called to answer questions why the Obama administration is suddenly considering a media personality, previously marginalized by Obama's PR apparatus as an "entertainer", as a legitmate obstacle to Democrat legislation. Afterall, the Democrats are a near supermajority.
“Mr. Limbaugh is an obvious success at what he does,” observed Dr. Marian Veinara, professor at the National Center for Media Studies, “but, he is not a factor in the formation of legislation."
.
Obama's propogandists have tried to capitalize on what they perceive as a rift between Limbaugh and Republican party leadership. However, both sides deny any such contention. Democrats misinterpreted a conversation that Michael Steele, the newly appointed RNC Chairman, was having with NBC pundits in which he stated that Limbaugh's comments are "incendiary", after Limbaugh stated that he would like to see the policies of Obama fail.
.
Democrats attempted, but failed, to find a chink the patriotic armor of Limbaugh, who comfortably laughed off the ploy, characterizing it as typical reprobate behavior on the part of liberals.
.
"Obama needs to be careful," warns Veinara, "the last time an autocrat blamed bystanders for his destructive rule, a city-state was burned and the victims became the largest human genographic in history."
Given the felonious economic policies implemented by this administration thus far, any additional scheme to hyper-inject a media figure into the legitimate leadership structure of a political party, may not only be viewed as unnecessary but, in the light of such dire conditions, extravagant. Many Americans feel the efforts of Obama's executive staff, regardless of their level of legitimacy, would be better spent working on America’s economic situation, rather then engaging in futile political games with the minority party.
The delusion of a Limbaugh-lead GOP is an obvious liberal manifestation intended to drive an unseemly fetish that Republicans have somehow fallen so far that they need to be further degraded by what liberals believe is an association with conservative media “extremism”. But, is this a dangerous game the Democrats are playing?
“Winning elections is pointless unless you actually lead for those who voted you in,” Veinara sniggered, “Taking a difficult economic situation, as the White House has, and turning it into a catastrophe, is one thing. But, then to nit-pick the associations of a talk show host with an entire political party is just dumb. It does little to qualify you as a real problem solver, and it erodes your political clout to blame the current circumstances on the previous administration.”
The Battle For Minds In The Middle
Limbaugh is nothing short of a garish warrior wielding a slew of aural weaponry which, when used through his oratory brilliance, usually results in a massive galvanization of America's best. Most notably, Limbaugh is an opportunist, exploiting vintage America’s revilement of liberal gaudiness. He does this by presenting a sober, common-sense perspective on the destructive potential of liberal doctrine.
But, what about those who reside near the political center?
Obama is beginning to realize that he has already fanned the flames with his economic stimulus bill, following weeks of prerequisite fear mongering. It seems utterly masochistic, if not reckless, to antagonize an already agitated conservative media opposition. As if Obama's life wasn't hard enough, he now seeks to compromise his status as a congenial statesmen with the American middle by lifting the status of one particular media host. It appears disproportionate to our more vital national priorities at this time.
Limbaugh, on the other hand, is resting comfortably, preparing to watch the train wreck. And, to make the situation more inviting, astonishingly, Obama is serving him appetizers. Obama is helping Limbaugh's message that he took a troublesome situation and turned it into a disaster by destroying the confidence of the only demographic in America who can fix it, namely the small business minded, the economically viable, and the affluent employer.
Interestingly, some believe that America’s current economic challenges were premeditated by the retiring generation of the Republican party in order to occupy the Democrats with overwhelming conditions while the new, young generation of Republicans reload the Party’s stratagem. This suggests that the democrat party is merely the American political stand-in for when the Republicans need a periodic rest in their commonly accepted endeavor of building a strong, durable national identity.
The “Ditto Heads”, Limbaugh’s pet name for his most enduring supporters, are made up of some of America’s most educated, affluent, socially dominant proponents of the conservative movement. Their protective affection for Limbaugh, along with his intense media savvy give Obama all he can handle, motivating the creation of an Enemy List with Limbaugh's name on it.
In Obama's weakness, he needs to demonize Republicans because he seeks a political safety net for absorbing the inevitable public outrage when he is found standing alone on the smoldering heap of rubble that used to be America. Concocting some fictional relationship between the leadership of the Republican party and the "big bad conservative wolf" is one way Obama plans to encrust his blame-free defense.
Also, by holstering an image of Republicans with Limbaugh, Obama is seeking to convert moderate Republicans to his side. He wants to win favor with the right-of-center by creating the appearance of an equalization of his party's extremism, within the Republican Party. In essence, Obama is using a single message to pander for the favor of the middle while demonizing the devout Republican base in the eyes of his liberal constituency.
Given the felonious economic policies implemented by this administration thus far, any additional scheme to hyper-inject a media figure into the legitimate leadership structure of a political party, may not only be viewed as unnecessary but, in the light of such dire conditions, extravagant. Many Americans feel the efforts of Obama's executive staff, regardless of their level of legitimacy, would be better spent working on America’s economic situation, rather then engaging in futile political games with the minority party.
The delusion of a Limbaugh-lead GOP is an obvious liberal manifestation intended to drive an unseemly fetish that Republicans have somehow fallen so far that they need to be further degraded by what liberals believe is an association with conservative media “extremism”. But, is this a dangerous game the Democrats are playing?
“Winning elections is pointless unless you actually lead for those who voted you in,” Veinara sniggered, “Taking a difficult economic situation, as the White House has, and turning it into a catastrophe, is one thing. But, then to nit-pick the associations of a talk show host with an entire political party is just dumb. It does little to qualify you as a real problem solver, and it erodes your political clout to blame the current circumstances on the previous administration.”
The Battle For Minds In The Middle
Limbaugh is nothing short of a garish warrior wielding a slew of aural weaponry which, when used through his oratory brilliance, usually results in a massive galvanization of America's best. Most notably, Limbaugh is an opportunist, exploiting vintage America’s revilement of liberal gaudiness. He does this by presenting a sober, common-sense perspective on the destructive potential of liberal doctrine.
But, what about those who reside near the political center?
Obama is beginning to realize that he has already fanned the flames with his economic stimulus bill, following weeks of prerequisite fear mongering. It seems utterly masochistic, if not reckless, to antagonize an already agitated conservative media opposition. As if Obama's life wasn't hard enough, he now seeks to compromise his status as a congenial statesmen with the American middle by lifting the status of one particular media host. It appears disproportionate to our more vital national priorities at this time.
Limbaugh, on the other hand, is resting comfortably, preparing to watch the train wreck. And, to make the situation more inviting, astonishingly, Obama is serving him appetizers. Obama is helping Limbaugh's message that he took a troublesome situation and turned it into a disaster by destroying the confidence of the only demographic in America who can fix it, namely the small business minded, the economically viable, and the affluent employer.
Interestingly, some believe that America’s current economic challenges were premeditated by the retiring generation of the Republican party in order to occupy the Democrats with overwhelming conditions while the new, young generation of Republicans reload the Party’s stratagem. This suggests that the democrat party is merely the American political stand-in for when the Republicans need a periodic rest in their commonly accepted endeavor of building a strong, durable national identity.
The “Ditto Heads”, Limbaugh’s pet name for his most enduring supporters, are made up of some of America’s most educated, affluent, socially dominant proponents of the conservative movement. Their protective affection for Limbaugh, along with his intense media savvy give Obama all he can handle, motivating the creation of an Enemy List with Limbaugh's name on it.
In Obama's weakness, he needs to demonize Republicans because he seeks a political safety net for absorbing the inevitable public outrage when he is found standing alone on the smoldering heap of rubble that used to be America. Concocting some fictional relationship between the leadership of the Republican party and the "big bad conservative wolf" is one way Obama plans to encrust his blame-free defense.
Also, by holstering an image of Republicans with Limbaugh, Obama is seeking to convert moderate Republicans to his side. He wants to win favor with the right-of-center by creating the appearance of an equalization of his party's extremism, within the Republican Party. In essence, Obama is using a single message to pander for the favor of the middle while demonizing the devout Republican base in the eyes of his liberal constituency.
.
Basically, Americans are suffering economic starvation while Obama is burning the crops to catch a jack-rabbit.
Unfortunately for Obama, however, his prescribed level of hysteria simply does not exist within the Republican party. Restrained, thoughtful vigor is a defining characteristic of being Republican. For, if one exhibited such mindless liberal insanity, as found in Obama's camp, they are not called conservative, or Republican, by innate definition. Rather, they are called liberal, and Democrat.
.....If the advanced citizens of America remain conservatively oriented and economically viable, it poses a real threat to Obama’s political investment in a 2 trillion dollar redistribution and entitlement expansion strategy.....
True conservatives are just not that interested in political rewards as much as they are about what is truth, right and decent, no matter how much Obama lusts for the GOP to be associated with his dishonest projections about Rush Limbaugh.
Fortunately, vintage America is far too intelligent to fall for it. And, they are too fond of Limbaugh’s personal story to legitimize anything Obama might have to say about him.
The biggest threat to Obama’s administration is an independent, personally accountable America. If the advanced citizens of America remain conservatively oriented and economically viable, it poses a real threat to Obama’s political investment in a 2 trillion dollar redistribution and entitlment expansion strategy. If Limbaugh's message is allow to motivate people to be conservative, it abolishes Obama’s redistributionist ideology.
A stark blemish in the liberal ploy, however, is that Limbaugh has inspired millions of independently driven Americans to pursue entrepreneurial success and economic accountability while passionately rejecting liberal doctrines of redistributionism, entitlements and dependence on government.
Limbaugh is a self made millionaire of unprecedented achievement in broadcast media lauding the most successful, nationally syndicated, radio program in American history, with an audience of more than 30 million listeners per week. His broadcast empire is, arguably, the stanchion model upon which subsequent conservative radio talk personalities have been built, many of which adorn him with credit for their endeavor.
Limbaugh is also the highest paid individual in the history of radio.
Obama, and liberals everywhere, should take a moment and consider the potential destruction of their own future before they try to excoriate the qualities of their opposition in the distant reaches of conservative American society. Rush Limbaugh is just one example of millions of successful conservative Americans who have made themselves dangerous to the existence of liberalism.
When conservatives choose “private world” figureheads, whether they are social, military, community or business leaders, they tend to choose people who have ascended to their positions because they possess extraordinary qualifications and honorable character that politicians like Obama, and his liberal hatcheteers, simply lack. Conservative leadership tends to be people who have overcome liberalism and achieved an evolved state of maturity and personal accountability.
Unfortunately for Obama, however, his prescribed level of hysteria simply does not exist within the Republican party. Restrained, thoughtful vigor is a defining characteristic of being Republican. For, if one exhibited such mindless liberal insanity, as found in Obama's camp, they are not called conservative, or Republican, by innate definition. Rather, they are called liberal, and Democrat.
.....If the advanced citizens of America remain conservatively oriented and economically viable, it poses a real threat to Obama’s political investment in a 2 trillion dollar redistribution and entitlement expansion strategy.....
True conservatives are just not that interested in political rewards as much as they are about what is truth, right and decent, no matter how much Obama lusts for the GOP to be associated with his dishonest projections about Rush Limbaugh.
Fortunately, vintage America is far too intelligent to fall for it. And, they are too fond of Limbaugh’s personal story to legitimize anything Obama might have to say about him.
The biggest threat to Obama’s administration is an independent, personally accountable America. If the advanced citizens of America remain conservatively oriented and economically viable, it poses a real threat to Obama’s political investment in a 2 trillion dollar redistribution and entitlment expansion strategy. If Limbaugh's message is allow to motivate people to be conservative, it abolishes Obama’s redistributionist ideology.
A stark blemish in the liberal ploy, however, is that Limbaugh has inspired millions of independently driven Americans to pursue entrepreneurial success and economic accountability while passionately rejecting liberal doctrines of redistributionism, entitlements and dependence on government.
Limbaugh is a self made millionaire of unprecedented achievement in broadcast media lauding the most successful, nationally syndicated, radio program in American history, with an audience of more than 30 million listeners per week. His broadcast empire is, arguably, the stanchion model upon which subsequent conservative radio talk personalities have been built, many of which adorn him with credit for their endeavor.
Limbaugh is also the highest paid individual in the history of radio.
Obama, and liberals everywhere, should take a moment and consider the potential destruction of their own future before they try to excoriate the qualities of their opposition in the distant reaches of conservative American society. Rush Limbaugh is just one example of millions of successful conservative Americans who have made themselves dangerous to the existence of liberalism.
When conservatives choose “private world” figureheads, whether they are social, military, community or business leaders, they tend to choose people who have ascended to their positions because they possess extraordinary qualifications and honorable character that politicians like Obama, and his liberal hatcheteers, simply lack. Conservative leadership tends to be people who have overcome liberalism and achieved an evolved state of maturity and personal accountability.
.
Basically, Conservatives became conservative when they realized the failure that came with trying to be a human being as a liberal.
.
Liberals have already been measured by, and, unfortunately, been found void of basic characteristics that make individuals like Limbaugh successful. And, this drives liberals, like Obama, to a jealous aggression against advanced people, like conservatives.
.
Of course, this also explains every reason we need to know why they failed in real life, where Limbaugh has succeeded, and became illegitimate liberal politicians to begin with.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Obama’s War On Charity
...
As the democrats continue their assault on American capitalism, the Obama administration is now proposing a reduction of tax breaks for charitable giving by affluent Americans, potentially targeting faith based organizations and individuals.
On Tuesday, in what can only be characterized as another implement of Obama’s redistributionism, Timothy Geitner, the administration’s top money man, offered incoherent explanations to Congressional U.S. Budget committee members, on how hacking tax deductions for charitable giving by rich people would, somehow, benefit the poor in America.
America, and the committee, were left with more questions than answers from Geitner as he struggled through a slew of nuanced responses about how reducing incentives for affluent donors is actually not an attempt on the part of Obama to execute a secularist form of socialism.
According to Fox News poll, 50% of American's making $250,000 or more annually, say they would definitely give less to charity if the tax incentive to do so was reduced. That coming after 95% of charitable donors say their primary reason for giving to random charities is for tax reasons.
Ironically, Geitner was appointed to his position as the Secretary of Treasury, confirmed by the narrowest margin (60-34) of any appointee serving in the position since World War II, after being condemned for cheating on taxes himself, while his records of charitable giving have never been made public.
“Charity is just a way to get the economy moving again,” Geitner explained. He went on to describe how Obama’s tax policies are intended to benefit all citizens of America, not just those chosen by the affluent.
Americans give the largest proportions of their incomes to charity than any other nation in the world. Americans gave approximately 296 billion dollars in private donations last year.
Supporting this data, the Center for Civil Society Studies at Johns Hopkins Institute compiled donation data and ranked the private charitable giving of 36 countries from 1995 to 2002. Overall, based on giving alone, the U.S. population ranked first, giving 1.85% of its GDP, followed by Israel at 1.34% and Canada at 1.17%. 1
One irony among developed nations, those with higher taxes and bigger social safety nets, is that they tend to have lower rates of giving. Nations with life-long welfare systems rank very low on the list including Sweden (18th), France (21st), and Germany (32nd). 1
Obama intends to exploit that philanthropic spirit by burdening our desire to give to charity while assuming jurisdiction over the tax incentive for faith-based charities. This, he plans, will lift his political value in the world, in order that he may gain support and influence over America's resources.
Part 2: Obama’s Crusade Against Affluent Christians
Contributing to the ominous motives for Obama’s attack on charity is the fact that, of the nearly 300 billion dollars given by all private donors in America last year, nearly one half of that came in the form of private transactions from Christians giving through their respective faith-based institutions and churches.
Essentially, the amount of money transacting among the Christian community in America is equivalent to the national GDP of many countries in the world. Data shows that Christians give the highest percentage of their personal income, through the biblical practice of tithing, than any other faith based or religiously classified demographic in the world.
This reality adds to the level of Obama’s insidiousness when analyzing his political motives for changing the landscape of American charitable taxation. Christians possess the largest contingency of affluence, not only in America, but in the world, and, as such, are the biggest threat to Obama’s lust for power, challenging his jurisdiction over as much human and financial resources in America as possible. Most affluent, white Christians tend to vote along conservative, republican lines.
Obama’s rub being if he can’t have their vote, he’ll confiscate their money and use it to buy the votes of an effluent constituency.
By, maintaining a consistent “economy” of tax free contributions within the Christian community, people of faith sovereignly govern over the means, manner and reasons for distributing their financial resources throughout the local communities they serve. As a generality, most evangelical Christian organizations give a larger amount of resources to missionary services, faith based institutions and biblical education, primarily, through which need based services are provided.
It is falsely held by progressives that in order for the needy to receive charity from a church, they must first convert to that church’s religious doctrines, beliefs and behaviors. This is, of course, nonsense propagated by ignorant christaphobic liberals, and completely rails against any true understanding of the teachings of Jesus Christ.
The truth is that the charitable systems employed by the Christian church merely require that the government adheres to the 1st amendment and remain unabridging of any laws restricting the establishment of religion, including the right to implement resources, received through charity, according to its principles. Rich Christians have a right to give their money, in any amount they choose, to any charitable recipient. Their choice to give that money to their church is their right and the government violates the constitution when it hinders that transaction or disincentivizes it.
The fact that this tends to repel liberal society and challenge the evils of socialism says less about the fabled imposition of true Christianity, and more about the moral deficiencies of liberalism.
Faith based, particularly Christian, organizations maintain a healthy community fellowship which calls upon the individuals of its faith to be held to social and behavioral standards defined through biblical prescriptions which are reasonable for maintaining a civil society in general.
Apparently, decency is a direct affront to the liberal mindset. The idea of an affluent, Christian economic community moving in on his crusade makes Obama very uncomfortable. He understands the power Christian charity has in the eyes of underdeveloped societies, as well, and how that threatens his opportunity to be exalted as not only a domestic savior, but an international one too.
The Obama Administration has such a jealousy for keeping the poor dependent on their economic tokens, they will work to hinder charity from any affluent demographic of faith. Subsequently, Obama will maintain a vicious ambition to horde the political reward in fulfilling that dependency.
The main problem Obama has with tax free, Christian based charities is that Christians tend to give exclusively through their churches. And, in doing so, they effectively circumvent the Obama cabal’s control over a very large sum of financial resources that actually go directly to many community improvement efforts which Obama would rather have credit for implementing. Obama’s socialist tendencies, and his lust for power, make it very difficult for him, and his congressional minions, to accept the forfeiture of that control.
Obama is fully aware that a huge majority of the people who stand to be affected by his tax break reductions are those middle Americans who didn’t vote for him. As a matter of fact, estimates show about 90% – 95% of those who will be adversely affected by a charitable giving tax break reduction didn’t vote for Obama.
When Christians are asked what motivates them to give to charity, they cite several substantive reasons related to faith-based responsibility, biblical adherence and a sense of honorable duty to their community. All of which directly confront Obama’s authority and his premeditated desire to become America’s rescuer by implementing a contrived stratagem for the eventual confiscation, and secular redistribution, of America’s money and power.
The American people are the most giving society in human history. Obama intends to exploit that philanthropic spirit by burdening our desire to give to charity while assuming jurisdiction over the tax incentive for faith-based charities. This, he plans, will lift his political value in order that he may gain more power and influence over the greatest human resource in human history. American generosity.
1 “Who Gives The Most” By Elizabeth Eaves, FORBES.COM 12/26/08
....
As the democrats continue their assault on American capitalism, the Obama administration is now proposing a reduction of tax breaks for charitable giving by affluent Americans, potentially targeting faith based organizations and individuals.
On Tuesday, in what can only be characterized as another implement of Obama’s redistributionism, Timothy Geitner, the administration’s top money man, offered incoherent explanations to Congressional U.S. Budget committee members, on how hacking tax deductions for charitable giving by rich people would, somehow, benefit the poor in America.
America, and the committee, were left with more questions than answers from Geitner as he struggled through a slew of nuanced responses about how reducing incentives for affluent donors is actually not an attempt on the part of Obama to execute a secularist form of socialism.
According to Fox News poll, 50% of American's making $250,000 or more annually, say they would definitely give less to charity if the tax incentive to do so was reduced. That coming after 95% of charitable donors say their primary reason for giving to random charities is for tax reasons.
Ironically, Geitner was appointed to his position as the Secretary of Treasury, confirmed by the narrowest margin (60-34) of any appointee serving in the position since World War II, after being condemned for cheating on taxes himself, while his records of charitable giving have never been made public.
“Charity is just a way to get the economy moving again,” Geitner explained. He went on to describe how Obama’s tax policies are intended to benefit all citizens of America, not just those chosen by the affluent.
Americans give the largest proportions of their incomes to charity than any other nation in the world. Americans gave approximately 296 billion dollars in private donations last year.
Supporting this data, the Center for Civil Society Studies at Johns Hopkins Institute compiled donation data and ranked the private charitable giving of 36 countries from 1995 to 2002. Overall, based on giving alone, the U.S. population ranked first, giving 1.85% of its GDP, followed by Israel at 1.34% and Canada at 1.17%. 1
One irony among developed nations, those with higher taxes and bigger social safety nets, is that they tend to have lower rates of giving. Nations with life-long welfare systems rank very low on the list including Sweden (18th), France (21st), and Germany (32nd). 1
Obama intends to exploit that philanthropic spirit by burdening our desire to give to charity while assuming jurisdiction over the tax incentive for faith-based charities. This, he plans, will lift his political value in the world, in order that he may gain support and influence over America's resources.
Part 2: Obama’s Crusade Against Affluent Christians
Contributing to the ominous motives for Obama’s attack on charity is the fact that, of the nearly 300 billion dollars given by all private donors in America last year, nearly one half of that came in the form of private transactions from Christians giving through their respective faith-based institutions and churches.
Essentially, the amount of money transacting among the Christian community in America is equivalent to the national GDP of many countries in the world. Data shows that Christians give the highest percentage of their personal income, through the biblical practice of tithing, than any other faith based or religiously classified demographic in the world.
This reality adds to the level of Obama’s insidiousness when analyzing his political motives for changing the landscape of American charitable taxation. Christians possess the largest contingency of affluence, not only in America, but in the world, and, as such, are the biggest threat to Obama’s lust for power, challenging his jurisdiction over as much human and financial resources in America as possible. Most affluent, white Christians tend to vote along conservative, republican lines.
Obama’s rub being if he can’t have their vote, he’ll confiscate their money and use it to buy the votes of an effluent constituency.
By, maintaining a consistent “economy” of tax free contributions within the Christian community, people of faith sovereignly govern over the means, manner and reasons for distributing their financial resources throughout the local communities they serve. As a generality, most evangelical Christian organizations give a larger amount of resources to missionary services, faith based institutions and biblical education, primarily, through which need based services are provided.
It is falsely held by progressives that in order for the needy to receive charity from a church, they must first convert to that church’s religious doctrines, beliefs and behaviors. This is, of course, nonsense propagated by ignorant christaphobic liberals, and completely rails against any true understanding of the teachings of Jesus Christ.
The truth is that the charitable systems employed by the Christian church merely require that the government adheres to the 1st amendment and remain unabridging of any laws restricting the establishment of religion, including the right to implement resources, received through charity, according to its principles. Rich Christians have a right to give their money, in any amount they choose, to any charitable recipient. Their choice to give that money to their church is their right and the government violates the constitution when it hinders that transaction or disincentivizes it.
The fact that this tends to repel liberal society and challenge the evils of socialism says less about the fabled imposition of true Christianity, and more about the moral deficiencies of liberalism.
Faith based, particularly Christian, organizations maintain a healthy community fellowship which calls upon the individuals of its faith to be held to social and behavioral standards defined through biblical prescriptions which are reasonable for maintaining a civil society in general.
Apparently, decency is a direct affront to the liberal mindset. The idea of an affluent, Christian economic community moving in on his crusade makes Obama very uncomfortable. He understands the power Christian charity has in the eyes of underdeveloped societies, as well, and how that threatens his opportunity to be exalted as not only a domestic savior, but an international one too.
The Obama Administration has such a jealousy for keeping the poor dependent on their economic tokens, they will work to hinder charity from any affluent demographic of faith. Subsequently, Obama will maintain a vicious ambition to horde the political reward in fulfilling that dependency.
The main problem Obama has with tax free, Christian based charities is that Christians tend to give exclusively through their churches. And, in doing so, they effectively circumvent the Obama cabal’s control over a very large sum of financial resources that actually go directly to many community improvement efforts which Obama would rather have credit for implementing. Obama’s socialist tendencies, and his lust for power, make it very difficult for him, and his congressional minions, to accept the forfeiture of that control.
Obama is fully aware that a huge majority of the people who stand to be affected by his tax break reductions are those middle Americans who didn’t vote for him. As a matter of fact, estimates show about 90% – 95% of those who will be adversely affected by a charitable giving tax break reduction didn’t vote for Obama.
When Christians are asked what motivates them to give to charity, they cite several substantive reasons related to faith-based responsibility, biblical adherence and a sense of honorable duty to their community. All of which directly confront Obama’s authority and his premeditated desire to become America’s rescuer by implementing a contrived stratagem for the eventual confiscation, and secular redistribution, of America’s money and power.
The American people are the most giving society in human history. Obama intends to exploit that philanthropic spirit by burdening our desire to give to charity while assuming jurisdiction over the tax incentive for faith-based charities. This, he plans, will lift his political value in order that he may gain more power and influence over the greatest human resource in human history. American generosity.
1 “Who Gives The Most” By Elizabeth Eaves, FORBES.COM 12/26/08
....
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Obama Seeks Convenient Martyrdom
...
As the American financial markets continue to fail, Barack Obama remains steadfastly committed to remaking America in his liberal image by awarding companies for failure with tax funded bail outs, and implementing his redistributionist ideology.
Reacting to news that AIG, the worlds largest insurance company, will panhandle for its fourth welfare handout, the Dow dropped 340 points in two days. The largest drop since Barack Obama moved into the White House.
And, in what can only be described as a sign that the apocalypse is upon us, there is little outrage that Obama is giving our tax money away, like it was free, to rescue companies whose only reason for existing is to be rescuers and insurers of us. In effect, our tax money is being used to pay an insurance claim to prevent the loss of a company who has never paid a premium to the American tax payer.
Tell us again why we need a burden like AIG?
Overall, the American tax payers have been exploited for more than 1.7 Trillion dollars in corporate welfare, while the Dow Jones Index has lost 40 percent of its value, since Obama was ensconced as the commander-in-spender.
And, still, Obama has yet to tell the American people just how he plans to bail them out.
Instead, proclaiming all things resolvable by the mere farce of his installment as the new, shiny appliance on the hill, Obama continues to ignore the free-market protests while bragging to his conservative opponents that he has the ball on just the other side of the political 50 yard line.
Someone should probably remind him that the margin separating the popular consensus in America, along party lines, generally remains at mid field and that he is a long, long way from a touchdown.
And, the rest of the liberal establishment needs to be excoriated for premature celebration and reminded that they still have a long way to go before they actually get any points, let alone win the game.
Obama needs to understand in order to get credit for the solution, one must own the problem, which he has not done. The poser has yet to assume the position for which he was hewn. Or, does he think sleeping in the White House is the summation of his duties?
Of course, the political risk in taking responsibility also means he will have to accept exclusive responsibility for the potential failure. Unfortunately, Barack Obama doesn’t have the character for that.
Obama’s attempts at inclusion and bipartisanship are phony. He reaches across the isle with one hand, while he calls the current economic challenge an "inherited crisis". And while consoling the slobbering liberal masses with one face, he is compulsive to remind his opposition that our problems are already magically resolved simply on the grounds that he was awarded the “blue ribbon” for his stimulus pig, with the other.
“I won,” he says. As if taking credit for being elected by ashamed whites, racist minorities and psychotic Bush haters qualifies him to be an autocratic dispenser of America's treasure on behalf of the entire population of the United States.
Barack Obama is not that significant.
Playing the blame game, he is merely a "D List" celebrity posing as a figurehead. Obama is more motivated by the prospect of political exoneration when things go bad, allowing him to become the convenient martyr, than he is to solve real problems faced by far more authentic people than himself. By deceiving the public through gestures of bipartisanship and transparency, he hopes to hold the “I Gave You The Chance To Join Me” card when the cataclysm arrives.
By outwardly displaying to America a desire for inclusion with his opponents, he is premeditating his future through one of two possible results.
One, he has vested currency in a backlash. He hopes the American majority will exact retribution upon his political enemies for their rejection of his socialist ideology. After which he hopes to find himself in a no-lose situation where, if things completely collapse, he will cash in his “inheritance warranty” and place blame for our destruction on the previous administration.
On the other hand, if things improve, he will take all the credit and shed crocodile tears for the estranged right while writing is version of the parable of woes. His dramatic moment coming as rides a donkey amid the palms, bitterly weeping over the fate of his “friends”, the conservatives, lamenting that he did all he could to save them but that they just wouldn’t accept his sovereign salvation.
In reality, Barack Obama is a liar, and only interested in preserving his dream of worldwide liberal indoctrination while playing the victim of the “evil” conservative horde.
At the end of his historical failure, Obama, and the liberal establishment, will be forced to accept they will not be permitted to run roughshod across the will of vintage America. Otherwise, they will only be cast into political orphanry with the rest of history's moral indigents.
In the long run, as has been the truth throughout the history of this great nation, the principles governing our lives as American’s reside in the character and faith developed through Judeo-Christian values and a reverence for a power greater than ourselves. It is through the wounds of our fathers, the loss of our brothers, the tears of our mothers and sisters, that we proclaim the authenticity of America.
Our dominance, power, honorability and blessings come through the standards of decency, generosity and sacrifice that been handed down to a diminishing few in each successive generation.
Most importantly, it is upon this understanding that we submit our lives to trustworthy leadership and a governance far more qualified than the current intruder pretends to be.
Barack Obama is the first president in American history serving illegitimately under blatant questions doubting his identity, his character, his origins, his beliefs, his associations and, most importantly, his ominous intentions for the people of this nation.
And, no one of consequence seems capable of stopping the invasion.
As the American financial markets continue to fail, Barack Obama remains steadfastly committed to remaking America in his liberal image by awarding companies for failure with tax funded bail outs, and implementing his redistributionist ideology.
Reacting to news that AIG, the worlds largest insurance company, will panhandle for its fourth welfare handout, the Dow dropped 340 points in two days. The largest drop since Barack Obama moved into the White House.
And, in what can only be described as a sign that the apocalypse is upon us, there is little outrage that Obama is giving our tax money away, like it was free, to rescue companies whose only reason for existing is to be rescuers and insurers of us. In effect, our tax money is being used to pay an insurance claim to prevent the loss of a company who has never paid a premium to the American tax payer.
Tell us again why we need a burden like AIG?
Overall, the American tax payers have been exploited for more than 1.7 Trillion dollars in corporate welfare, while the Dow Jones Index has lost 40 percent of its value, since Obama was ensconced as the commander-in-spender.
And, still, Obama has yet to tell the American people just how he plans to bail them out.
Instead, proclaiming all things resolvable by the mere farce of his installment as the new, shiny appliance on the hill, Obama continues to ignore the free-market protests while bragging to his conservative opponents that he has the ball on just the other side of the political 50 yard line.
Someone should probably remind him that the margin separating the popular consensus in America, along party lines, generally remains at mid field and that he is a long, long way from a touchdown.
And, the rest of the liberal establishment needs to be excoriated for premature celebration and reminded that they still have a long way to go before they actually get any points, let alone win the game.
Obama needs to understand in order to get credit for the solution, one must own the problem, which he has not done. The poser has yet to assume the position for which he was hewn. Or, does he think sleeping in the White House is the summation of his duties?
Of course, the political risk in taking responsibility also means he will have to accept exclusive responsibility for the potential failure. Unfortunately, Barack Obama doesn’t have the character for that.
Obama’s attempts at inclusion and bipartisanship are phony. He reaches across the isle with one hand, while he calls the current economic challenge an "inherited crisis". And while consoling the slobbering liberal masses with one face, he is compulsive to remind his opposition that our problems are already magically resolved simply on the grounds that he was awarded the “blue ribbon” for his stimulus pig, with the other.
“I won,” he says. As if taking credit for being elected by ashamed whites, racist minorities and psychotic Bush haters qualifies him to be an autocratic dispenser of America's treasure on behalf of the entire population of the United States.
Barack Obama is not that significant.
Playing the blame game, he is merely a "D List" celebrity posing as a figurehead. Obama is more motivated by the prospect of political exoneration when things go bad, allowing him to become the convenient martyr, than he is to solve real problems faced by far more authentic people than himself. By deceiving the public through gestures of bipartisanship and transparency, he hopes to hold the “I Gave You The Chance To Join Me” card when the cataclysm arrives.
By outwardly displaying to America a desire for inclusion with his opponents, he is premeditating his future through one of two possible results.
One, he has vested currency in a backlash. He hopes the American majority will exact retribution upon his political enemies for their rejection of his socialist ideology. After which he hopes to find himself in a no-lose situation where, if things completely collapse, he will cash in his “inheritance warranty” and place blame for our destruction on the previous administration.
On the other hand, if things improve, he will take all the credit and shed crocodile tears for the estranged right while writing is version of the parable of woes. His dramatic moment coming as rides a donkey amid the palms, bitterly weeping over the fate of his “friends”, the conservatives, lamenting that he did all he could to save them but that they just wouldn’t accept his sovereign salvation.
In reality, Barack Obama is a liar, and only interested in preserving his dream of worldwide liberal indoctrination while playing the victim of the “evil” conservative horde.
At the end of his historical failure, Obama, and the liberal establishment, will be forced to accept they will not be permitted to run roughshod across the will of vintage America. Otherwise, they will only be cast into political orphanry with the rest of history's moral indigents.
In the long run, as has been the truth throughout the history of this great nation, the principles governing our lives as American’s reside in the character and faith developed through Judeo-Christian values and a reverence for a power greater than ourselves. It is through the wounds of our fathers, the loss of our brothers, the tears of our mothers and sisters, that we proclaim the authenticity of America.
Our dominance, power, honorability and blessings come through the standards of decency, generosity and sacrifice that been handed down to a diminishing few in each successive generation.
Most importantly, it is upon this understanding that we submit our lives to trustworthy leadership and a governance far more qualified than the current intruder pretends to be.
Barack Obama is the first president in American history serving illegitimately under blatant questions doubting his identity, his character, his origins, his beliefs, his associations and, most importantly, his ominous intentions for the people of this nation.
And, no one of consequence seems capable of stopping the invasion.
Monday, March 2, 2009
The Mombosan Son: Obama's Sinister Game
...
“The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.”
Prior to the installment of Obama, good men and women of the greatest generation, those of the Depression Era who fought during World War II, made a commitment to freedom through an understanding and reverence for the actual price of peace. And, in doing so, made themselves dangerous to inferior characters, like Barack Obama, who are obstinately committed to the “remaking of America”, as he so stated in his Inaugural Address, through the destruction of its true ideals and reinterpreted permissions for constitutionally distorted abjection.
Of course, Obama has help. The American media complex has become the juggernaut of misinformation that we all feared it might. Simply remaining silent about 800,000 pound gorillas, or disparaging anyone with the courage to challenge the socialist views of their rogue manservant, are just a few of the methods of torture used by the panderers of liberal slag.
We should mourn the end of our grand old age. The new liberal is one who has taken pains to disguise the intended purpose of our republic’s originators by mystifying their pristine message, mixing lies with half truths, while repackaging the American Constitution as a meaningless document haphazardly concocted by racists and expatriated, old white men.
Their default nature is to work toward this end through hate-driven reneging of policy previously constructed on traditional Judeo-Christian principles, or conservatism. They are simply motivated to act in accordance with their wretched politics for the benefit, attainment and maintenance of power over the people of America, who are the advanced citizenry of humanity.
From the first moment we saw the newly embedded Barrack Hussein Obama, we knew he was trying to get away with something untoward. His elevated demeanor and extravagant language was contrived. His polished delivery was compensation for intrinsic deficiencies of character and a marked absence of honesty.
And, yet, still, against the sky line from Grant Park, as the cold Chicago wind began to freeze Oprah’s tear-ridden cheeks, Obama was frighteningly sincere in his expository glorification of subject matter he was lying about.
The most significant thing that bothers decent people about Barrack Obama is that there is nothing particularly honorable about the man. What grand, selfless statement has he made in his life demonstrating appreciation for the privileges and opportunities blessed upon him since he was deposited in America?
He possesses little more than education, which he came by with the provision of a welcoming society, vastly completed and sealed by our worthier path makers, long before his manifestation to take advantage of it.
His obvious capacity for language and verbal delivery might serve him well if he were say, the son of Ronald Reagan, or Abe Lincoln, rather than the socially illegitimate reproductive consequence of a dead-beat African descendent and an indescretionate pubescent mother, less embroiled in controversy over his personal datum.
But, because of his covert nature and black-ops approach in obtaining his current notoriety, we have more questions about him than confidence in him.
Upon the evidence submitted by America's shortsighted elective consensus, if we are indeed going to establish something as shallow as his demographic profile as a justification for honoring extraordinary achievement and so-called honorability, as opposed to any reason why we should all passively receive some other man, we might be more intrigued by the lives of men like Michael Anderson or Dr. Ron McNair, Ph.D., than Barrack Obama. McNair and Anderson are two black men who gave their lives in the course of service to our nation, as astronauts during the Columbia and Challenger NASA Shuttle missions, respectively.
These heroic men serve America far better with their example of leadership, life application and selfless sacrifice than that of coat-tail riding politicians and idea peddlers.
On the disdainful question of race, ironically, and completely contrary to what the mainstream media lusts for you to believe, it remains a teeth-gnashing reality for pro-reparation punditry that Obama’s success is not the result of his black heritage, but rather the result of being rejected by it. In this case, it seems, the absence of a father actually promoted Obama rather than hindered him.
This is a tough pill to swallow for the radical leftists because it remains the demographic qualities afforded by race that fuel their delusion of reparative justice.
With regard to the issue of Obama's vital records, containing information about his citizenship, natural born status, immigration status, education, voting records, we are all left stranded in the dark. But, what rights to privacy and protection do we have when we’ve been robbed of our eligible leaders, their candidacy tossed aside by the illegal defiance of absurd social engineering?
What right to privacy, through censorship of the public's rightful requests, permits the removal of fundamental power from the hands the American people and validates the ascendency of puppet candidates in the United States?
It is widely held that that the office of the president is greater than the individual who serves in it. Whereas this applies to anyone desiring to become more important than the position, it is, however, possible for an individual to diminish the effectiveness and credibility of the position.
When the office is not sought for honorable reasons, and fulfilled as such, then it diminishes the honorability of the office. If a lawbreaker is elected while he conceals his criminality from those who elect him, the election process itself is not held in contempt. The man is. And if he assumes the position for which he was mis-elected, and is allowed to serve as president even after those who support him have knowledge of his wrongdoing, the ramifications of his offense will have tragic consequences to the identity and integrity of national public service policy. Not to mention the credibility of the office of the president is compromised, internationally.
And, so, we find ourselves amidst a leadership conglomeration of the politically and morally desolate. A desolation that has wrought itself so discriminately from the despotic left, that we scarcely recognize any characteristics of decency in their modern purpose.
Their derelict offenses on American society are the result of politically driven, hysterical blindness and ideological hate for anything or anyone contending their dissonant ignorance.
Liberals in America today don’t have the first clue about how or what to prioritize as a matter of national interests and security. Their servitude to politics over common decency or the alleviation of real suffering will always take precedence upon the liberal docket.
Suddenly, we are imposed upon by their annointed deceiver. The only evidence of his existence and intentions come to us after it has been strained and contrived through a chain of possession and manipulators of interpretation. We only see the shiny, jewel-laden cloak, as the reprobation is subdued, and the vile cause is hastened that they might assume jurisdiction over the minds and bodies of a bowing consensus.
Against decent people, he now stands as a requisite tool possessing the characteristics endowed to him by invisible forces, constructing doctrinal architecture with insidious justifications, lost in ideology, and implementing damnable, desolate politics which will eventually serve the destruction of everything our father's suffered to realize.
“The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.”
Prior to the installment of Obama, good men and women of the greatest generation, those of the Depression Era who fought during World War II, made a commitment to freedom through an understanding and reverence for the actual price of peace. And, in doing so, made themselves dangerous to inferior characters, like Barack Obama, who are obstinately committed to the “remaking of America”, as he so stated in his Inaugural Address, through the destruction of its true ideals and reinterpreted permissions for constitutionally distorted abjection.
Of course, Obama has help. The American media complex has become the juggernaut of misinformation that we all feared it might. Simply remaining silent about 800,000 pound gorillas, or disparaging anyone with the courage to challenge the socialist views of their rogue manservant, are just a few of the methods of torture used by the panderers of liberal slag.
We should mourn the end of our grand old age. The new liberal is one who has taken pains to disguise the intended purpose of our republic’s originators by mystifying their pristine message, mixing lies with half truths, while repackaging the American Constitution as a meaningless document haphazardly concocted by racists and expatriated, old white men.
Their default nature is to work toward this end through hate-driven reneging of policy previously constructed on traditional Judeo-Christian principles, or conservatism. They are simply motivated to act in accordance with their wretched politics for the benefit, attainment and maintenance of power over the people of America, who are the advanced citizenry of humanity.
From the first moment we saw the newly embedded Barrack Hussein Obama, we knew he was trying to get away with something untoward. His elevated demeanor and extravagant language was contrived. His polished delivery was compensation for intrinsic deficiencies of character and a marked absence of honesty.
And, yet, still, against the sky line from Grant Park, as the cold Chicago wind began to freeze Oprah’s tear-ridden cheeks, Obama was frighteningly sincere in his expository glorification of subject matter he was lying about.
The most significant thing that bothers decent people about Barrack Obama is that there is nothing particularly honorable about the man. What grand, selfless statement has he made in his life demonstrating appreciation for the privileges and opportunities blessed upon him since he was deposited in America?
He possesses little more than education, which he came by with the provision of a welcoming society, vastly completed and sealed by our worthier path makers, long before his manifestation to take advantage of it.
His obvious capacity for language and verbal delivery might serve him well if he were say, the son of Ronald Reagan, or Abe Lincoln, rather than the socially illegitimate reproductive consequence of a dead-beat African descendent and an indescretionate pubescent mother, less embroiled in controversy over his personal datum.
But, because of his covert nature and black-ops approach in obtaining his current notoriety, we have more questions about him than confidence in him.
Upon the evidence submitted by America's shortsighted elective consensus, if we are indeed going to establish something as shallow as his demographic profile as a justification for honoring extraordinary achievement and so-called honorability, as opposed to any reason why we should all passively receive some other man, we might be more intrigued by the lives of men like Michael Anderson or Dr. Ron McNair, Ph.D., than Barrack Obama. McNair and Anderson are two black men who gave their lives in the course of service to our nation, as astronauts during the Columbia and Challenger NASA Shuttle missions, respectively.
These heroic men serve America far better with their example of leadership, life application and selfless sacrifice than that of coat-tail riding politicians and idea peddlers.
On the disdainful question of race, ironically, and completely contrary to what the mainstream media lusts for you to believe, it remains a teeth-gnashing reality for pro-reparation punditry that Obama’s success is not the result of his black heritage, but rather the result of being rejected by it. In this case, it seems, the absence of a father actually promoted Obama rather than hindered him.
This is a tough pill to swallow for the radical leftists because it remains the demographic qualities afforded by race that fuel their delusion of reparative justice.
With regard to the issue of Obama's vital records, containing information about his citizenship, natural born status, immigration status, education, voting records, we are all left stranded in the dark. But, what rights to privacy and protection do we have when we’ve been robbed of our eligible leaders, their candidacy tossed aside by the illegal defiance of absurd social engineering?
What right to privacy, through censorship of the public's rightful requests, permits the removal of fundamental power from the hands the American people and validates the ascendency of puppet candidates in the United States?
It is widely held that that the office of the president is greater than the individual who serves in it. Whereas this applies to anyone desiring to become more important than the position, it is, however, possible for an individual to diminish the effectiveness and credibility of the position.
When the office is not sought for honorable reasons, and fulfilled as such, then it diminishes the honorability of the office. If a lawbreaker is elected while he conceals his criminality from those who elect him, the election process itself is not held in contempt. The man is. And if he assumes the position for which he was mis-elected, and is allowed to serve as president even after those who support him have knowledge of his wrongdoing, the ramifications of his offense will have tragic consequences to the identity and integrity of national public service policy. Not to mention the credibility of the office of the president is compromised, internationally.
And, so, we find ourselves amidst a leadership conglomeration of the politically and morally desolate. A desolation that has wrought itself so discriminately from the despotic left, that we scarcely recognize any characteristics of decency in their modern purpose.
Their derelict offenses on American society are the result of politically driven, hysterical blindness and ideological hate for anything or anyone contending their dissonant ignorance.
Liberals in America today don’t have the first clue about how or what to prioritize as a matter of national interests and security. Their servitude to politics over common decency or the alleviation of real suffering will always take precedence upon the liberal docket.
Suddenly, we are imposed upon by their annointed deceiver. The only evidence of his existence and intentions come to us after it has been strained and contrived through a chain of possession and manipulators of interpretation. We only see the shiny, jewel-laden cloak, as the reprobation is subdued, and the vile cause is hastened that they might assume jurisdiction over the minds and bodies of a bowing consensus.
Against decent people, he now stands as a requisite tool possessing the characteristics endowed to him by invisible forces, constructing doctrinal architecture with insidious justifications, lost in ideology, and implementing damnable, desolate politics which will eventually serve the destruction of everything our father's suffered to realize.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Officials Refuse To Answer Questions About Obama's Place Of Birth
.
March 2, 2009 - Requests for Barack Obama’s original long form birth certificate continue to intensify, despite the liberal propogandist's attempts to desperately confine the issue to political fringeness.
It is estimated that 2.8 million Americans have requested information about obtaining verifiable records on Barack Obama, and that new requests are being made at an alarming rate, increasing from an average of 4000 per week January, to an average of 12,000 per week in February.
Nearly 5000 new requests have been received this month (as of March 2nd) by the Hawaiian Deparment of Health and the U.S. Immigration And Naturalization Service.
Hawaiian Dept. of Health Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, stated, "There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (HRS §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.”
Fukino said she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, personally verified that the Department of Health holds Obama's original birth certificate, but did not say what medical facility, or country, the authentic birth certificate was issued from, or that it was originally issued, transferred or transposed to the State of Hawaii Department of Health.
However, neither Fukino or Onaka verified to The Daily Pen that Obama was born in Hawaii. Only that the birth certificate they have on file is authentic. Unfortunately, the Hawaiian Department of Health's verification of authenticity does nothing to confirm the actual content of the document. Saying that the Obama Birth Certificate they have on file is authentic is like saying that a photograph of Area 51 is authentic.
Of course, the record is authentic, but, it does little to reveal the detail and relevance of the information in it.
The Daily Pen recently sent an email request to the Office Of Medical Services at the Kenyan Ministry of Health in Nairobi asking about their policy for transferring records and vital statistics, internationally. A spokesperson for Dr. Francis Kimani, Administrative Director, stated that the Ministry of Health does provide original, authentic birth certificates, for Kenyan born citizens, to the United States, and other countries, upon official request. And, that it would be possible to have a birth certificate for someone born in Kenya transferred to the state of Hawaii and for that birth certificate to be certified as authentic.
When asked if the original birth certificate they have on file for Obama at the Hawaii Dept. of Health was delivered to them from another country, Fukino refused to answer the question, but went on to provide a copy of a previous, yet irrelevant, statement, "Therefore, I, as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics, who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."
When asked to describe what the state policies and procedures were in the case of an international transference of a foriegn born person's birth certificate, she refused. She did not confirm or deny the content of the certificate, thus leaving open the possibility that the birth certificate possessed by the State of Hawaii may indeed have been transferred from the Kenyan Ministry of Health.
Although Fukino said that no state official, including Govenor Linda Lingle, ever instructed that Obama's original, authentic, Birth certificate be handled differently from any other, there was not a confirmation that any information provided in the birth certificate held by the State of Hawaii actually contained information confirming the place of birth for Barack Obama as being the state of Hawaii.
And, the lawsuits asking for disclosure from Obama will most likely continue until this information is confirmed.
March 2, 2009 - Requests for Barack Obama’s original long form birth certificate continue to intensify, despite the liberal propogandist's attempts to desperately confine the issue to political fringeness.
It is estimated that 2.8 million Americans have requested information about obtaining verifiable records on Barack Obama, and that new requests are being made at an alarming rate, increasing from an average of 4000 per week January, to an average of 12,000 per week in February.
Nearly 5000 new requests have been received this month (as of March 2nd) by the Hawaiian Deparment of Health and the U.S. Immigration And Naturalization Service.
Hawaiian Dept. of Health Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, stated, "There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (HRS §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.”
Fukino said she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, personally verified that the Department of Health holds Obama's original birth certificate, but did not say what medical facility, or country, the authentic birth certificate was issued from, or that it was originally issued, transferred or transposed to the State of Hawaii Department of Health.
However, neither Fukino or Onaka verified to The Daily Pen that Obama was born in Hawaii. Only that the birth certificate they have on file is authentic. Unfortunately, the Hawaiian Department of Health's verification of authenticity does nothing to confirm the actual content of the document. Saying that the Obama Birth Certificate they have on file is authentic is like saying that a photograph of Area 51 is authentic.
Of course, the record is authentic, but, it does little to reveal the detail and relevance of the information in it.
The Daily Pen recently sent an email request to the Office Of Medical Services at the Kenyan Ministry of Health in Nairobi asking about their policy for transferring records and vital statistics, internationally. A spokesperson for Dr. Francis Kimani, Administrative Director, stated that the Ministry of Health does provide original, authentic birth certificates, for Kenyan born citizens, to the United States, and other countries, upon official request. And, that it would be possible to have a birth certificate for someone born in Kenya transferred to the state of Hawaii and for that birth certificate to be certified as authentic.
When asked if the original birth certificate they have on file for Obama at the Hawaii Dept. of Health was delivered to them from another country, Fukino refused to answer the question, but went on to provide a copy of a previous, yet irrelevant, statement, "Therefore, I, as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics, who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."
When asked to describe what the state policies and procedures were in the case of an international transference of a foriegn born person's birth certificate, she refused. She did not confirm or deny the content of the certificate, thus leaving open the possibility that the birth certificate possessed by the State of Hawaii may indeed have been transferred from the Kenyan Ministry of Health.
Although Fukino said that no state official, including Govenor Linda Lingle, ever instructed that Obama's original, authentic, Birth certificate be handled differently from any other, there was not a confirmation that any information provided in the birth certificate held by the State of Hawaii actually contained information confirming the place of birth for Barack Obama as being the state of Hawaii.
And, the lawsuits asking for disclosure from Obama will most likely continue until this information is confirmed.
Identity Theft: Obama's Birth Place Is The Least Of His Eligibility Problems
.......
Is eligibility to serve as president a birthright? Since the American Constitution, in the interest of protecting our national soveriegnty, prescribes that a president must be a "natural born citizen", apparently it is a right of birth, or at least, legally, of birth place.
The AOL news headline today is, “Obama Rumor Just Won’t Die”, in reference to the ongoing, persistent and justified questions regarding the man’s constitutional eligibility to serve as president of the U.S.
The matter remains legitimate because it rests at the very heart of America's essence with regard to it's true identity and it's constitutional authenticity. If our leaders can remain anonymous under legitimate scrutiny, how can we rely on them to defend us against our enemies and domestic tyranny? No real American, having served honorably in our military or in civil service, would ever honestly commit to service with a man like Obama. He is far too concealed to be trustworthy.
Despite the fact that many liberals would desire for the world to believe that the Constitution was written by old, expatriated, racist white men, the truth remains that our nation's identity is built upon our citizen's service and adherence to it's laws. And, tragically, what message does it send to the citizens of a nation when the elected officials violate the same laws they pretend to uphold?
The word you are looking for is, "Despotic".
The AOL story goes on, in dank liberal form, to paint the entire affair as a conspiracy theory propelled by the fringes of the conservative anti-Obama right. As though legitimate matters of Constitutional Law morally equate to a search for Bigfoot.
Only in the liberal mind could such absurd dissonance exist.
As insulting as the liberal media is to the intelligence of America, they remain secretly desperate to aid Obama’s covert leadership and help him conceal the unthinkable possibility of his “otherness”, and the resulting Constitutional crisis it will create.
Many rightly presume the probable impact on Constitutional integrity is the reason Obama, the mainstream media, including even Fox News, remains so unresponsive, if not outright secretive, about his actual identity.
The stick in the liberal craw, however, is that this man may indeed not actually be a natural born citizen, as defined by the commonly accepted interpretations of Constitutional Law, compliant with the factual history of previous American President's natural born status.
The questions are easy to answer. That is why the issue rings so loudly in the minds of vintage America. The answers to the basic questions are not as obscure as sasquatch, or the existence of the lost city of Atlantis. The questions are answerable with a phone call.
Therefore, the effort and resources employed by Obama to keep these records concealed is disproportionate with the plausible consequence of revealing what he claims they contain. A confirmation of his eligibility to serve as president.
Obama spent 2 weeks in Hawaii in September. Long before this issue became malignant.
Obama is so brazened in his ploy to conceal these records, he has even abandoned his liberal constituency by imposing complete information "black out" about the issue. Sadly, instead of being allowed to confirm Obama's true identity themselves, they are forced to trust the unreliable leftist propogandists of the Annenburg Foundation, Politico.com, the Daily Kos, the New York Times and the Huffington Post, all of whom probably know less than they do, as their sources. And, that’s a pretty pathetic lineup if objective, fact-finding, journalistic research is your interest.
Also, the hilarity in this, as with every other blind Obama sympathizer’s attempt to excuse away the facts, is that, despite irrefutable reality, this man has never actually produced any verifiable evidence to counter the facts of the conservative presumption. They simply claim that the presentation of liberal sympathizers are adequate for enthroning Obama.
And, after the debacle that resulted from the Supreme Court's involvment in election issues in 2000, the SCOTUS judges have suddenly become convenient cowards in response the matter of Obama's constitutional eligibility. Once again, they are derelict in their duty as interpreters of the law, when it is most needed. Yet, they seem ambitiously able to legislate matters outside of their jurisdiction when it agrees with their political views and moral ineptitude.
Regardless of the actual mysterious truth, Obama has submitted no confirmed record of birthplace, only a scanned image of a possibly forged Certificate Of Live Birth, which, as the State of Hawaii statutes prescribe, may be issued in any case where a living child is presented to the office of the Hawaiian Department of Health, regardless of the their actual place of birth anywhere in the world.
The scanned, altered image of the Certificate Of Live Birth presented on the Daily Kos was a complete hoax. And, a badly contrived one, at that.
The AOL story also falsely states, “For the record, officials in Hawaii declared last October that there was no doubt Obama was born in the state. Officials verified that the health department holds the commander in chief's original birth certificate.”
This is a lie. The first sentence of this account is outright deceitful, while the second sentence is erroneous by omission.
No official working for the state of Hawaii has ever provided official confirmation that Obama’s Birth Certificate states that he was born in Hawaii. To the contrary, the State of Hawaii did NOT confirm Obama’s place of birth, but instead, the Department of Health’s Director stated, without any notarization, that the “birth certificate of Mr. Obama, on file with the state of Hawaii is an authentic document.”
The Obama Birth Certificate may indeed be authentic. An authentic Birth Certificate from another country.
The statement pronounced no such evidence if his birth within the state of Hawaii, only that the Birth Certificate on file, probably issued from Kenya, was delivered to the state of Hawaii and thus sealed and filed accordingly.
This, as well as many leftist’s desperate attempts, continue to fail miserably in their blatant campaign to distract the American public from the facts that Obama, whether or not a natural born citizen, has never provided verifiable, official documents in support of his claims of eligibility. And, that is a perfected conviction founded in undeniable truth.
The liberal attempt to cull this issue under the categories of UFO theorists and witchery is amusing as it is absurd. And it is a complete rendition fabricated through their degenerate lust for all things Obama.
As Obama proceeds through his first term as America’s first pretend president, the fact that this matter continues to gather interest, even from Obama defenders, is startling. One would think that something so “ridiculous”, as it is characterized by probamates, would be disregarded. But, on the contrary, it has gained momentum. Exponentially.
If this were indeed a fringe conspiracy theory concocted by conservative zealots then why does poll after poll find that nearly 50% of all equally mannered American’s continue to have doubts about this man’s identity? And, nearly 47% of internet savvy Americans believe this issue will actually come back around to harm Obama’s presidency, eventually.
And, what’s more, why does the liberal media complex continue to give attention to the issue?
AOL, and the liberal media should spend more time prompting Mr. Obama to make his identity public, instead of allowing him to walk between the inquisitive rain-drops of authentic Americans. Perhaps, if this pretender were actually “transparent” instead of just a hypocritical manservant of the liberal establishment, he might actually gain some respect and support from those offended by his dishonesty.
Mr. Obama has three options.
One, he will simply continue through his presidency under the justified accusations that he is usurper, and a political infidel without ever showing any verifiable, official documentation about his identity. With this choice, he will complete his presidency without ever having the fullness of credibility that he probably deserves, or the respect of the most American’s possible. America is, predominately, a respectful nation. We may not agree with some politics, but we know a real person when we see them. Obama is not a real person to America right now.
Second, he can sack up and throw down the gauntlet this official identity records and let the chips fall where they may. Just provide the exonerating records and move on. Doing so would end this inquisition and instill America’s confidence. It would help the democrat party’s future and end the doubts about Obama’s eligibility. America is pretty fair minded. Despite being constitutionally ineligible, or worse, an illegal alien, Mr. Obama might find forgiveness in the liberally dominated justice system and he will be allowed to serve out his term as an elected official pro tem. I think we could manage to allow him that given the crisis that would need to be averted.
Third, he can surrender and resign. That’s not going to happen, so it looks like he has two options.
Then again, you never know what choice the fringe might make, either.
Is eligibility to serve as president a birthright? Since the American Constitution, in the interest of protecting our national soveriegnty, prescribes that a president must be a "natural born citizen", apparently it is a right of birth, or at least, legally, of birth place.
The AOL news headline today is, “Obama Rumor Just Won’t Die”, in reference to the ongoing, persistent and justified questions regarding the man’s constitutional eligibility to serve as president of the U.S.
The matter remains legitimate because it rests at the very heart of America's essence with regard to it's true identity and it's constitutional authenticity. If our leaders can remain anonymous under legitimate scrutiny, how can we rely on them to defend us against our enemies and domestic tyranny? No real American, having served honorably in our military or in civil service, would ever honestly commit to service with a man like Obama. He is far too concealed to be trustworthy.
Despite the fact that many liberals would desire for the world to believe that the Constitution was written by old, expatriated, racist white men, the truth remains that our nation's identity is built upon our citizen's service and adherence to it's laws. And, tragically, what message does it send to the citizens of a nation when the elected officials violate the same laws they pretend to uphold?
The word you are looking for is, "Despotic".
The AOL story goes on, in dank liberal form, to paint the entire affair as a conspiracy theory propelled by the fringes of the conservative anti-Obama right. As though legitimate matters of Constitutional Law morally equate to a search for Bigfoot.
Only in the liberal mind could such absurd dissonance exist.
As insulting as the liberal media is to the intelligence of America, they remain secretly desperate to aid Obama’s covert leadership and help him conceal the unthinkable possibility of his “otherness”, and the resulting Constitutional crisis it will create.
Many rightly presume the probable impact on Constitutional integrity is the reason Obama, the mainstream media, including even Fox News, remains so unresponsive, if not outright secretive, about his actual identity.
The stick in the liberal craw, however, is that this man may indeed not actually be a natural born citizen, as defined by the commonly accepted interpretations of Constitutional Law, compliant with the factual history of previous American President's natural born status.
The questions are easy to answer. That is why the issue rings so loudly in the minds of vintage America. The answers to the basic questions are not as obscure as sasquatch, or the existence of the lost city of Atlantis. The questions are answerable with a phone call.
Therefore, the effort and resources employed by Obama to keep these records concealed is disproportionate with the plausible consequence of revealing what he claims they contain. A confirmation of his eligibility to serve as president.
Obama spent 2 weeks in Hawaii in September. Long before this issue became malignant.
Obama is so brazened in his ploy to conceal these records, he has even abandoned his liberal constituency by imposing complete information "black out" about the issue. Sadly, instead of being allowed to confirm Obama's true identity themselves, they are forced to trust the unreliable leftist propogandists of the Annenburg Foundation, Politico.com, the Daily Kos, the New York Times and the Huffington Post, all of whom probably know less than they do, as their sources. And, that’s a pretty pathetic lineup if objective, fact-finding, journalistic research is your interest.
Also, the hilarity in this, as with every other blind Obama sympathizer’s attempt to excuse away the facts, is that, despite irrefutable reality, this man has never actually produced any verifiable evidence to counter the facts of the conservative presumption. They simply claim that the presentation of liberal sympathizers are adequate for enthroning Obama.
And, after the debacle that resulted from the Supreme Court's involvment in election issues in 2000, the SCOTUS judges have suddenly become convenient cowards in response the matter of Obama's constitutional eligibility. Once again, they are derelict in their duty as interpreters of the law, when it is most needed. Yet, they seem ambitiously able to legislate matters outside of their jurisdiction when it agrees with their political views and moral ineptitude.
Regardless of the actual mysterious truth, Obama has submitted no confirmed record of birthplace, only a scanned image of a possibly forged Certificate Of Live Birth, which, as the State of Hawaii statutes prescribe, may be issued in any case where a living child is presented to the office of the Hawaiian Department of Health, regardless of the their actual place of birth anywhere in the world.
The scanned, altered image of the Certificate Of Live Birth presented on the Daily Kos was a complete hoax. And, a badly contrived one, at that.
The AOL story also falsely states, “For the record, officials in Hawaii declared last October that there was no doubt Obama was born in the state. Officials verified that the health department holds the commander in chief's original birth certificate.”
This is a lie. The first sentence of this account is outright deceitful, while the second sentence is erroneous by omission.
No official working for the state of Hawaii has ever provided official confirmation that Obama’s Birth Certificate states that he was born in Hawaii. To the contrary, the State of Hawaii did NOT confirm Obama’s place of birth, but instead, the Department of Health’s Director stated, without any notarization, that the “birth certificate of Mr. Obama, on file with the state of Hawaii is an authentic document.”
The Obama Birth Certificate may indeed be authentic. An authentic Birth Certificate from another country.
The statement pronounced no such evidence if his birth within the state of Hawaii, only that the Birth Certificate on file, probably issued from Kenya, was delivered to the state of Hawaii and thus sealed and filed accordingly.
This, as well as many leftist’s desperate attempts, continue to fail miserably in their blatant campaign to distract the American public from the facts that Obama, whether or not a natural born citizen, has never provided verifiable, official documents in support of his claims of eligibility. And, that is a perfected conviction founded in undeniable truth.
The liberal attempt to cull this issue under the categories of UFO theorists and witchery is amusing as it is absurd. And it is a complete rendition fabricated through their degenerate lust for all things Obama.
As Obama proceeds through his first term as America’s first pretend president, the fact that this matter continues to gather interest, even from Obama defenders, is startling. One would think that something so “ridiculous”, as it is characterized by probamates, would be disregarded. But, on the contrary, it has gained momentum. Exponentially.
If this were indeed a fringe conspiracy theory concocted by conservative zealots then why does poll after poll find that nearly 50% of all equally mannered American’s continue to have doubts about this man’s identity? And, nearly 47% of internet savvy Americans believe this issue will actually come back around to harm Obama’s presidency, eventually.
And, what’s more, why does the liberal media complex continue to give attention to the issue?
AOL, and the liberal media should spend more time prompting Mr. Obama to make his identity public, instead of allowing him to walk between the inquisitive rain-drops of authentic Americans. Perhaps, if this pretender were actually “transparent” instead of just a hypocritical manservant of the liberal establishment, he might actually gain some respect and support from those offended by his dishonesty.
Mr. Obama has three options.
One, he will simply continue through his presidency under the justified accusations that he is usurper, and a political infidel without ever showing any verifiable, official documentation about his identity. With this choice, he will complete his presidency without ever having the fullness of credibility that he probably deserves, or the respect of the most American’s possible. America is, predominately, a respectful nation. We may not agree with some politics, but we know a real person when we see them. Obama is not a real person to America right now.
Second, he can sack up and throw down the gauntlet this official identity records and let the chips fall where they may. Just provide the exonerating records and move on. Doing so would end this inquisition and instill America’s confidence. It would help the democrat party’s future and end the doubts about Obama’s eligibility. America is pretty fair minded. Despite being constitutionally ineligible, or worse, an illegal alien, Mr. Obama might find forgiveness in the liberally dominated justice system and he will be allowed to serve out his term as an elected official pro tem. I think we could manage to allow him that given the crisis that would need to be averted.
Third, he can surrender and resign. That’s not going to happen, so it looks like he has two options.
Then again, you never know what choice the fringe might make, either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
