'The enemies of intellectual liberty always try to present their case as a plea for discipline versus individualism…. [but] to write in plain, vigorous language one has to think fearlessly, and if one thinks fearlessly one cannot be politically orthodox.' ––George Orwell The American people watched this week as Also Known As (AKA) Obama and his entourage jetted off to Europe for the first time since his usurpation of the Oval Office on January 20, 2009.
Continuing to show his lack of decorum (deliberate or otherwise), AKA made plain, for all to see, that he is sadly out of his element. Pictures have surfaced of him bowing before the Saudi king, a breach of decorum and his station, putting both his hands on the Queen of England, a breach of decorum, and his wife actually standing with her arm around the Queen, another breach of decorum.
On January 20, 2009, America watched as AKA hugged his 87 year-old friend, Reverend Joseph Lowery, after Lowery quipped,
"Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get back, when brown can stick around – when yellow will be mellow – when the red man can get ahead, man – and when white will embrace what is right."
Was Lowery's remark racist? You bet it was, just as were the multitude of racist comments made by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright whose church AKA attended for twenty years. When the racism of Reverend Jeremiah Wright became an issue in the campaign, AKA left the church. But did he reject the racist bent of his old friend? Not for a minute.
Last week, at the G20 summit, Brazil President Luiz Inacio Lula de Silva stated that the global economic crisis "was fostered and boosted by irrational behavior of people that are white, blue-eyed, that before the crisis looked like they knew everything about economics."
AKA, on greeting Brazil President de Silva after he made these remarks, quipped, "That's my man right here … Love this guy. He's the most popular politician on earth. It's because of his good looks."
And what about the racist remarks of de Silva? Obviously, AKA not only approves but concurs. Considering his previous conduct, of which Reverend Lowery and Wright are but representative samplings and not isolated incidents, should we be surprised?
What is the response of the lamestream media to AKA's obvious racist proclivities? Not one peep, not one word, not one comment.
Why not? We can sum it up in one word: race.
If George Bush had acted in the manner that AKA has, he would have been attacked relentlessly by the lamestream media, even worse than he was.
Don't get me wrong, I was and am no fan of George Bush, I am merely pointing out the obvious difference in how the lamestream media has treated these two men. While they targeted a man who at least displayed the dignity of his position as a world leader, they fawn all over a man who has degraded this country with gaffe after gaffe, not the least of which is the party scene going on in the White House. And while George Bush did misspeak on innumerable occasions, at least he could string two words together without the aid of a teleprompter. AKA, on the other hand, is rapidly becoming known as the Teleprompter Prez or TP for short. There's even a cartoon of TP with AKA prominently embossed thereon circulating the internet, the latest in bathroom accessories for those who just can't survive even the bathroom experience without their "messiah"! If you really want to see AKA in action without that teleprompter telling him what to say, go read this: The Question that Flummoxed the Great Orator. If you can figure out what he said, please enlighten us all!
And what does AKA, black (his claim) with brown eyes, know about economics? Obviously, nothing. He, nor any of his administration, have any business experience at all.
At a time when the American people (of all colors) are losing their jobs, homes, and standard of living, AKA has, in his first 90 days in office, in the face of a rapidly declining economy,
1. signed a record $787 billion piggy package of pork barrel spending that will, in the end, cost over $4 trillion (H.R. 1).
2. signed a record $410 billion omnibus appropriations bill of nothing but pet projects (H.R. 1105).
3. presented a record 2010 budget, the cost of which is not yet fully known but will be in the trillions; the largest federal budget in history.
In the words of one columnist,
"President Bush, yes, spent money like a drunken sailor, and left the nation with a record $400-billion deficit. President Obama, however, is spending far more money than Bush, with a record $1.8-trillion deficit projected for his first year."
That's right, folks, it took Bush eight years to run up a $400 billion deficit. In one year, AKA will have run up a $1.8 trillion deficit! If that doesn't scare people, especially at this time of declining economic stability, I don't know what will get through to them.
Will AKA's deficit spending, far outstripping the deficit spending of any of his predecessors, help this country? In a word, no. In fact, it will have the exact same effect as buying Champaign on a beer budget. It's pretty obvious to all but the mentally deficient that it doesn't work.
As anyone who has worked in business knows, anyone who has worked with a budget knows, you cannot spend money you do not have and expect to come out ahead of the game; you cannot spend your way out of debt. It is not possible, and no more possible for the federal government than for any citizen. In fact, any citizen who tried that would end up in prison.
This man, who has lied through his teeth repeatedly, asks us to trust his policies in the name of "hope and change" when it is obvious that common sense and his policies are diametrically opposed.
And counter to his claims, indications are that AKA's agenda is to destroy the America economy.
We already know that, while the American people were deliberately lied to, the TARP bailout of October 2008 was done to set in motion the circumstances under which the banks could be nationalized. George W Bush could not have helped but know what was going on. That AKA voted for the TARP bailout makes it very apparent he knew what was going on.
Moves the latter part of March by AKA to nationalize private companies make it very apparent that getting this nation out of its economic doldrums is not his goal; that his goal is destroying the American economy such that people will accept the nationalization of private industry needed for the emergence of a Marxist state!
What about that bent-kneed bow before the Saudi King? Just another gaffe by AKA or is there something more to it?
Thomas Lifson of the American Thinker thinks so. He states that such a gesture is one of fealty: the loyalty sworn to a feudal lord by a vassal or tenant; to show loyalty or allegiance (Encarta Dictionary; English (North America).
This, of course, brings up a subject that I have not touched on before with regard to AKA: his religious beliefs. I have not touched on his religious beliefs for one simple reason: I believe every individual has the right to worship as they choose under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
That right becomes an issue and the subject of public scrutiny, however, when indications are that an individual, in a position of power, seeks to impose his religious beliefs on the body politic.
Early on in the AKA campaign, rumors surfaced that AKA was and is a Muslim. The school registration in Indonesia, at the Fransiskus Assisi Primary School, certainly states his religion as Islam.
AKA supporters, however, have pooh-poohed this notion, claiming it the rumor-mongering of conspiracy theorists.
Is it?
This past week, another of AKA's nominees surfaced: former Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh as legal advisor to the state department. Koh, who would represent the United States before international bodies, makes no bones that he is a transnationalist; someone who believes the United States should incorporate, within its boundaries, within the scope of the judicial system and decisions, international law.
Meghan Clyne, in a piece published by the New York Post quoted New York Attorney Steven Stein in stating that in 2007, in a speech before the Yale Club in Greenwich, Koh stated "in an appropriate case, he did not see any reason why [S]haria law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States." For those who do not know what Sharia law is, it is religious law based on the Koran (or Quran), the Islamic holy book.
Would Koh be equally acquiescent of Christian law? Doubtful. That Koh obviously has so little understanding of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is scary!
But even more scary is his obvious acceptance of Sharia law and Islamic fundamentalism in general. Is this why AKA nominated him?
Then there is AKA's move to close Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo). It is not the closing of the facility, itself, that is the problem. Prisoners never should have been held at Gitmo without due process. They should have either been tried and imprisoned or set free. That is constitutional and that is what should have been done. George Bush trampled on the rights of every American when he held prisoners at Gitmo without due process. We must remember that that which we believe is right to do it to someone else when it violates the constitution can then also be done to us also in violation of the constitution. Situation ethics has no place in rule of law.
That said, AKA, in closing Gitmo, wants to allow some of the prisoners held there to settle in the United States. The prisoners at Gitmo are alleged to have been involved in acts of terrorism against the United States. To allow these alleged terrorists to settle in the United States, knowing their history, is nothing short of inviting the fox into the hen house. These prisoners claim mistreatment by the U.S. government. Why, then, would they want to live here unless they had ulterior motives; like maybe fulfilling their terrorist goals?
So why does AKA want to settle these former prisoners in the United States when they are more than likely a threat to this country? Does it have anything to do with the fact that they are Islamic fundamentalists?
Adding to this is news, this past week, unreported by the lamestream media, of course, that a list of some 45 Muslims has been submitted to AKA for consideration in administration posts; said list supplied by the Congressional Muslim Staffers Association; that the effort to get the list together was stepped up when the White House became aware of the effort, suggesting that AKA approved of the effort and is actively seeking Muslims for his administration.
On March 19, 2009, on the occasion of the middle-eastern celebration of Nowruz, AKA extended platitudes to Iran, a country that practices Islamic fundamentalism which calls for the death of the United States and the American people. In this same vein AKA is courting "West-haters," countries that call for the destruction of Israel and the United States.
Then there was the news, in late February, that AKA planned to ask Congress to approve over $900 million in aid to help rebuild Gaza, ravaged by its recent conflict with Israel. While Reuters reported that the money would be distributed by the United Nations and other bodies, Gaza is controlled by the radical Islamic group, Hamas. It is foolish to even entertain the notion that Hamas will not benefit from that money.
Each incident, alone, really means nothing. Together, however, they form a disturbing pattern. This is a man, going out of his way to honor, show allegiance and fealty to a religion that calls for the death of the United States and Americans. Would he do that were he not Muslim himself? Would he do that unless he truly hated the United States?
In an address to the G20 Summit, AKA quipped, "…America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." You will note that the link is to an article published in the United Kingdom. As usual, the American lamestream media, fawning all over AKA, did not report on this. Ah gee, we are so surprised!
That AKA would denigrate the United States before a crowd of foreigners, is unconscionable. If AKA does not like the United States, such as we are, he is welcome to leave. We won't miss him one iota!
View Part 2
The past two weeks have revealed a growing attempt by AKA, via Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to blame the guns ending up in the hands of drug cartels in Mexico on Americans; the claim being that these armaments, illegal to own by Americans, are being sold south of the border by American gun dealers. Logic tells us that if the armaments ending up in the hands of Mexican drug cartels are illegal to own by Americans, that the likelihood of those armaments coming from private industry gun dealers is pretty slim unless those gun dealers were engaged in fulfilling government contracts. The Narcosphere blog, by reporter Bill Conroy, offered information that is not being reported by the lamestream media, nor by AKA, Holder or Clinton. One paragraph from Narcosphere sums up the situation:
"The deadliest of the weapons now in the hands of criminal groups in Mexico, particularly along the U.S. border, by any reasonable standard of an analysis of the facts, appear to be getting into that nation through perfectly legal private-sector arms exports, measured in the billions of dollars, and sanctioned by our own State Department. These deadly trade commodities — grenade launchers, explosives and “assault” weapons —are then, in quantities that can fill warehouses, being corruptly transferred to drug trafficking organizations via their reach into the Mexican military and law enforcement agencies, the evidence indicates."
And yes, as I suspected, and stated in my article, the Constitutional Crisis is already here, the CIA is involved. Surprise, surprise!
But, quite obviously, restricting the ownership of guns by Americans is not served by telling the truth about how armaments of the sort being used by the Mexican drug cartels are ending up in their hands. In the words of AKA's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel, "never let a serious crisis go to waste." Should we be surprised that AKA and his minions would lie about this?
Doesn't this make the case that, if one is smart, one does not believe a word out of the mouths of these people?
Last week, I reported that AKA's goon squad, in the form of Homeland Security, was harassing Stephen Pidgeon, an attorney in Snohomish County, Washington, working to establish a perfectly legal National Grand Jury. Pidgeon has also worked quietly to gather evidence concerning AKA's eligibility to the office of president. Mr Pidgeon has reported significant cyber attacks on his computers and website.
Dr Orly Taitz, another attorney, representing many clients in various causes concerning the eligibility issue, has requested the Supreme Court work with the FBI in ascertaining who hacked the Supreme Court docket to remove her case from the docket on January 21, 2009, two days before it was scheduled to be heard before the entire Supreme Court. Justice Scalia would later indicate he had never heard of the case, making it questionable if the hacking occurred from outside the Supreme Court or was an inside job completed by a staffer or staffers on behalf of outside interests. This, of course, begs the question of who the "outside interests" would be and the obvious answer is the usurper in the Oval Office. The report of the Supreme Court staffers cheering when they espied AKA on his visit to the Supreme Court on January 15, 2009 cannot be ignored. Dr Taitz has also reported impostor websites set up in a deliberate attempt to smear, defame and discredit clients, cyber attacks, and the hacking of her websites with links within her websites being redirected to porn sites.
In this past week, the Atlas Shrugs website received word that their website was being blocked from access by government personnel. The reason given: political activist groups. One has to wonder if the government blocks all political activist websites, such as fightthesmears.com, factcheck.org, organizing for America.com or born again American.org, or just those that deal with AKA's eligibility and Marxist agenda as the Atlas Shrugs website does. Two bills introduced by Senator John (Jay) Rockefeller (D-WV) on April 1, 2009, S 773 and S 778, would give AKA the ability to shut down the internet at such times as he deems fit.
In this same vein, news surfaced the end of March that AKA was attempting to silence Bob Basso, producer of the Thomas Paine videos that have been viewed over one million times on You Tube. Indications are, however, that AKA dropped the attempt when his summons of Basso to the White House became public knowledge. The videos condemn "non-representing representatives" and warn, "Only when they feel the almighty wrath of 'We The People' marching in the streets from California to New York shouting 'We're mad as hell and we want our country back' will they get the message they work for you." The message that we are a Constitutional Republic affording individual rights to everyone is not one that Marxist AKA wants the people to hear or know. Educated people tend to have an aversion to the oppressive, totalitarian state supported by the likes of Marxist AKA.
To add fuel to the growing fire of discontent surfacing in this nation, organizers of tea parties all across the nation are finding it next to impossible to meet the impossible demands of government in order to exercise their right to free speech, assembly and redress of grievance. In Cape Coral, Florida, government officials cancelled the tea party gathering because they "felt too many people could show up." Imagine that, that too many people could show up in protest! When AKA and his entourage traveled through Florida, during the campaign, were their gatherings cancelled because city officials "felt too many people could show up?" Of course not. It's only when people decide to protest the heavy hand of government that large gatherings become a problem.
Never before, in the history of this nation, have we seen a president so intent on squelching the dissent of the people to the point of it being an obvious obsession. First it was Rush Limbaugh, then Rick Santelli, then Bob Basso, now it is dissent in general. That AKA is so obviously obsessed with silencing dissidents reeks of a totalitarian mindset and certainly lends credence to claims of narcissism.
Never before, in the history of this nation, have we seen such a rapidly growing resistance to the true ideology, beliefs, and policies of a president. In the short time since his usurpation of the Oval Office, a cottage industry in resistance has sprung up, everything from bumper stickers and t-shirts to tea parties to yard signs to open resistance.
When one brings together all the disparate policies being implemented by AKA, a picture emerges of the zeal of AKA to complete the transformation of America from a Constitution Republic with freedom, liberty and justice for every individual to an oppressive totalitarian Marxist state in which people are no more than chattel to be used, abused and discarded (euthanized) in the interests of, and at the whim of, the state.
All of this has happened in the 77 days since the usurpation of the Oval Office by AKA. It becomes apparent that America will not survive four years of AKA. It is doubtful America will survive even two years of AKA. Many believe the Democrat-controlled Congress will be overturned by a huge margin in the 2010 mid-term elections. By then AKA will have wreaked havoc on this nation, its economy, and its ability to survive as a free and independent nation.
Time is of the essence.