Ian Stuart Donaldson Skrewdriver

Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

Obama “foreign” to Southerners

Thursday, December 8th, 2016
Barack Obama, in a friendly interview with CNN, said that whites from the north treated him differently than Southern whites. Obama said Southerners treated him like he was “foreign” to

Enjoy it while you can

Thursday, July 14th, 2016
Congratulations, Leftists, You have won. You have taken over the West and now your worldview is triumphant. Europe, America, and the other former lands of Christendom lie within your grasp.

A little race reality

Tuesday, July 12th, 2016
If you put every negro in America in California or Texas with its present great wealth and infrastructure, those places would turn into uncivilized hell holes in no time at

Transgendered bathrooms for everyone!

Friday, May 13th, 2016
Just heard that Emperor Obama will tell all US public school systems that they must allow “transgendered” students to use either the men’s or women’s restroom. Welcome to your brave,

Happy Mothers’ Day, y’all!

Monday, May 9th, 2016
This is from Barack Hussein Obama’s 2016 Mothers’ Day Proclamation. We indeed are living in strange and perverse times. “Regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status, mothers have

Another Jew nominated for the US Supreme Court

Wednesday, March 16th, 2016
Today, President Barack Hussein Obama nominated Merrick Garland, a veteran federal appeals court judge, for the vacancy on the US Supreme Court left open by the recent death of Associate


Tuesday, February 16th, 2016
When Barack Hussein Obama promised to “change America” back in 2008, just what did folks think he meant? To me it was crystal clear. He intended to change America by

Neither discussion nor compliance

Friday, January 8th, 2016
The League of the South’s position on Obama’s gun control measures is simple: There will be neither discussion nor compliance. We are free men and women and the issue has

Observations on the situation in Oregon

Monday, January 4th, 2016
We continue to watch the unfolding situation at the Malheur National Wildlife Reservation near Burns, Oregon, where white men with “assault weapons” continue to occupy a government lodge. Several reports

Still trust the GOP?

Saturday, December 19th, 2015
Since our inception in 1994, The League of the South has made it clear to anyone who would listen that the Republican Party was no friend of the South or

A Statement: the shooting down of a Russian aircraft by Turkey

Wednesday, November 25th, 2015
24 November 2015 Earlier today, Turkish F-16 aircraft shot down a Russian Su-24 bomber. The Turks claimed the Russian warplane was in Turkish airspace; the Russians say it was in

A lawless, godless regime

Thursday, September 3rd, 2015
Kim Davis, the Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk who refused on religious grounds to grant marriage licenses to sodomites, has been arrested by federal agents. The feds wasted no time in

Chattanooga murders

Thursday, July 16th, 2015
According to initial reports, the four U.S. Marines killed in Chattanooga, Tennessee, were gunned down by one Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez (24), a “naturalized citizen” reportedly from Kuwait. We are sure

Can GOP Survive Its ‘Minority Problem’?

Saturday, September 29th, 2012

Some Republican strategists are already preparing for the worst. The numbers, frankly, are dismal. Nearly 2 of every 3 Latinos favor President Obama to Mitt Romney. Voters in the gay and lesbian community favor Mr. Obama by the same margin. Women favor the president by 51 percent to 41 percent, according to an August NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. And African-Americans? One poll suggested that Mr. Romney is being skunked: 94 percent to 0 percent.

Clearly, the GOP has a minority problem. But Republican strategists aren’t just worried about November—they’re worried about the Novembers after that.

If demographic trends continue to swell the country’s minority population, and the GOP continues to struggle to grow its white, Protestant base, the Republican Party risks going the way of the Whigs it replaced in the 1850s. Already, some experts say, minorities are likely to swing this presidential election to Obama. And going forward, the arithmetic (as a certain former centrist president from red state Arkansas recently pronounced) says it all: This year, for the first time, births of nonwhites outnumbered births of whites in America, putting the United States on the road to becoming a majority-minority nation in three decades, the US Census Bureau reported. For the GOP, the rubber is finally hitting the road.

If it wants to remain competitive for power in Congress and the White House, the GOP knows it must make serious inroads with minorities, and soon. That means it must begin to change the policies that have defined—and isolated—it for a generation. Of course, doing that without alienating its base is easier said than done.

The demographics are compelling. The country’s minority population grew by 30 percent during the past decade, according to data from the 2010 Census, while the white population grew just 1 percent. In 1992, the minority vote made up 12 percent of the electorate. This year, it’s expected to be 28 percent.

“The tectonic plates of American politics are shifting,” writes Ruy Teixeira, a political demographer and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, in a paper prepared for a March 2010 “Future of the Parties” conference. “A powerful concatenation of demographic forces is transforming the American electorate and reshaping both major political parties.”

These changes have left “the GOP … on the wrong side of history, demographically speaking,” adds Allan Lichtman, a presidential historian at American University in Washington.

Not that the GOP isn’t trying to expand its appeal.

Its national convention in TampaFla., featured a string of speeches by so-called rising stars, including Cuban-American Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, Indian-American Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina, Cuban-American Senate nominee Ted Cruz, Haitian-American mayor and congressional nominee Mia Love, and Mexican-American New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez.

But the convention floor was notably short on minority delegates—as made obvious by the Democratic convention‘s technicolored rainbow of an audience a week later. It’s a portrait even conservative commentators have poked fun at, as when New York Times columnist David Brooks described the winter Olympics as “the second most Caucasian institution on earth, after the GOP.”

And that is at the core of why Romney and the GOP aren’t doing more to court minority voters for the November election. In short, say political watchers, they can’t.

“They have a substantive problem,” says Professor Lichtman. “To the extent they reach out substantively to minorities, they risk losing their base.”

This doesn’t mean the GOP can’t compete in November.

If the Romney campaign succeeds at framing the election as a referendum on Obama’s record and the lagging economy, the race could tip in Romney’s favor. And while Romney is struggling to attract the minority vote, he’s surging past Obama on the white vote—particularly the working-class white vote, where he beats Obama 59 to percent 37 percent, according to an August USA Today/Gallup poll.

“That’s why Romney’s hanging on,” says O’Connell. “The white working-class, blue-collar voters. That is essentially his base.”

In the future, a changing GOP will have to make strategic concessions to minorities, such as civil unions and comprehensive immigration reform—delicate moves that it must sell to its base in a tactical fashion, invoking states’ rights on civil unions and making an economic case for immigration reform, for example.

“The key for the GOP is to balance principle with practicality,” says O’Connell. “Whether it’s taxes, the Bible, we’ve got to be principled but practical . . . . A pivot away from pure ideology. We’re for limited government, we get it, but we can’t survive if we don’t change our tax code.”

In so doing, the party may lose some segments of its base, like “Teavangelicals” and others who vote strictly on social issues, but “there’s always going to be some trade-offs,” says O’Connell.

“It may take them a few elections, but the political logic of the situation will force them to change their tune,” says Teixeira. “Parties usually manage to adjust.”

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

No one at the White House will disclose their real policy on Israel

Monday, July 30th, 2012

Mitt Romney is visiting Israel to try to win over American Jews (80% voted for Obama in 2008). Obama sought to one up Romney by pledging an extra $70 million in US taxpayer dollars for Israeli defense. Yet no one at the White House will even disclose what their real policy on Israel even is. Obama’s latest $70 million aid packages come with new pledges of military support without asking for anything in return.

Watch the response by Obama’s press secretary to what is an extremely basic question about Obama’s foreign policy. This is reminiscent of when Obama repeatedly voted “present” on important issues in the Senate. Obama doesn’t want to go on record as supporting anything.

The US gives billions in US taxdollars to fund the armies of foreign nations. Israel was the leading beneficiary from 1976-2002. It is now in third place behind Afghanistan and Iraq. Other top beneficiaries are Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, and Columbia. Note: This does not includes the tens of Billions used to “fund democracy” overseas.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

Mitt Romney Would Restore ‘Anglo-Saxon’ Relations Between Britain and America

Friday, July 27th, 2012

Mitt Romney would restore “Anglo-Saxon” understanding to the special relationship between the US and Britain, and return Sir Winston Churchill’s bust to the White House, according to advisers.

As the Republican presidential challenger accused Barack Obama of appeasing America’s enemies in his first foreign policy speech of the US general election campaign, advisers told The Daily Telegraph that he would abandon Mr Obama’s “Left-wing” coolness towards London.

In remarks that may prompt accusations of racial insensitivity, one suggested that Mr Romney was better placed to understand the depth of ties between the two countries than Mr Obama, whose father was from Africa.

“We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he feels that the special relationship is special,” the adviser said of Mr Romney, adding: “The White House didn’t fully appreciate the shared history we have”.

Mr Romney on Wednesday embarks on an overseas tour of Britain, Israel and Poland designed to quash claims by Mr Obama’s team that he is a “novice” in foreign affairs. It comes four years after Mr Obama’s own landmark foreign tour, which attracted thousands of supporters.

He lands in London early on Wednesday morning, in advance of meetings with David Cameron and other senior ministers on Thursday. He will also meet Ed Miliband and Tony Blair before attending two lucrative fundraisers and the opening ceremony of the Olympics.

He used a speech in Nevada on Tuesday to accuse the President of drastically weakening America’s stance towards rivals such as Russia, China and Iran while imposing “devastating” spending cuts on the US military.

“If you do not want America to be the strongest nation on earth, I am not your President,” he told the Veterans of Foreign Wars. “You have that President today”. Promising another “American century” in which the US acts as the global night watchman and does not hesitate to “wield our strength” when needed, he said: “I will not surrender America’s leadership in the world”.

Members of the former Massachusetts governor’s foreign policy advisory team claimed that as president, he would reverse Mr Obama’s priority of repairing strained overseas relationships while not spending so much time maintaining traditional alliances such as Britain and Israel.

“In contrast to President Obama, whose first instinct is to reach out to America’s adversaries, the Governor’s first impulse is to consult and co-ordinate and to move closer to our friends and allies overseas so they can rely on American constancy and strength,” one told the Telegraph.

“Obama is a Left-winger,” said another. “He doesn’t value the Nato alliance as much, he’s very comfortable with American decline and the traditional alliances don’t mean as much to him. He wouldn’t like singing ‘Land of Hope and Glory’.”

The two advisers said Mr Romney would seek to reinstate the Churchill bust displayed in the Oval Office by George W. Bush but returned to British diplomats by Mr Obama when he took office in 2009. One said Mr Romney viewed the move as “symbolically important” while the other said it was “just for starters”, adding: “He is naturally more Atlanticist”.

Mr Obama has appeared less interested in relations with London than Mr Bush. He repeatedly rebuffed Gordon Brown when the then-prime minister sought a meeting at the UN in 2009 and was criticised for responding to an elaborate gift with a set of DVDs that did not work in Britain.

A change in tone was reflected by the enthusiastic welcome extended to Mr Cameron during an official visit and dinner in March. However, British diplomats remain frustrated by their “transactional” relationship with the Obama White House and lack of support on issues such as the Falkland Islands.

Mr Romney has not made any commitments on the Falklands, but several in his foreign policy team favour backing Britain and publicly rejecting claims of sovereignty by Christina Kirchner, the Argentine president. Under Mr Obama the US remains neutral.

The advisers could not give detailed examples of how policy towards Britain would differ under Mr Romney. One conceded that on the European crisis: “I’m not sure what our policy response is.”

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

Jeremiah Wright: We Need Control

Wednesday, July 11th, 2012

President Barack Obama’s former spiritual adviser spoke just a few miles from the White House on Sunday, and politics and controversy weren’t far from what Rev. Jeremiah Wright had to say.

“As we celebrate the foundations of our future, this is not a time to romanticize because we have the first African-descended president in the White House,” Wright said in a fiery sermon that lasted close to an hour. “You see what the tea party is trying to do.”


“We need to tell our children … how we got from a black congressman named Adam Clayton Powell to a black president named Barack Hussein Obama,” he said to applause. “But we also need to tell them how we have black politicians who steal money.”

Wright also blasted people who he described as “biscuits” and “sheep dogs”—African Americans raised in the white world.

“Take that baby, him or her away, from the African mother, away from the African community, away from the African experience … and put them Africans over at the breasts of Yale, Harvard, University of ChicagoUCLA or UC-Berkeley,” he said. “Turn them into biscuits. Let them get that alien DNA all up inside their brain and they will turn on their own people in defense of the ones who are keeping their own people under oppression. Sheep dogs.”

“There’s white racist DNA running through the synapses of his or her brain tissue. They will kill their own kind, defend the enemies of their kind or anyone who is perceived to be the enemy of the milky white way of life.”

Though the Obamas severed their ties to Wright and his church in 2008, the preacher has remained an emblem for some conservatives of the extreme views they believe the president has.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

Putin flexes muscle in shunning US-hosted G8 talks

Friday, May 11th, 2012

Of all the signals and symbols that shapeRussian foreign policy, this one seemed particularly blunt: Vladimir Putin, in one of the first decisions of his new presidency, will shun a Group of Eight summit hosted by U.S. President Barack Obama.

The May 18-19 visit was to have been Putin’s first foreign trip since he returned to the Kremlin on Monday, a chance to begin putting U.S. ties back on track after a growth in tension over missile defence, Syria and Russia’s presidential campaign.

Instead, Putin is sending his junior partner, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev – and a message that as long as he is in charge, Russia will not bend to Washington’s will when its interests are at stake.

“I think the signal he wants to send to America … is that agreements with America will be built on a balance of the strategic interests of America and Russia,” said Dmitry Trenin, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center think-tank. “Russia will not make any unilateral concessions.”

It is a message Putin has repeated, from an inauguration-day decree on Monday in which he said Russia would demand U.S. respect to a warning on Wednesday against modern-day violations of sovereignty, delivered before tanks and missiles trundled across Red Square to mark the 1945 victory over Nazi Germany.

More starkly, the military chief of staff said last week that Russia could launch pre-emptive strikes against future NATO missile defence facilities in Europe if sufficiently threatened.



The warning indicated Putin will hold out U.S. plans for an anti-missile shield as a big barrier to better relations and, specifically, to Kremlin approval of deeper nuclear arms cuts.

Washington says the shield is meant to counter a potential threat from Iran and poses no risk to Russia. Moscow maintains that it could give the West the capability to intercept Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles, upsetting the strategic equilibrium between the former Cold War foes.

Putin has made clear Russia, a veto-wielding permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, will seek to undercut U.S. global might and oppose what he says is unjustified, destabilising U.S.-orchestrated interference in the affairs of sovereign states, including Syria and Russia itself.

The public reason for Putin’s decision to skip the G8 summit was the need to focus on appointing a new cabinet.

With liberal and conservatives close to the Kremlin wrangling over cabinet posts and policy direction, Putin – by staying home – may be eager to pose for a domestic audiences and show he is not weakened by the biggest protests of his 12 years as Russia’s paramount political leader.

“Foreign policy … will play the role of a servant to Putin’s domestic agenda,” said Lilia Shevtsova, an author and expert on Putin. “And his main goal domestically is to preserve the status quo and survive.”

After the anti-American atmosphere that prevailed during his presidential campaign, in which Putin accused the United States of stirring up protests, it might look strange to his supporters to make Washington his first foreign destination.

Relations have been strained by the treatment of U.S. Ambassador Michael McFaul, architect of Obama’s “reset” of Russian ties, who has been portrayed by Russian media as a troublemaker out to incite revolution.

Instead, Putin’s first trip abroad could be to China in early June, symbolising that he is looking eastward – to the former Soviet states of Central Asia and beyond.

His first meeting with Obama as president is likely to come on neutral territory in Mexico, where the Group of 20 nations gathers in June.



For reasons both political and personal, Putin will be far more comfortable at the broader G20 than the mostly Western G8, where he feels out of place, like “a white crow”, Trenin said.

His big-power friends from his previous presidency from 2000 to 2008 – France‘s Jacques Chirac, Germany’s Gerhard Schroeder and Silvio Berlusconi, the former Italian leader who attended his inauguration on Monday – are gone.

Obama and the rest will instead once again meet Medvedev, who presented a warmer face to the West in his 2008-12 presidency and clicked with Obama, from their signing of the 2010 nuclear arms limitation treaty known as New START to chummy talk at a “cheeseburger summit” that same year.

By contrast, Obama’s breakfast meeting with Putin at his residence outside Moscow in 2009 featured a monologue in which the then-Russian prime minister listed his complaints about the United States at length.

While it seems like a serious snub, the last-minute substitution of Medvedev for the G8 meeting could have an upside for Obama, whose likely Republican opponent in the November election has said he is nowhere near tough enough on Russia.

The United States has criticised the Kremlin over the detentions and violence against Russians protesting at Putin’s return to the presidency, and two prominent opposition leaders will still be in jail when the G8 meets.

Obama “has no need to be photographed with Putin right now – as it is, the Republicans criticise him as a Russian puppet. So in this case it happens to suit everybody,” Fyodor Lukyanov, edit of Russia in Global Affairs, said of Putin’s decision.

“It is a strange, unusual step (to avoid the G8 summit), however – but Putin is a master of such steps. We’ll get used to it.” (Editing by Alissa de Carbonnel and Mark Heinrich)

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

Obama an ignoramus on the causes of high fuel prices

Monday, April 9th, 2012

“Right now the key thing that is driving higher gas prices is actually the world’s oil markets and uncertainty about what’s going on in Iran and the Middle East, and that’s adding a $20 or $30 premium to oil prices,” President Obama said March 23. It’s complete and utter nonsense. Oil is trading in lockstep with expectations for economic growth, as reflected in stock prices. There’s not a shred of evidence that geopolitical uncertainty has added a penny to the oil price. Obama’s $20 to $30 per barrel risk premium is a number pulled out of a hat, without a shred of empirical support. In effect, the President is blaming Israel for high oil prices.

On April, 3, Vice-President Biden blamed higher oil prices on “talk about war with Iran“; fear that Iran might “take out the Saudi oil fields and Bahraini oil fields”; the Arab Spring movement; “war in Libya”; the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood; and a potential for unforeseen political unrest, such as “chaos in Russia.” It’s all complete and utter nonsense. Oil prices are going up because the world economy is consuming more oil and supply has not increased to meet the demand – in part because the Obama administration discourages North American energy development, most recently by stopping the proposed Keystone pipeline from Canada. It’s easier to blame foreign phantoms for high gas prices at the pump than the administration’s business-killing politics

One might argue that the market should price strategic risk into the oil price, but the fact is that markets are not especially good at assigning prices to possible events whose probability can’t be measured.

Goldman has some nifty charts to prove his point. Here’s one, courtesy of Bloomberg, that shows the price of oil vs. the S&P 500 for the last three years. Note how closely they track:

Goldman continues:

During the past three years, oil prices have tracked equity prices almost perfectly, with a regression coefficient of nearly 90%. (For statisticians, the correlation of daily percentage changes in the two markets is 51%). Equity prices embody expectations of future economic growth, and higher growth means more demand for oil. If oil supply cannot keep up with demand–because the Obama administration has restricted development, among other factors–the oil price goes up.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

Liberal Media Gives Black Racism From The WH A Pass.

Sunday, March 11th, 2012

Just when we think the liberal media’s hypocrisy could not be more blatant, they kick it to the next level. They have obviously abandoned any pretense of fair and honest reporting.

OK, we get it. Their template is “Conservatives suck”, kill them “politically”. Minorities are “angels”, victims of a racist America controlled by rich white guys.

Folks, if you understand this mindset, you understand the liberal media’s coverage of the Tea Party and their blatant ignoring of racism coming from the Left.

And let me just say this. Not only does the liberal media and the Left ignore black racism, they encourage it. I’m black. The Left verbally beats me up all the time for not resenting America and for not even harboring a low level hatred of whites. They diagnose us black conservatives with having Stockholm Syndrome.

I know I should not be surprised, but I am stunned by the latest example of the liberal media, for the most part, ignoring a huge story about racism because the perpetrator is black.

Attorney General, Eric Holder, basically admitted he is not the attorney general of “all” Americans. Holder gives blacks special preference. Wow, we blacks have a “homey” in the White House.

The new Black Panther Party is guilty of voter intimidation in Philadelphia. Obama refuses to press charges against the new Black Panthers; now get this folks, because they are black. Attorney General, Eric Holder, who is black, told the House Appropriations subcommittee that the New Black Panther voter intimidation case demeans “my people.”

Holder went on to explain that the suffering of African Americans seeking the right to vote in the South in the 60s far surpasses the intimidation white voters recently endured in Philadelphia. So much for any pretense of Obama dispensing equal justice to all Americans. Folks, we’re talkin’ Affirmative Action justice.

Can you imagine what would happen to a white politician using the term, “my people”? A visual of a white guy covered in tar and feathers running for his life appeared in my mind.

Folks, the Attorney General of the United States said he is not going to pursue certain criminal charges against blacks because of past racism in America. And the liberal media, for the most part, says hoe hum, no problem.

I have been a voice crying in the wilderness about this for years. Racism is evil. So, why is racism when perpetrated by blacks acceptable and even applauded? On HBO’s Def Comedy Jam TV show, black comedians trashing white America was a staple. Had a white comic told just one of the same jokes inserting the word “black”, the insensitive white racist SOB comic’s career would be over.

A sycophant liberal media giving black racist comedians a pass is of little consequence. But, when the liberal media gives the black Attorney General of the United States a pass for his racism, Houston we have a serious problem.

We the People are challenged by insidious enemies within; a racially bias Obama administration and liberal media; both hellbent on “fundamentally transforming America” with the implementation of their progressive/socialist agenda. They MUST be defeated.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

The Communist Party USA has endorsed their friend, Barack Obama, for 2012

Sunday, January 22nd, 2012

Communist Party USA March

The Communist Party endorsed Obama in 2008, and they have endorsed him again for this year’s election.  In his December 21 blog, Vice Chair of the Communist Party USA, Jarvis Tyner, comments on remarks given at the November 11, 2011 meeting of the Communist Party National Committee.  He confirms the importance of the build up to the 2012 elections to “set the stage for a new progressive era and for a socialist transformation”.

It’s unlikely that the Communist Party would support a candidate that’s not supportive of their goals?  Is this the transformation that Obama has promised Americans?

Jarvis Tyner is executive vice chair of the Communist Party USA and a long-time member of the party’s national board.. He was a founding member of the Black Radical Congress and served on its national coordinating committee for five years.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

Michelle Obama joins Twitter, rants begin

Monday, January 16th, 2012

First Lady Michelle Obama joined Twitter today, and the Internet exploded. Obama supporters and Michelle Obama fans, alike, were excited to subscribe to the FLOTUS’ tweets.

However, some tweeters weren’t pleased about this recent development. So what did they do about it? Bombard the First Lady’s account with some of the harshest comments they could make in 140 characters or less, of course.

Buzzfeed compiled a list of the tweets, aptly named The 25 Most Offensive Tweets At Michelle Obama. Here’s a quick synopsis: The First Lady, or “Moochelle” is an “angry black woman” who “hates white people.”

For example, @cheshirecat0025 tweeted [email protected] is on twitter great! We can all tell her how much we hate her! #America is not proud of you” – a snarky reference to a comment the First Lady made back in 2008 .

And according to @iyestogody “the next most hateful woman in America is Michelle Obama. She hates everyone and eveything. To bad for her. Sorry.”

Every public figure has critics, but there is a palpable hatred behind some of the things said about Mrs. O in this list. It’s especially upsetting because they don’t seem to be based on anything besides her race. I may be a bit biased, because I desperately want to be Michelle Obama when I grow up, but I’m confused.

She’s black, so she’s angry? OK, got it. I can’t recall even seeing the First Lady frown, but whatever. Let’s go with what we know. Black women are angry from birth.

And of course, people have a problem with Michelle Obama fighting to protect children from what the CDC calls a “dramatic increase in obesity”

There’s nothing wrong with the fact that only 18 percent of American children got the recommended amount of daily exercise in 2007. Nothing at all.

I’m not alone in being unable to wrap my mind around this intense hatred some Americans seem to have for the First Lady. Most of my friends almost idolize Michelle Obama. The majority of them are still in college, and she represents the lifestyle they are after: being a successful and educated black woman, married to a successful and educated black man, with two really cute kids. Even if they criticize the President’s decisions on occasion, they all love the First Lady.

Actually, I can’t wait to discuss this with my mom. She thinks “twittering” is a waste of time, but she’ll probably start an account just to voice her outrage. She has leapt through all sorts of technological hoops in her support of the Obamas. She taught herself how to text just so she could respond to President Obama’s campaign tweets back in 2008.

The anger she’ll feel is understandable. I just can’t imagine any one criticizing Abigail Adams’ “posterior.” No one got upset when Nancy Reagan went sleeveless. And no matter how many feet her husband put in his mouth, no one ever booed Laura Bush at an event.

Until any of these overzealous Michelle Obama critics are able to give me some concrete reason as to why they hate the First Lady so, I’m going to file it all as racist dribble and forget it as soon as possible.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

NYT Editorial Page Editor Calls Boehner Racist for Asking Obama to Delay Speech to Congress

Thursday, January 5th, 2012

Is House Speaker John Boehner an anti-Obama racist? Editorial Page editor Andrew Rosenthal all but accuses him in his Tuesday blog from Des Moines, “Nobody Likes to Talk About It, but It’s There.” (The web headline is blunter: “Republican Attacks Have Racist Undertones.”)

Actually, Rosenthal is all too happy to talk about racist Republicans if it helps Democrats politically, as he did on November 1, in one of his first blog posts: “…it was the Republicans who perfected the art of injecting racial fears into modern-day politics (remember Willie Horton in 1988?) and have conducted an unrelenting personal attack on President Obama that sometimes has not-so-subtle racial overtones.”

From Rosenthal’s Tuesday post:

Talking about race in American politics is uncomfortable and awkward. But it has to be said: There has been a racist undertone to many of the Republican attacks leveled against President Obama for the last three years, and in this dawning presidential campaign.

You can detect this undertone in the level of disrespect for this president that would be unthinkable were he not an African-American. Some earlier examples include: Rep. Joe Wilson shouting “you lie” at one of Mr. Obama’s first appearances before Congress, and House Speaker John Boehner rejecting Mr. Obama’s request to speak to a joint session of Congress – the first such denial in the history of our republic.
As for decorum during presidential appearances before Congress, Rosenthal has apparently forgotten the rumbles and hisses, hoots and hollerings of “No! No!” thrown at President Bush by Democrats (documented in his own newspaper) at Bush’s February 2005 State of the Union address when he spoke on Social Security reform.

In addition, Speaker Boehner did not “reject” Obama’s request to address Congress, but instead suggested that the president delay the speech for one day, to avoid it being held on the same night as a Republican presidential debate. (And that’s what happened.) Rosenthal’s suggestion that Boehner’s move was somehow racist is too pathetic to even merit a response.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

2012 election fraud may raise its ugly head

Wednesday, January 4th, 2012

During the last few elections, outrage over disenfranchised voters became paramount because of the fear of low voter turnout if a photo identification was required. Baton-carrying members of the Black Panthers were outside a polling place and our U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder didn’t think that was a problem. This same attorney general is suing states for asking those who vote to provide a verifiable form of identification.

My concern is over the disenfranchisement of our men and women serving in our military who, once again, will see their votes not being counted. Of any group whose vote should be protected and counted, it should be those who put themselves in harm’s way to defend our freedoms. I wish someone would act now to ensure that in November 2012 every military vote is counted.

The greatest freedom we have is our right to vote, and everyone who votes more than once, votes under someone else’s identity or votes as a noncitizen is not only breaking the law but is taking away the very right that our military is defending. We owe our military a say on who will lead as commander in chief.

Rick James

Laguna Niguel

Pay attention to Paul

The Republican Party had better pay attention to Ron Paul. His views of less government are the only way out of the morass of debt and spending this great country is in. If Republicans don’t incorporate his views they will lose the vote for years to come. The majority of Republicans are the older generation, and, hopefully, wiser. However, to get the youth vote, younger folks need to hear new ideas. Wait until they find out that Republicans want to take away their vote and make the age to vote 21. That should really endear them to the party. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. President Obama doesn’t have to campaign; the Republicans are doing themselves in.

Sallie Rodman

Los Alamitos

The treasonous GOP

When Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, says that the No. 1 objective of the Republican Congress is to make sure that President Barack Obama is a one-term president, can you put two and two together and get four? One way to make him a one-term president would be to make sure that the country is doing poorly. Otherwise it should be fairly easy for any president to be re-elected.

When McConnell makes a statement like that, it means that he and the GOP want the United States and its citizens to do poorly while President Obama is in office, and they will do whatever it is necessary to see that it happens. To me, making a statement like that, out in the open, could be considered treason.

How can people not see the severity of such a stance, and what the Republicans are doing every day to make sure we fail as a nation, just so their candidate has a chance to unseat the current president.

Robert Gardner

Mission Viejo

Kudos for

car-pool lanes

Regarding the Dec. 14 letter, “Toll roads feed congestion,” the Orange County Transportation Authority has delivered congestion relief on our freeways and streets, primarily through Measure M, approved by voters in 1990 and renewed in 2006.

The first Measure M program added 192 lane miles to our freeway system, improved 170 intersections and implemented Metrolink service in Orange County that now carries the equivalent of one lane of traffic on the I-5 every day. OCTA successfully managed a 30 percent growth in population while also decreasing intersection congestion by 10 percent.

Toll lanes are one method to help manage congestion. OCTA has no intention of turning existing car-pool lanes into toll lanes. The concept known as high-occupancy toll lanes, or HOT lanes, entails additional lanes being built that will allow car-poolers to use the lanes for free and solo drivers the choice to pay a toll to use any capacity that may exist in those lanes. By taking single drivers willing to pay to use the car-pool lanes out of the regular lanes, everyone benefits.

Money generated from toll lanes also can be used to improve free lanes. This is the case with OCTA’s 91 Express Lanes, where nearly $15 million has gone to improve the Riverside Freeway for all drivers.

As state and federal dollars dwindle, local agencies must explore ways to maximize available dollars and provide traffic relief and one option is toll lanes.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

R.I.P. Bill of Rights 1789 – 2011

Monday, January 2nd, 2012


One of the most extraordinary documents in human history — the Bill of Rights — has come to an end under President Barack Obama. Derived from sacred principles of natural law, the Bill of Rights has come to a sudden and catastrophic end with the President’s signing of theNational Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a law that grants the U.S. military the “legal” right to conduct secret kidnappings of U.S. citizens, followed by indefinite detention, interrogation, torture and even murder. This is all conducted completely outside the protection of law, with no jury, no trial, no legal representation and not even any requirement that the government produce evidence against the accused. It is a system of outright government tyranny against the American people, and it effectively nullifies the Bill of Rights.

In what will be remembered as the most traitorous executive signing ever committed against the American people, President Obama signed the bill on New Year’s Eve, a time when most Americans were engaged in the consumption of alcohol. It seems appropriate, of course, since no intelligent American could accept the tyranny of this bill if they were sober.

This is the law that will cement Obama’s legacy in the history books as the traitor who nullified the Bill of Rights and paved America’s pathway down a road of tyranny that will make Nazi Germany’s war crimes look like child’s play. If Bush had signed a law like this, liberals would have been screaming “impeachment!”

Why the Bill of Rights matters

While the U.S. Constitution already limits the power of federal government, the Bill of Rights is the document that enumerates even more limits of federal government power. In its inception, many argued that a Bill of Rights was completely unnecessary because, they explained, the federal government only has the powers specifically enumerated to it under the U.S. Constitution. There was no need to have a “First Amendment” to protect Free Speech, for example, because there was no power granted to government to diminish Free Speech.

 This seems silly today, of course, given the natural tendency of all governments to concentrate power in the hands of the few while destroying the rights and freedoms of their own people. But in the 1780’s, whether government could ever become a threat to future freedoms was hotly debated. By 1789, enough revolutionary leaders had agreed on the fundamental principles of a Bill of Rights to sign it into law. Its purpose was to provideadditional clarifications on the limitation of government power so that there could be absolutely no question that government could NEVER, under any circumstances, violate these key principles of freedom: Freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, freedom from illegal searches, the right to remain silent, the right to due process under law, and so on.

Of course, today’s runaway federal government utterly ignores the limitations placed on it by the founding fathers. It aggressively and criminally seeks to expand its power at all costs, completely ignoring the Bill of Rights and openly violating the limitations of power placed upon it by the United States Constitution. The TSA’s illegal searching of air travelers, for example, is a blatant violation of Fourth Amendment rights. The government’s hijacking of websites it claims are linking to “copyright infringement” hubs is a blatant violation of First Amendment rights. The government’s demand that all Americans be forced to buy private health insurance is a blatant violation of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution — the “commerce clause.”

Now, with the passage of the NDAA, the federal government has torpedoed the entire Bill of Rights, dismissing it completely and effectively promising to violate those rights at will. As of January 1, 2012, we have all been designated enemies of the state. America is the new battleground, and your “right” to due process is null and void.

Remember, this was all done by the very President who promised to close Guantanamo Bay and end secret military prisons. Not only did Obama break that campaign promise (as he has done with nearly ALL his campaign promises), he did exactly the opposite and has now subjected all Americans to the possibility of government-sponsored kidnapping, detainment and torture, all under the very system of secret military prisons he claimed he would close!

“President Obama’s action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Obama’s signing statement means nothing

Even while committing an act of pure treason in signing the bill, the unindicted criminal President Obama issued a signing statement that reads, in part, “Moving forward, my administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded…”

Anyone who reads between the lines here realizes the “the flexibility on which our safety depends” means they can interpret the law in any way they want if there is a sufficient amount of fear being created through false flag terror attacks. Astute readers will also notice that Obama’s signing statement has no legal binding whatsoever and only refers to Obama’smomentary intentions on how he “wishes” to interpret the law. It does not place any limits whatsoever on how a future President might use the law as written.

“The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield,” says the ACLU.

What this means is that the next President could use this law to engage in the most horrific holocaust-scale mass round-up of people the world has ever seen. The NDAA legalizes the crimes of Nazi Germany in America, setting the stage for the mass murder of citizens by a rogue government.

United States of America becomes a rogue nation, operating in violation of international law Furthermore, the NDAA law as written and signed, is a violation of international law as it does not even adhere to the fundamental agreements of how nations treat prisoners of war.

The ACLU also says, “…the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war.”

In 1789, today’s NDAA law would have been called “treasonous,” and those who voted for it would have been shot dead as traitors. This is not a call for violence, but rather an attempt to provide historical context of just how destructive this law really is. Men and women fought and died for the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. People sacrificed their lives, their safety and risked everything to achieve the freedoms that made America such a great nation. For one President to so callously throw away 222 years of liberty, betraying those great Americans who painstakingly created an extraordinary document limiting the power of government, is equivalent to driving a stake through the heart of the Republic.

In signing this, Obama has proven himself to be the most criminal of all U.S. Presidents, far worse than George W. Bush and a total traitor to the nation and its People. Remember, Obama swore upon a Bible that he would “protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” and yet he himself has become the enemy of the Constitution by signing a law that overtly and callously nullifies the Bill of Rights.

This is nothing less than an act of war declared on the American people by the executive and legislative branches of government. It remains to be seen whether the judicial branch will go along with it (US Supreme Court).

The Bill of Rights, signed in 1789 by many of the founding fathers of our nation, was based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights, drafted in 1776 and authored largely by George Mason, one of the least-recognized revolutionaries who gave rise to a nation of freedom and liberty.

Mason was a strong advocate of not just states’ rights, but of individual rights, and without his influence in 1789, we might not even have a Bill of Rights today (and our nation would have slipped into total government tyranny all the sooner). In fact, he openly opposed ratification of the U.S. Constitution unless it contained a series of amendments now known as the Bill of Rights.

SECTION ONE of this Virginia declaration of rights states:

“That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”

Section Three of the declaration speaks to the duty of the Citizens to abolish abusive government:

“That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.”

By any honest measure, today’s U.S. government, of course, has overstepped the bounds of its original intent. As Mason wrote over 200 years ago, the People of America now have not merely a right but a duty to “reform, alter or abolish it,” to bring government back into alignment with its original purpose — to protect the rights of the People.

Obama violates his Presidential Oath, sworn before God

Article II, Section I, of the United States Constitution spells out the oath of office that every President must take during their swearing in:

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

In signing the NDAA law into office, Obama has blatantly and unambiguously violated this sacred oath, meaning that his betrayal is not merely against the American people, but also against the Divine Creator.

Given that the Bill of Rights is an extension of Natural Law which establishes a direct heritage of sovereign power from the Creator to the People, a blatant attack upon the Bill of Rights is, by any account, an attack against the Creator and a violation of universal spiritual principles. Those who attempt to undermine the Bill of Rights are attempting to invalidate the relationship between God and Man, and in doing so, they are identifying themselves as enemies of God andagents of Evil.

Today, as 2012 begins, we are now a nation led by evil, and threatened with total destruction by those who would seek to rule as tyrants. This is America’s final hour. We either defend the Republic starting right now, or we lose it forever.

Read the language analysis of WHY and HOW the NDAA applies to American citizens 

Many people have been fooled by the obfuscated language of the bill, and they wrongfully believe the NDAA does not apply to American citizens. They have been hoodwinked!

In this follow-up article, I parse the language of the NDAA and explain, in plain language, how and why the NDAA does apply to American citizens.

Also, read this explanation by Rep. Justin Amash, who voted against the bill.

Make no mistake, folks: The U.S. government has just declared all Americans to be “enemy combatants,” and that the USA is now a “battleground” over which the military has total control. We are now a nation living under military dictatorship, whether you realize it or not.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook