Obama's timing and his reading material

It has just occured to me that using the Alinsky method, The undocumented Fraud in the White House, Barack Hussein Obama, alternates between ObamaCare and giving money to terrorists. On the days of Islamist murder sprees, Quick! jump to ObamaCare and the final bankrupting of the country. When most idiots have forgotten about the latest massacre in the name of Allah, WATCH OUT! He is giving the terrorists more of your tax dollars or your constitutional rights!

By the way, where do some of these ideas come from besides "throwing crap at them every day the Alinsky way, but maybe from the books Obeyme reads:



The name of the book Obama is reading is called:

The Post-American World, and it was written by a fellow Muslim.

"Post" America means the world After America! Please forward this picture to everyone you know, conservative or liberal. We must expose Obama's radical ideas and his intent to bring down our beloved America !

Some call him an imbecile, others call him Obamunist or Ovomit - I call him a traitor to the U.S. and most of all I and others see him as practically begging for both North Korea and Iran to Nuke us.

At a time when North Korea and Iran have the capability and are screaming that they WILL nuke us this imbecile fraud, Ovomit wants us to disarm ourselves.

If this isn't begging for the thugs and bullies to nuke us, then it's obvious you have been living in a cave and have never been on a school playground. The weak, defenseless and those who don't want to fight are always, always, always, the ones to be picked on. Wake up people, this imposter is going to be the death of us all.

Oh and while I'm at it, let me give a poke at the lamestream media. This morning my elderly mother was reading the local newspaper and she was shocked to find out that North Korea is threatening to nuke us. Hello! Hello! Mom, that story is over a week old. In addition to reading the daily local rag of a so-called newspaper, she watches the nightly news. Nothing about North Korea there either.

This was my opportunity to point out to dear old mom, who is still living in the world of 1955 Democrats, true journalists and real investigative reporters, along with neighbors who speak English, don't use their front yard as a garbage dump and actually say hello when offered a "Hello, beautiful day today!" rather than offer an ugly face and then their backs..........my opportunity to tell mom ......."see, see, this is what I have been telling you for years: You can not trust the newspaper or TV (NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN) to give you the story - this is old, old news." I didn't have the heart to tell her that I've read those NK bombs are said to be able to reach the west coast of the U.S.

So, now, here's what Ovomit is doing to help destroy the chances of a democratic type government taking over in Iran:

Obama Stops Funds for Democracy in Iran - Latest: Dick Morris Reveals Obama 'Catastrophe'

An open Letter to Barack Hussein Obama

Your campaign for the presidency was waged in large measure on the premise that President George W. Bush pushed America into an unjustifiable and immoral invasion of Iraq, followed by years of agonizing mismanagement of the war.

In particular, you constantly chided the Bush administration for failing to develop and implement a coherent "exit strategy," for leaving the Iraq theater of the war on terror.

You and your leftist colleagues in Congress constantly pounded President Bush on the issue until discrediting the president nearly became more important than the primary military objective: To fight the war on terror in Baghdad and Fallujah, rather than New York City and Los Angeles.

However, your headstrong obsession with an "exit strategy" seems to have gone missing recently, at least with respect to closing Guantanamo Bay.

Although one of your first official acts as president was to sign an executive order to shut down the controversial Guantanamo Bay detention center "as soon as practicable," neither you nor your staff, devoted much thought to the logistics, probable ramifications, or alternatives.

Pacifying moon bats on the far left seems to have been a greater priority to you than the safety and well being of American citizens.

Republicans were not amused by your grandstanding to liberal nut balls. As reported, in part, by ABC on January 22, 2009, Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio had strong words of doubt about closing GITMO:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/LawPolitics/story?id=6707095&page=1

"I think the first thing we have to remember is that we're talking about terrorists here," Boehner said at a press conference this afternoon. "Do we bring them into our borders? Do we release them back into the battlefield, like some 61 detainees that have been released we know are back on the battlefield? And do we release them to get back and rejoin this fight? ... I'm concerned that some will be let go too soon, could end up back on the battlefield."

In the four months since you issued your tragically flawed executive order and Rep. Boehner shared his sage warnings, Team Obama still has not come forth with intelligent plans for dealing with 248 of the most vicious and deadly terrorists on the face of the planet.

Your complete and utter incompetence regarding GITMO has cost you the needed support from Democrats in Congress. Indeed, Congress has refused to authorize the funds needed to implement your unwise decision.

As it turns out, no politician, regardless of how liberally insane, wants to go before his or her constituency and explain why it is necessary to transfer deadly terrorists from an isolated military base in Cuba to their own home communities!

You continue to say, "None of these terrorists will be released on American soil." If you bring them to America in any way whatsoever, you will be giving them the same rights as American citizens when they are brought to trial!!! How incompetent is that?

It simply makes no sense! And since you have no intelligent alternative, your mindless pandering to the far left is officially on hold.

Imagine how ironic it will be if you, who fought tooth and nail against a war, intended to keep the war of terror from being fought on American soil, may actually be instrumental in bringing terrorists to American cities and towns.

A word of advice: Next time, have your "exit strategy" in place before acting, Mr. President!

Pamela
Spokan, WA


"All it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing"

Life with Big Brother Obama - Now he wants control of the internet!

________________________________________
LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER
Will bill give Obama control of Internet?
Proposed new powers called 'drastic federal intervention'

________________________________________
Posted: April 04, 2009
10:35 pm Eastern
By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Sen. John "Jay" Rockefeller, D-W.V.
A pair of bills introduced in the U.S. Senate would grant the White House sweeping new powers to access private online data, regulate the cybersecurity industry and even shut down Internet traffic during a declared "cyber emergency."
Senate bills No. 773 and 778, introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., are both part of what's being called the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, which would create a new Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor, reportable directly to the president and charged with defending the country from cyber attack.
A working draft of the legislation obtained by an Internet privacy group also spells out plans to grant the Secretary of Commerce access to all privately owned information networks deemed to be critical to the nation's infrastructure "without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access."
Who might be watching you without you knowing it? Get "Spychips" and see how major corporations and government are planning to track your every move!
Privacy advocates and Internet experts have been quick to sound the alarm over the act's broadly drawn government powers.
"The cybersecurity threat is real," says Leslie Harris, president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, which obtained the draft of S.773, "but such a drastic federal intervention in private communications technology and networks could harm both security and privacy."
"The whole thing smells bad to me," writes Larry Seltzer in eWeek, an Internet and print news source on technology issues. "I don't like the chances of the government improving this situation by taking it over generally, and I definitely don't like the idea of politicizing this authority by putting it in the direct control of the president."


click HERE for the rest of the story

Millions are Demanding Your Papers Please, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

With Barack Obama in the White House, millions of Americans are watching the news night after night in sheer shock, wondering out loud what the next unprecedented expansion of government power will be. Nationalizing entire industries with gigantic taxpayer bailouts; forcing taxpayers to fund abortion; releasing Gitmo prisoners onto U.S. streets; rapidly converting free-market, capitalist America into a government-run socialist state – every day seems to bring a new unconstitutional power-grab, critics say.
But arguably Obama’s most egregious, unconstitutional “power-grab” as president may have been his very first – being elected to the highest office in the land while steadfastly refusing to offer proof he is a “natural born citizen,” as required of all presidents by the U.S. Constitution.
That explosive story is the focus of the April 2009 edition of WND’s acclaimed Whistleblower magazine. It’s called “YOUR PAPERS, PLEASE? Why dozens of lawsuits and millions of Americans want Barack Obama to prove he's constitutionally qualified to be president.”


Click HERE for the rest of the story

A clarification on the Migration and REfugee Assistance Act of 1962

Is Obama Opening the Floodgates for Hamas?

A Clarification from Brigitte Gabriel and ACT for America.org

Dear Friends ,

Yesterday we emailed you information regarding President Obama’s presidential memorandum authorizing $20.3 million in funds to help Palestinians under the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962. In that email we raised the question as to whether or not some of these Palestinians could end up “migrating” to the United States.

There have been some postings on the web that are maintaining that Obama’s action will lead to a mass immigration of Palestinians into the U.S. One posting we know of asserts that this is in error because the fund in question is for “migrating” not “immigrating.”

Here’s an excerpt from that post: “Just to be sure, I talked to an official at the State Department. He said the fund in question, known as ERMA (the U.S. Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance fund), is run out of the White House. That is, the president has discretion to use it for what he determines are emergencies. It is for providing funds for people in place — that is, where they are in need in other countries, not here. He pointed out that “migration” is not the same as “immigration.” It means people moving around, that’s all.”Based on what we can ascertain, it does appear that what the official at the State Department is saying is correct about the intent of the program, and that no Palestinians will end up “migrating” to the U.S. as a result. But given the history of the State Department, you’ll understand if we’re a bit skeptical of an explanation that comes from a State Department official. We hope what the State Department official said proves to be true, but only time will tell if in fact any Palestinians are somehow able to use this program as a springboard to immigrate to the United States.

On a Palestinian-related issue, this week we delivered to UN Secretary-General Bank Ki-moon our petition calling for an investigation of Hamas’ treatment of children in Gaza. We want to thank each of the nearly 9,000 people who signed the petition.

Dhimmi Dummy of the Day Award: Individual

Baraq Hussein Obama, the Obamantor of U.S. National Security, Muslim born and educated is now showing his traitorous choice of appeasment of Islamic terrorists over the best health and interest of the country he had to swear three times to protect.


ThatS right all you Obamabots, Obambies, Oboobs and Obots! Your man can't sell us out fast enough to his buddies the very Islamofascists that would just as soon as slit yours and your childrens' throats as look at you. AND now for many reasons these barbarian thugs will have a better chance to do so.


1) First press conference given NOT to the American public but to Al Jazeera, the propganda arm of al qaeda! Shows alot of respect for the America people, eh?

2) Obama gives Gitmo terrorists special rights
President Obama clearly didn't do his homework before ordering the suspension of military tribunals to try terrorist suspects. We have learned that even his own legal counsel admitted that Mr. Obama erred in discussing details about terrorism with families of victims last week, and that the administration was ignorant of a key point that terrorists exploit to their advantage. In his rush to fulfill a campaign promise to his more fervid anti-war supporters, the president's legal oversights risk the disclosure of some highly classified information to terrorists.

Debra Burlingame, sister of Charles Burlingame III, the pilot of American Airlines Flight 77 that was flown into the Pentagon on 9/11, was present at last Friday's White House meeting of families of terrorism victims. Her impression was that President Obama was saying the right words in general, but when it came to specifics he was uncertain, uninformed, and sometimes just plain mistaken. Ms. Burlingame is an attorney who has followed closely the legal aspects of the terrorism cases, and her detailed, probing questions were met with stammers, stares, and statements that betrayed an understanding of the law that was, she said, "flat out wrong."

Case in point: the president's knowledge of the role of the Classified Information Procedures Act or CIPA. This law governs the way in which classified information is used in trials. The Sixth Amendment guarantees defendants the right to confront their accusers and the evidence against them, but the government has an important interest in cases such as these in keeping sources and methods secret. Under CIPA rules, in cases where classified information is used, the government has the option of sharing the information with the defendant, or not using it.

The Bush administration sought to avoid this potential national security threat by resorting to other procedures in which 6th Amendment issues did not arise. But President Obama believes that the model for terrorism cases is the prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers. Of course a number of those plotters escaped justice (some were found later hiding in Saddam's Iraq, but that's another story). More important, because of the openness of that process, al Qaeda learned a great deal about how to do a much better job next time - and even the classified information from that trial was in Osama bin Laden's hands within weeks.

The terrorists have learned a great deal about conducting legal guerrilla war, using rules like CIPA to their advantage. Notice that more and more terrorists are dismissing their appointed lawyers and representing themselves. This gives them direct access to the classified documents that will be used in evidence against them. In this way they can learn about U.S. intelligence sources and methods - how they were targeted, what information was collected, and who may have been the traitors in their midst. Even if the names of sources are omitted, for example someone who was present at a key planning meeting, the terrorist defendant will know enough about the circumstances to be able to narrow it down. After all, the terrorist is familiar with every aspect of the events; he knows much more about them than the intelligence community.

for the rest of the article, please click here



3) Is Obama Opening Floodgates To Hamas? From ACT for America - PLEASE SEE LATER POST ON CLARIFICATION OF THIS ISSUE


Two weeks ago President Obama issued a little-noticed presidential memorandum that has profound ramifications for our national security.

Under the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962, President Obama authorized $20.3 million to aid Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip, which includes aid to help them “migrate.”

Given that Arab countries in the Middle East don’t want the Palestinians settling in their countries, Obama’s action begs an obvious question: Where will these Palestinian “refugees” migrate to? Since tens of thousands of Muslim refugees have gained expedited entry to the U.S. over the past few years under our refugee acts, it is not unreasonable to assume that at least some of these Palestinians will end up migrating…here.

Who are these people? Let’s not forget that the Palestinians elected the terrorist organization Hamas to govern them. Observers of the culture of the Gaza Strip describe it as a culture of hate and a breeding ground for terrorism. You may recall the video we emailed you last month showing Palestinian children being trained to be terrorists and used as human shields.

The article below asks the question, “What security measures are in place to keep Hamas terrorists from gaining free access into the U.S.?”

We would take that a step further. What security measures could possibly be sufficient to ensure that every Palestinian “refugee” who migrates to the U.S. is not a Hamas terrorist, or at least a Hamas sympathizer?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

$20.3 Million to aid refugees

Obama opening floodgates by inviting Hamas to “migrate” to the U.S.A.?

By Judi McLeod & Michael Travis Thursday, February 5, 2009

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8236

On his first official day in the White House, President Barack Obama was on the horn to President Mahmoud Abbas.

“The spokesman for President Abbas revealed that Mr. Obama had told the Palestinian leader that their conversation was his first with a foreign statesman since taking office.” (TimesOnLine, Jan. 22, 2009).

Some thought that first call to the leader of the Palestinian authority was for spite. Others for statesman like reasons, still others for appeasement.

Given that a clip from Al-Jazeera televised Hamas-controlled Palestinians “burning up the phone bank from Gaza” to rally support for his presidential campaign, perhaps the telephone call was made out of gratitude.

Seven days later on January 27, President Obama signed Presidential Determination No. 2009-15, which allocates $20.3 million for Palestinian migration and refugee assistance.

Today a memo sent by President Obama to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seems to invite Hamas to “migrate” into the United States of America.

The presidential determination covers the “Unexpected Urgent Refugee and Migration Needs Related to Gaza.”

“By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 2(c)(1) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 (the “Act”), as amended (22 U.S.C. 2601), I hereby determine, pursuant to section 2 (c) (1) of the Act, that it is important to the national interest to furnish assistance under the Act in an amount not to exceed $20.3 million from the United States Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund for the purpose of meeting unexpected and urgent refugee and migration needs, including by contributions to international, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations and payment of administrative expenses of Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration of the Department of State, related to humanitarian needs of Palestinian refugees and conflict victims in Gaza. (Italics CFP’s).

“You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register,” President Obama instructs the new Secretary of State.

Two days before Obama’s inauguration, Israel began pulling its troops out of Gaza.

One week after his inauguration, President Obama designated $20.3 million to the Palestinians in Gaza.

What security measures are in place to keep Hamas terrorists from gaining free access into the U.S.?

“Is President Obama opening the floodgates and inviting Hamas to “migrate” to the U.S.A.?

Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, and Glenn Beck.

Michael Travis is an Intelligence analyst who has written for defence journals in the U.K., Europe, and Israel. He is currently a senior analyst for a U.S. based corporation.

4) NOTE: This article is, in fact, a satire piece. While you're here, read other articles, like Obama going on the quarter, how he's genetically superior, and how he took down Blago. And you can also check out Joe's Babe of the Week, which comes out every Friday. And become a fan and return and tell your friends. Word up.
Error in reporting and posting pointed out by Alyssa of http://www.alyssaalappen.orgFor those who like this satire, buy my book, The Real History of World War II.

Obama Wants the Military to Pledge Oath to Him, Not to the Constitution? Will you still keep giving Obama "a chance"?
Now Obama wants to make the military pledge allegiance to him, overriding, of course, the military's pledge to the Constitution. Check the blog by Michele Chang at the bottom.
Notice that, so far, Chang's report is not being aired by anyone else but her. But, after seen all what Obama has done in just one week at the White House, and given his credentials as a Marxist -and, most likely, a Leninist (i.e., a communist on steroids)-- anything is expectable from him.
Thus, just in case, we MUST stop this guy --LAWFULLY, of course-- before it is too late.
All, absolutely all LAWFUL avenues must be pursued to stop this man before he pushes America to the abyss of no return.
It's very credible that Obama wants a Nazi Germany redux with our Armed Forces!
When Hitler started flirting with the idea of making the entire German Wehrmacht --that is, der Heer (the Army), der Kriegsmarine (the Navy) and der Luftwaffe (the Air Force)-- pledge allegiance to him and not to the German Constitution, people said "Bah! The German military are the German military; they won't cave in."
Alas!
Even Field Marshals and Admirals of the finest Prussian tradition did it. There they were, la crème de la crème of the Wehrmacht making the oath to Hitler: Ludwig Beck, Fedor von Bock, Walther von Brauchitsch, Wilhelm Franz Canaris, Karl Dönitz, Heinz Guderian, Franz Halder, Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord, Hermann Hoth, Alfred Jodl, Wilhelm Keitel, Ewald von Kleist, Albert Kesselring, Hans Günther von Kluge, Erich von Manstein, Walter Model, Friedrich Paulus, Erich Raeder, Robert Ritter von Greim, Erwin Rommel, Hans-Jürgen von Arnim, Gerd von Rundstedt, and Erwin von Witzleben.
Thousands of Generals followed suit.
And then they all dragged behind them the entire Wehrmacht...

...thus helping Hitler cause the horrific worldwide-mayhem where tens of millions died, including 5,533,000 German soldiers.
Not that Obama will declare a Fourth Reich and then march on Canada and Mexico; he will use the our Armed Forces as support for his preannounced Cheka-style Civilian National Security Force.
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded..." Obama proclaimed publicly.
"People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve..." he added.
He will use our glorious Armed Forces to help him subjugate us, his master, us, We the People.
Our glorious Armed Forces may end up in the gutter of infamy, pushed by Obama and his hardcore left retinue, and piedpipered by spineless admirals and generals.
What purpose is behind Obama's move but to yoke us all with socialism?
In vintage Marxist jargon, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, explains the pretended purpose: "The President feels that the military has been too indoctrinated by the old harbingers of hate: nationalism, racism, and classism. By removing an oath to the American society, the soldiers are less likely to commit atrocities like those at Abu Ghraib."
Our Armed Forces "...too indoctrinated by the old harbingers of hate: nationalism, racism, and classism..."? Nationalism a vice and not a virtue? Just in the sick mind of doctrinaire Marxists, who pursue a world government! But, would Gibbs criticize Stalin's "Great Patriotic War" to defend "Mother Russia" from Nazi Germany?
Our Armed Forces indoctrinated by racism and classism? What a shameless liar, as any typical hardcore leftist, Gibbs is! Our Armed Forces have always been the epitomic paradigm of overall integration.
And, atrocities at Abu Ghraib? It was all pubertal hazing by a handful of idiotic, rogue guards. The hazing I received at the military academy for initiation as a plebe makes Abu Ghraib look like kindergarten play. Hardcore-leftist hack Gibbs attempts to make it look like an atrocity...the baleful traitor!
That said, the real objective of Obama is to usurp the Armed Forces from their legitimate owners, We the People, and, in the process, attain illegitimate full control of the nation to impose on us sheer socialism.
Remember that the President is hired by us, We the People, to run the executive branch of the federal government, and to act as the Commander in Chief of the Armed forces, for us, We the People.
Always remember, as well, that ALL sovereignty resides in us, We the People.
By hiring a President, senators, representatives, judges, governors, mayors, etc, We the People NEVER, EVER renounce our absolute sovereignty. On the contrary, we assert it, by hiring the government to work for us; the government is not to govern us, but to serve us within the bounds of the Constitution and secondary law.
Not in vain the Constitution starts solemnly with the most powerful phrase: We the People.
We definitely MUST not only resist, but also stop --LAWFULLY, of course-- this undoer of America, Obama.
Fortunately the Great American Resistance is already on the move;
A military judge just stopped Obama from suspending hearings at Guantanamo, the Washington Post reported: Military Judge Denies Obama Request to Suspend Hearings at Guantanamo - washingtonpost.com
The entire Republican caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives voted against Obama's socialization package (aka "Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Plan").
The U.S. Senate Republican caucus seems to have realized the gravity of the injury that Obama's socialization package will inflict, irrecoverably, on America. They are in turmoil and --except for the usual traitorous RINOs-- the GOP senators will oppose it as well.
"Give him a chance" is the mantra that hardcore leftists, with feigned humility, plead; in their crass folly, useful-idiots (aka liberals) beg; and, in their sheer ignorance, throngs of ignoramuses supplicate.
"Give him a chance"...to wreck America?
Damned those who accede!
"Obama is a good man," other deceivers, wishful-thinkers, and fecal-matter-heads argue.
Obama, "a good man"?
What little trace of goodness could exist in someone who puts us all in danger by closing the mass-murderous Islamofascist-terrorists detention center at Guantanamo?
How can someone be called "good" when he has ordered the end of military courts for processing mass-murderous Islamofascist terrorists, thus placing all us in lethal peril?
How can anyone be deemed "good" when he orders the reinitiating of the massive first-degree murder of babies in gestation under the gimmick of "choice," the codeword of hardcore leftists and abortionists for abortion on demand? First degree murder??? Absolutely! Abortion on demand is the murder of a baby in gestation in cold blood, with collusive premeditation, malice and full advantage. This hardcore leftist Hun, Obama, prefers to ignore that absolute respect for innocent human life is the most basic foundation of human society, and that a voiceless, defenseless baby in gestation is the epitomic embodiment of innocent human life.
This hardcore-leftist vandal, Obama, must be resisted and stopped; again, LAWFULLY.
Hurrah for the Great American Resistance! Let's fan it, let's fuel it, let's keep it going on, and let's make it grow into a firestorm.
To that end, let's email all conservative talk show radio hosts about Obama's plan to subjugate our Armed Forces; they, conservative pundits, are our only hope, for the "mainstream" media --which are in the hands of the hardcore left as well-- will cover it up. Obama and they, the "mainstream" media, are flour from the same bag; they are hardcore leftist pals. We must make conservative talk show radio hosts report it, comment it and attack it to defeat.
Let's email and phone our US senators and representatives DEMANDING that they impede Obama committing such abomination. Let's flood their email inboxes, and let's avalanche their switchboards with DEMANDS from us, who hired them to represent us, to stop Obama's atrocious intentions of bringing our glorious Armed Forces down to servility.
And finally, deluge Obama himself with emails and phone calls to the White House DEMANDING to stop even thinking of the nauseating ignominy.
Don't forget also to encourage your relatives and acquaintances to do the same. We all must work to stop this fellow, but we must do it LAWFULLY, according to the Constitution, and following the letter and spirit of the Declaration of Independence...to the end, if necessary.
Long live America, the land of the Free and the home of the Brave!
Now, to Michele's blog:

http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/2009/01/military-to-pledge-oath-to-obama-not.html
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Military to Pledge Oath To Obama, Not Constitution
Conservative News and Reporting -- "News for the Rest of Us"Michele ChangSecretary of Defense Robert Gates is extremely frustrated with orders that the White House is contemplating. According to sources at the Pentagon, including all branches of the armed forces, the Obama Administration may break with a centuries-old tradition.A spokesman for General James Cartwright, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, states that the Obama Administration wants to have soldiers and officers pledge a loyalty oath directly to the office of the President, and no longer to the Constitution."The oath to the Constitution is as old as the document itself." the spokesman said, "At no time in American history, not even in the Civil War, did the oath change or the subject of the oath differ. It has always been to the Constitution."The back-and-forth between the White House and the Defense Department was expected as President George W. Bush left office. President Obama has already signed orders to close Guantanamo and to pull combat troops from Iraq. But, this, say many at the Defense Department, goes to far."Technically, we can't talk about it before it becomes official policy." the spokesman continued. "However, the Defense Department, including the Secretary, will not take this laying down. Expect a fight from the bureaucracy and the brass."Sources at the White House had a different point of view. In a circular distributed by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, the rationale for the change was made more clear."The President feels that the military has been too indoctrinated by the old harbingers of hate: nationalism, racism, and classism. By removing an oath to the American society, the soldiers are less likely to commit atrocities like those at Abu Ghraib.""We expect a lot of flak over this," the classified memo continues. "But those that would be most against it are those looking either for attention or control."The time frame for the changes are unknown. However, it is more likely that the changes will be made around the July 4th holiday, in order to dampen any potential backlash. The difference in the oath will actually only be slight. The main differences will be the new phrasing. It is expected that the oath to the Constitution will be entirely phased out within two years.



If you want to help strengthen America, visit and join
www.AnyStreet.organdwww.RiseUpAmerica.net

Thanks go to Rene for the above

WAKE UP AMERICA!!
WAKE UP OPRA and WHOOPIE!!

Pass it on people!

Elections Have Consequences

The commentary below is an insightful analysis of how Iran is responding to President Obama’s clear signals as to what his Iran policy will be. One week ago Iran launched a domestically manufactured satellite on a ballistic missile that has a range of up to 3,000 kilometers.

In other words, Iran has demonstrated it has the capability to launch conventional and nuclear warheads with a range of as much as 3,000 kilometers.

During the presidential campaign, at times candidate Barack Obama made it clear that a nuclear Iran was “unacceptable.” But these statements were wrapped in his broader foreign policy theme – that it was time for the U.S. to change course and diplomatically engage countries like Iran.

Anyone who even remotely appreciates the horrors of war hopes that diplomatic efforts and/or various non-military sanctions will be successful in “persuading” Iran to abort its nuclear weapons program.

But let’s be realistic here. There is little evidence that existing sanctions have had any impact in changing the Iranian government’s behavior. The Islamist regime continues to move full-speed ahead toward the acquisition of nuclear weaponry. As Iran moves ever closer to achieving this goal, will the Obama administration be willing to do what is necessary to prevent a nuclear Iran, what Obama has termed “unacceptable”?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 07, 2009

Israel's Fateful Elections

By Caroline Glick
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/israels_fateful_elections.html

Tuesday's general elections will officially end the briefest and most nonchalant electoral season Israel has ever experienced. Regrettably, the importance of these elections is inversely proportional to their lack of intensity. These are the most fateful elections Israel has ever had. The events of the past week make this point clearly.

On Monday Iran successfully launched a domestically manufactured satellite on a ballistic missile called the Safir-2 space rocket. Since the launch, experts have noted that the Safir-2 can also be used to launch conventional and nonconventional warheads. The Safir-2 has an estimated range of 2,000-3,000 kilometers. And so the successful satellite launch showed that today Iran is capable of launching missiles not only against Israel, but against southern Europe as well.

Many Israeli leaders viewed Monday's launch as a "gotcha" moment. For years they have been saying that Iran's nuclear program is a threat to global security - not merely to Israel's. And Monday's launch demonstrated that they were right all along. Israel isn't the only country on Iran's target list.

Unfortunately for Israel, the international community couldn't care less. Its response to Teheran's latest provocation was to collectively shrug its shoulders.

On Wednesday emissaries of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany convened in Wiesbaden, Germany, to discuss their joint policies toward Iran in the aftermath of the satellite launch. Some Israelis argued that Iran's provocation forced these leaders' hands. Their reputations for toughness were on the line. They would have to do something.

Unfortunately for Israel, the emissaries of Russia, Britain, China, France, Germany and the US are more interested in convincing the mullahs that they are nice than in convincing them that they are tough.

Far from deciding to take concerted action against Iran, the great powers did nothing more than wish the Obama administration good luck as it moves to directly engage the mullahs. As their post-conference press release put it, the six governments' answer to Teheran's show of force was to "agree to consult on the next steps as the US administration undertakes its [Iranian] policy review."

As President Barak Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have explained, the US is reviewing its policy toward Iran in the hopes of finding a way to directly engage the Iranian government. While they claim that the aim of these sought after direct negotiations will be to convince the mullahs to give up their nuclear weapons program, since taking office the new administration has sent out strong signals that preventing Iran from going nuclear has taken a backseat to simply holding negotiations with Teheran.

According to a report in Aviation News, last week the US Navy prevented Israel from seizing an Iranian weapons ship in the Red Sea suspected of carrying illicit munitions bound for either Gaza or Lebanon. A week and a half ago, the US Navy boarded the ship in the Gulf of Aden and carried out a cursory inspection. It demurred from seizing the ship, however, because, as Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained on January 27, the US believed it had no international legal right to seize the vessel.

In inspecting the ship the US was operating under UN Security Council Resolution 1747, which bars Iran from exporting arms. The US argued that it lacked authority to seize the ship because 1747 has no enforcement mechanism. Yet the fact of the matter is that if the US were truly interested in intercepting the ship and preventing the arms from arriving at their destination, the language of 1747 is vague enough to support such a seizure.

And that's the point. The US was uninterested in seizing the ship because it was uninterested in provoking a confrontation with Teheran, which it seeks to engage. It was not due to lack of legal authority that the US reportedly prevented the Israel Navy from seizing the ship in the Red Sea, but due to the administration's fervent wish to appease the mullahs.

Today the ship, which was sailing under a Cypriot flag, is docked in the Port of Limassol. Cypriot authorities have reportedly inspected the ship twice, have communicated their findings to the Security Council, and are still waiting for guidance on how to deal with the ship.

ALL OF this brings us back to next Tuesday's elections. With the US effectively giving up on confronting Iran, the entire burden for blocking Iran's quest for nuclear weapons falls on Israel's shoulders.

This means that the most important question that Israeli voters must ask ourselves between now and Tuesday is which leader and which party are most capable of achieving this vital goal?

All we need to do to answer this question is to check what our leaders have done in recent years to bring attention to the Iranian threat and to build coalitions to contend with it.

In late 2006, citing the Iranian nuclear menace, Israel Beiteinu leader Avigdor Lieberman joined the Olmert government where he received the tailor-made title of strategic affairs minister. At the time Lieberman joined the cabinet, the public outcry against the government for its failure to lead Israel to victory in the war with Iran's Lebanese proxy Hizbullah had reached a fever pitch. The smell of new elections was in the air as members of Knesset from all parties came under enormous public pressure to vote no confidence in the government.

By joining the government when he did, Lieberman single-handedly kept the Olmert government in power. Explaining his move, Lieberman claimed that the danger emanating from Iran's nuclear program was so great that Israel could not afford new elections.

But what did he accomplish by saving the government by taking that job? The short answer is nothing. Not only did his presence in the government make no impact on Israel's effectiveness in dealing with Iran, it prolonged the lifespan of a government that had no interest in forming a strategy for contending with Iran by two years.

In light of this fact, perhaps more than any other Israeli politician, Lieberman is to blame for the fact that Israel finds itself today with no allies in its hour of greatest peril. Had he allowed the people to elect more competent leaders in the fall of 2006, we might have been able to take advantage of the waning years of the Bush administration to convince the US to work with us against Iran.

Then there is Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. If Lieberman was the chief enabler of Israel's incompetent bungling of the Iranian threat, as Israel's chief diplomat, it is Livni - together with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert - who deserves the greatest condemnation for that bungling.

Throughout her tenure as foreign minister and still today as Kadima's candidate for prime minister, Livni claims that she supports using diplomacy to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. But in her three years as Israel's top diplomat, Livni never launched any diplomatic initiative aimed at achieving this goal. In fact, she has never even publicly criticized the European and American attempts to appease the mullahs.

Livni has remained silent for three years even though it has been clear for five years that the West's attempts to cut a deal with Teheran serve no purpose other than to provide the Iranians time to develop their nuclear arsenal. She has played along with the Americans and the Europeans and cheered them on as they passed toothless resolutions against Iran in the Security Council which - as the Iranian weapons ship docked in Cyprus shows - they never had the slightest intention of enforcing.

As for Defense Minister Ehud Barak, as a member of the Olmert government, his main personal failure has been his inability to convince the Pentagon to approve Israel's requests to purchase refueling jets and bunker buster bomb kits, and to permit Israeli jets to fly over Iraqi airspace. To achieve these aims, Barak could have turned to Israel's friends in the US military and in Congress. But he did no such thing. And now, moving into the Obama administration, Israel finds itself with fewer and fewer allies in Washington's security community.

For the past several years, only one political leader in Israel has had the foresight and wisdom to both understand the dangers of Iran's nuclear program and to understand the basis for an Israeli diplomatic approach to contending with the threat that can serve the country's purposes regardless of whether or not at the end of the day, Israel is compelled to act alone.

In 2006, Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu took it upon himself to engage the American people in a discussion of the danger Iran poses not only to Israel but to the world as a whole. In late 2006, he began meeting with key US governors and state politicians to convince them to divest their state employees' pension funds from companies that do business with Iran. This initiative and complementary efforts by the Washington-based Center for Security Policy convinced dozens of state legislatures to pass laws divesting their pension funds from companies that do business with Iran.

Netanyahu also strongly backed the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs' initiative to indict Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as an international war criminal for inciting genocide. Both the divestment campaign and the campaign against Ahmadinejad have been Israel's most successful public diplomacy efforts in contending with Iran. More than anything done by the government, these initiatives made Americans aware of the Iranian nuclear threat and so forced the issue onto the agendas of all the presidential candidates.

Instead of supporting Netanyahu's efforts, Livni, Barak and Lieberman have disparaged them or ignored them.

Because he is the only leader who has done anything significant to fight Iran's nuclear program, Netanyahu is the only national leader who has the international credibility to be believed when he says - as he did this week - that Israel will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. Likud under Netanyahu is the only party that has consistently drawn the connection between Iran, its Palestinian, Lebanese, Iraqi and Afghan terror proxies, its Syrian client state and its nuclear weapons program, and made fighting this axis the guiding principle of its national security strategy.

GIVEN THE US-led international community's decision not to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, it is clear that in the coming months Israel will need to do two things. It will need to put the nations of the world on notice that they cannot expect us to stand by idly as they welcome Iran into the nuclear club. And Israel will need to prepare plans to strike Iran's nuclear installations without America's support.

More than ever before, Israel requires leaders who understand the gravity of the hour and are capable of acting swiftly and wisely to safeguard our country from destruction. Only Netanyahu and Likud have a credible track record on this subject.

For the sake of our country, our nation and our posterity, it is our responsibility to consider this fact when we enter the voting booths on Tuesday.

Obama making U.S.LESS Safe

Cheney: Obama making U.S. less safe

"These are evil people. And were not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek" Or, in Obama's own words, "winning hearts and minds" and censoring language. "Obama making U.S. less safe, Cheney says," from Political Ticker,...

Full article: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024715.php
AOL users: Click here

11% polled are insane and must be taking the same meds as many in our federal Legislature!

My Poll results: Liberals and the media want Obama to kiss Ahmadinejad's ass/lips/ass/lips/ass/lips/both


**************************************************************

Monday, February 02, 2009

Just 11% of U.S. voters think America should apologize to Iran for “crimes” against the Islamic country – one of the prerequisites demanded by the Iranian president before he will agree to meet with President Barack Obama.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 73% oppose such an apology.

Obama in an interview last week with al-Arabiya, a 24-hour Arabic language satellite network, offered to end nearly 30 years of bad relations with Iran if the Middle Eastern nation is ready to "unclench its fist.” Ahmadinejad responded by demanding an apology for U.S. "crimes" against Iran and calling for major changes in U.S. policies toward his country.

Shortly after Obama’s election, most Americans said they expect terrorists or Iran to provide his first international test in office. (Blog notes: As they should expect it because This Abomination of a President is practically begging for an attack! It's a no-brainer people. Demonstrate in word and action just how weak you are and your enemies will take advantage of it and you don't need a poll or be a liberal useful idiot to figure THAT out! geesh!)

Fifty-two percent (52%) of voters view Iran as an enemy of the United States, while just four percent (4%) say it is an ally. Thirty-nine percent (39%) view it as somewhere in between the two, and six percent (6%) are not sure. These numbers have changed little since last September.
Most Republican voters (69%) and most unaffiliated voters (55%) consider Iran an enemy of the United States. Most Democrats (52%), however, see Iran as somewhere between an ally and an enemy.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? Sign up now. If it's in the news, it's in our polls).

Among all voters, 56% believe Iran should be required to stop developing its nuclear weapons capabilities before a meeting is allowed between the presidents of the two countries. Twenty-seven percent (27%) say no such precondition is necessary for Obama to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. These findings are little changed since last June.

In his first formal interview as president, Obama reached out to Iran in a TV interview last week on an Arabic network. During last year’s campaign, he was criticized by both Hillary Clinton and John McCain during last year’s campaign for proposing direct presidential talks without preconditions.

There is a divide within the Democratic Party on this topic—45% of those in Obama’s party say Iran must stop nuclear weapons development before talks are held between the two presidents. Thirty-six percent (36%) take the opposite view and favor talks without preconditions.

Most Republicans and unaffiliated voters say the nuclear weapons development must stop before presidential talks can begin.

Overall, voters are evenly divided on America’s future relations with Iran. Thirty-six percent (36%) say relations between the two countries will get worse over the coming year, while 33% think they will get better. The rest expect little change or are uncertain. Most Democrats expect relations with Iran to improve while most Republicans hold the opposite view.

President Bush listed Iran as one of the nations in his “axis of evil” for its nuclear program, its support of anti-U.S. forces in Iraq and its threats against Israel. While insisting that its uranium enrichment program is for peaceful energy purposes, Iran has refused to allow regular inspections by United Nations officials to confirm this.

Seventy-seven percent (77%) of voters say Iran’s nuclear program is for weapons development. That’s an increase from 63% who held that view last July.

Eighty-nine percent (89%) of Republicans, 66% of Democrats and 77% of unaffiliated voters believe Iran’s nuclear program is for weapons development.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free)… let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

See survey questions and toplines. Crosstabs are available to Premium Members only.

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

The Rasmussen Reports ElectionEdge™ Premium Service for Election 2008 offers the most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a Presidential election.

Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.

Obama begins discreet talks with Iran and Syria!

The appeasement begins: Obama begins discreet talks with Iran and Syria

OMG...........he is practically begging the Islamofascists to attack us!

Here we go. Strap in, hang on and shut up!: it's going to be a rough ride. "Obama has begun discreet talks with Iran, Syria," by Sylvie Lanteaume for AFP, February 1 (thanks to Mackie): US President Barack Obama has already used experts within the...

Full article: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024682.php
AOL users: Click here

Obama's policies threaten US Safety

The column below by John Yoo, which appeared last Thursday in the Wall Street Journal, analyzes some of the decisions President Obama made in his first week as commander-in-chief.

Taken together, these decisions, as Yoo notes, “will seriously handicap our intelligence agencies from preventing future terrorist attacks.”

For instance, interrogators of terrorist suspects will be so restrained in their tactics that they won’t even be able to use “good cop/bad cop” techniques commonly used by police officers. In other words, interrogation tactics which have been legally used on our own citizens are, in Obama’s new world order of fighting terrorism, too extreme to be used on terrorist suspects.

This absurdity would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous.

For the past few years Democrats assailed President Bush’s foreign policies, arguing that they made us “less safe.” Whatever one thinks of those policies, one incontrovertible fact remains: No terrorist attack was successfully executed in America on the President’s watch after 9/11.

According to intelligence experts one reason is the coercive interrogation techniques used to extract information from terrorist suspects and enemy combatants. With those now effectively jettisoned from our arsenal of self-defense, President Obama has put the nation at greater risk.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Obama Made a Rash Decision on Gitmo

The president will soon realize that governing involves hard choices.

By JOHN YOO

During his first week as commander in chief, President Barack Obama ordered the closure of Guantanamo Bay and terminated the CIA's special authority to interrogate terrorists.

While these actions will certainly please his base -- gone are the cries of an "imperial presidency" -- they will also seriously handicap our intelligence agencies from preventing future terrorist attacks. In issuing these executive orders, Mr. Obama is returning America to the failed law enforcement approach to fighting terrorism that prevailed before Sept. 11, 2001. He's also drying up the most valuable sources of intelligence on al Qaeda, which, according to CIA Director Michael Hayden, has come largely out of the tough interrogation of high-level operatives during the early years of the war.

The question Mr. Obama should have asked right after the inaugural parade was: What will happen after we capture the next Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or Abu Zubaydah? Instead, he took action without a meeting of his full national security staff, and without a legal review of all the policy options available to meet the threats facing our country.

What such a review would have made clear is that the civilian law-enforcement system cannot prevent terrorist attacks. What is needed are the tools to gain vital intelligence, which is why, under President George W. Bush, the CIA could hold and interrogate high-value al Qaeda leaders. On the advice of his intelligence advisers, the president could have authorized coercive interrogation methods like those used by Israel and Great Britain in their antiterrorism campaigns. (He could even authorize waterboarding, which he did three times in the years after 9/11.)

Mr. Obama has also ordered that all military commission trials be stayed and that the case of Ali Saleh al-Marri, the only al Qaeda operative now held on U.S. soil, be reviewed. This seems a prelude to closing the military commissions down entirely and transferring the detainees' cases to U.S. civilian courts for prosecution under ordinary criminal law. Military commission trials have been used in most American wars, and their rules and procedures are designed around the need to protect intelligence sources and methods from revelation in open court.

It's also likely Mr. Obama will declare terrorists to be prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. The Bush administration classified terrorists -- well supported by legal and historical precedent -- like pirates, illegal combatants who do not fight on behalf of a nation and refuse to obey the laws of war.

The CIA must now conduct interrogations according to the rules of the Army Field Manual, which prohibits coercive techniques, threats and promises, and the good-cop bad-cop routines used in police stations throughout America. Mr. Obama has also ordered that al Qaeda leaders are to be protected from "outrages on personal dignity" and "humiliating and degrading treatment" in accord with the Geneva Conventions. His new order amounts to requiring -- on penalty of prosecution -- that CIA interrogators be polite. Coercive measures are unwisely banned with no exceptions, regardless of the danger confronting the country.

Eliminating the Bush system will mean that we will get no more information from captured al Qaeda terrorists. Every prisoner will have the right to a lawyer (which they will surely demand), the right to remain silent, and the right to a speedy trial.

The first thing any lawyer will do is tell his clients to shut up. The KSMs or Abu Zubaydahs of the future will respond to no verbal questioning or trickery -- which is precisely why the Bush administration felt compelled to use more coercive measures in the first place. Our soldiers and agents in the field will have to run more risks as they must secure physical evidence at the point of capture and maintain a chain of custody that will stand up to the standards of a civilian court.

Relying on the civilian justice system not only robs us of the most effective intelligence tool to avert future attacks, it provides an opportunity for our enemies to obtain intelligence on us. If terrorists are now to be treated as ordinary criminals, their defense lawyers will insist that the government produce in open court all U.S. intelligence on their client along with the methods used by the CIA and NSA to get it. A defendant's constitutional right to demand the government's files often forces prosecutors to offer plea bargains to spies rather than risk disclosure of intelligence secrets.

Zacarias Moussaoui, the only member of the 9/11 cell arrested before the attack, turned his trial into a circus by making such demands. He was convicted after four years of pretrial wrangling only because he chose to plead guilty. Expect more of this, but with far more valuable intelligence at stake.

It is naïve to say, as Mr. Obama did in his inaugural speech, that we can "reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." That high-flying rhetoric means that we must give al Qaeda -- a hardened enemy committed to our destruction -- the same rights as garden-variety criminals at the cost of losing critical intelligence about real, future threats.

Government policy choices are all about trade-offs, which cannot simply be wished away by rhetoric. Mr. Obama seems to have respected these realities in his hesitation to end the NSA's electronic surveillance programs, or to stop the use of predator drones to target individual al Qaeda leaders.

But in his decisions taken so precipitously just two days after the inauguration, Mr. Obama may have opened the door to further terrorist acts on U.S. soil by shattering some of the nation's most critical defenses.

Mr. Yoo is a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley and a visiting professor at Chapman Law School. He was an official in the Justice Department from 2001-03 and is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.


--------------------------------------------------------------------

ACT for America
P.O. Box 12765
Pensacola, FL 32591

O'Bama Barf Bag!!!

Help! Help! That paperbag from the grocery store just is not large enough to hold the contents of my stomach today as I aread about the goins on of the Obambies and Obamabots and the assorted perverts and folks with no taste or conscience:http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2009/01/19/obama_nation/

http://gto7.wordpress.com/ scroll down to ALL these different stories and more.
1) Hamas Inauguration
2) Mass Media Schizophrenia
3) ANTI-TERROR bosses last night hailed their latest ally in the war on terror — the BLACK DEATH.
4) Awareness Campaign on Terrorism during Obama Parade on Jan 20th at DC.
5) ‘Pig sex’ orgy set for inaugural week *gag, chock*

THANK YOU TRACY!

America, is this the world you want to leave for your children? SPEAK OUT, SPEAK UP! the Leftist scum is emboldened by your silence and will not stop unti every perversity in the world, and many you can not even imagine will be demanded to be accepted! and criminalilzed if Not accepted! The Obama regime is already talking about "PERCEIVED" hate crimes! This while they allow REAL hate crimes on the streets of U.S. cities by the terrorist group Hamas and their useful idiot American leftoid supporters! WAKE UP!!

Black Panther Thugs for Obama

More video of Black Panther Thugs for Obama.

Obama's Civilian Army in Action on Election Day

Apparently, Marxist pigs and Black Panther wanna bes donning night sticks and blocking the doors to some polls in Philly believe they can intimidate some Philly voters, perhaps McCain/Palin voters? I don’t think so! Read what else Tracy at No Compromise has to say about the Obamanutz, Obamabots and Obama's new SS troops!

A Prebuttal to Obama's Infomercial

A Prebuttal to Obama's Infomercial

RUSH: Tonight, Barack Obama with his preinaugural address, a 30-minute television buy on some networks. I thought, ladies and gentlemen, I would precede this with a prebuttal to Obama, my own version of an inaugural address, if you will, or a campaign ad. It would go like this.

My fellow Americans, I come to you tonight a few days before an election only six days from now. These are monumental times. We face the worst economy since the Great Depression. People are losing their homes, their jobs, their businesses. Students cannot afford their college loans. Single mothers cannot afford day care; our schools are underfunded; families are growing broke paying for health care. And nobody seems to care,

ladies and gentlemen. Nobody seems to represent the middle class. The question is whether we want another eight years of failed policies. I have traveled this nation. From the big cities to our small towns, I have talked to the assembly line worker in Detroit. I have talked to the farmer in Missouri, and working people of this country have had to bear the brunt of eight years of neglect, of policies that have favored the well off and the wealthy. It is time to change the course of the nation, to work together to bring an end to the division that exists in our nation. That's what this election is about: hope, change, the future.

And so it is, my fellow Americans, that I urge you to reject Barack Obama and his cynical campaign for president. I urge you to reject the policies and the wording of the charismatic demagogue. Barack Obama condemns the United States Constitution, our highest law, because it does not empower him to redistribute the income of the middle class and give it to people who do not work. Obama condemns our judicial system not because it's too liberal and too activist, but because it will not impose his left-wing policies by judicial fiat. Obama believes that the tax code should be used not to fund the legitimate purposes of government, but to massively expand the size and power of the federal government. It's time for change. It is time for the kind of change that has made this country great and the change we seek, the change that matters is change that expands our liberty, expands opportunities, expands wealth creation, and expands our horizons. It is time to celebrate capitalism, not demonize it. It's time to celebrate success, not punish it. It is time to ignite our economy, not smother it.

Barack Obama speaks the language of the socialist. Barack Obama peddles class warfare. He peddles human envy. This is not what American leaders do. This is not what would-be American presidents should do. This is the tactic of the authoritarian, to create animosity, to create anger, to create fear, all for the purpose of undermining the strength and the unity of our society. Barack Obama comes from a long line of ideologues who puts the interests of big government above the interests of the individual and the interests of the family. He seeks to replace the American entrepreneurial spirit with government regulations and mandates. James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, all embraced the principle that America was a different place because of its respect for the individual. They did not talk about the government redistributing wealth. They did not talk about the government punishing success. They did not talk about the government reregulating the economy. They did not say that paying more taxes was patriotic.

They believed, as our leaders have always believed, that government had limits, so that the American dream would have no limits. They believe that each human being is unique, that he or she has the ability to do great things if left alone to pursue their own interests. They believed that ordinary people could accomplish extraordinary things. They rejected outright the authoritarianism that Barack Obama represents. They each swore to uphold the Constitution because they loved it, not because they saw it as a way to take power and subvert it. Throughout our history, our leaders have understood that private property rights are key to the survival of the individual. If you take his property, you take his livelihood. If you take his property, you attack his spirit. From the day our nation was born, the preservation of private property has been considered a priority of law. Barack Obama wants to use the law to destroy private property. This is what he means, when he attacks businesses large and small, when he insists that there must be limits on what you can earn and keep and pass on to your family when you pass away. He wants the government to control your private property, your income, your assets.

In other words, my fellow Americans, Barack Obama believes that when you go to work each day, when you save some of your money, when you write your will, the federal government can and must be involved in all of those decisions. What would Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, and Reagan say about that? Jefferson and Madison would call it the abuses of monarchy. Lincoln would call it the abuses of despotism. Ronald Reagan would call it the tyranny of socialism. Our nation is built on the premise that the federal government has specific limited powers. It has important powers, yes, but they are restricted to certain activities. And the purpose of those powers is not to expand the authority of politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, but to organize society around the concept of individual liberty. The individual is not to be a slave to government, he is not to be an employee of the politician or the bureaucrat. He is to be respected and protected from government. That is why we have a Bill of Rights. It is why we have separation of powers.

For several decades, the left has attempted to destroy these protections. The left does not want to be hemmed in by the Constitution. They have sought ways to avert the legal limits the Founders placed on them and their ambitions, and, sadly, they have made much progress in this regard and they have placed all hope that Barack Obama will finally deliver them the victory over the American people they have craved. And make no mistake, my fellow Americans, a Barack Obama victory is a victory over the American people. And that is, in the end, what this election is really about. Will the American people remain free, or will they once and for all become servants of government? Will the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington be empowered to confiscate the hopes, the dreams, the finances, the property of the people as they see fit, any time they see fit, or will the people still be in charge of their own government and their own destiny? That is what this election is all about.

When Barack Obama says that he will make sure you do not lose your home, that you will go to college, that you will receive free health care, that you will have child care, that you will be free from want, free from desire, free from need, he repeats the lies of past authoritarians who have made the same claims and the same promises and who have delivered nothing but poverty, misery, and hopelessness. Obama represents an ideology for which there are no limits on power. He wants to lead a different kind of government, one in which there are no limits to how much it can confiscate from the people, he wants to lead a movement in which the individual is crushed under the weight of the many. And Obama, like others in the past, speaks of democracy as he pursues anti-democratic goals. As his mentor Saul Alinsky taught, you must use the language of the middle class in order to destroy it.

So I come to you, my fellow Americans, with a simple message. If you believe in the principles and the institutions that have made this nation great, that have given more liberty and prosperity to more people than any other system on the face of the either, that have created the most tolerant and giving and successful society in human history, then I urge you to reject the candidate who rejects these and our principles. If you want to leave your children and grandchildren and generations yet to come a country that is as free and hopeful and magnificent as the country you live in today and that your parents and grandparents left you, you will reject the candidate who rejects individual liberty, private property rights, and the Constitution. Do not allow a charismatic demagogue to change our great nation in ways that will diminish it. You have your destiny and America's destiny in your own hands, you, not the media, not the pollsters, not the pundits, you will decide this election. You will decide if you want to live in America or someplace that you won't recognize in a few years. You will decide if the principles that have served this nation so well will remain our governing principles.

This election, only six days away, is the most important election in our lifetime. Everything is at stake. We know this because Obama has said so. He has thrown down the gauntlet. He is running against our history. He is running against the system. He is running against our liberty, and so it is that I ask you on November 4th, next Tuesday, vote for liberty, your own and the nations. Vote for opportunity, your own and your children's. Vote for America. Vote for McCain-Palin. You will hear Obama tonight say that we have been talking about the same problems for decades and nothing has ever been done to solve them. This may be the most accurate statement Barack Obama has made, or will make, in the campaign. We have been talking about the same problems for decades. The problem is that for most of these decades, the people who have been fixing them have made them worse. It's not that we have done nothing to solve these problems.

We have done everything the left promised would solve these problems, and not one of the problems is solved, unless Republicans achieve a majority and govern as such, and then we get welfare reform. And then we get balanced budgets, and then we get tax cuts, and then we get prosperity, and we get good national security, and we get safety. But at those times where Democrats are strong enough in Congress to blunt a Republican president, or run the whole show themselves, they look back over 50 years and they see the same problems, and we have addressed those problems and we have fixed those problems per se, and yet the beneficiaries of the solutions are still as angry and unhappy and miserable as they were 50 years ago when the liberal Democrats began the fix. It makes no sense to let them keep fixing things when all they do is break them.

Tito the Builder Intimidates Alan Colmes

Incriminating Khalidi Obama Tape - OBAMA and his TERRORIST FRIENDS

The LA Times is Hiding an Incriminating Video of Barack Obama at a Party with Radical Palestinian Activists and Bill Ayers.


That's right - in a closely contested election, the Los Angeles Times is concealing a video showing Barack Obama at a going-away party for former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi, attended by radical Palestinian activists and former Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.
Contact the LA Times and demand that they release the video.



LA Times holding on to incriminating tapeListen to PJTV Daily's interview about the Khalidi Obama Tape AND part of the tape itself.

Listen Up you Fools!

Baraq Barry Mohammad Hussein Sottero Obama on redistribution of wealth.

Clintoon ApointeeJudge basically tells Americans to go to Hell!

Philip J. Berg is Appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court as Obama is "NOT" qualified to be President of the United States Lawsuit Against Obama Dismissed from Philadelphia Federal Court
For Immediate Release: - 10/25/08 - Contact Info at end.
(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 10/25/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced today that he is immediately appealing the dismissal of his case to the United States Supreme Court. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.

Berg said, "I am totally disappointed by Judge Surrick's decision and, for all citizens of the United States, I am immediately appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States - the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world - then who does?

So, anyone can just claim to be eligible for congress or the presidency without having their legal status, age or citizenship questioned.

According to Judge Surrick, we the people have no right to police the eligibility requirements under the U.S. Constitution.

What happened to ‘...Government of the people, by the people, for the people,...’ Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address 1863.

We must legally prevent Obama, the unqualified candidate, from taking the Office of the Presidency of the United States,” Berg said.

Our website obamacrimes.com now has 71.8 + million hits. We are urging all to spread the word of our website – and forward to your local newspapers and radio and TV stations.

Berg again stressed his position regarding the urgency of this case as, “we” the people, are heading to a “Constitutional Crisis” if this case is not resolved forthwith.

* * For copies of all Court Pleadings, go to obamacrimes.com