Tuesday, January 31, 2012
LTC Allen West To Liberals: Get The Hell Out
I want to go on the record and say that Allen West is my personal hero in the area of politics. There really is no one like him. There's no one else with the leadership abilities, communications skills, and willingness to speak boldly to the lies of the DemonRATS.
At a Lincoln Day Dinner in West Palm Beach, Rep. West this is what he said:
"We need to let President Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and my dear friend the chairman of the Democrat National Committee, we need to let them know that Florida ain't on the table. Take your message of equality of achievement, take your message of economic dependency, take your message of enslaving the entrepreneurial will and spirit of the American people somewhere else. You can take it to Europe, you can take it to the bottom of the sea, you an take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America!"
This is exactly the attitude that our leaders in Washington should have! America is the greatest country on the planet, and it's because of our way of life. Our principles of free market competition, limited government, and personal responsibility have created the most prosperous country in the history of the planet, and we don't have to stand here and listen to those on the left denigrate this great nation!
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: I would like to go on record too. We need more people like LTC Allen West to represent the people and tell them the hard truth. Note--I will probably always call him LTC West, as I consider his duty to this nation as a soldier a higher calling than serving in congress. Although, I respect him for doing both and carrying on a tradition of being forthright.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Why I don't want Romney as the GOP Candidate
Billionaire financier George Soros thinks that, if Mitt Romney wins the presidency, there will be "little difference" between him and Barack Obama in the White House.
Soros offered the reassuring news to liberals across Europe during an interview this week in Davos, Switzerland.
As policymakers from Hong Kong to Canada pressed Greece and its creditors to strike a deal to cut the nation’s debt, Soros pressed in on GOP presidential candidate Romney:
"Well, look, either you’ll have an extremist conservative, be it Gingrich or Santorum, in which case I think it will make a big difference which of the two comes in," Soros told Reuters in a videotaped interview.
"If it’s between Obama and Romney, there isn’t all that much difference except for the crowd that they bring with them."
Soros added, "Romney would have to take Gingrich or Santorum as a vice president and you probably have some pretty extreme candidates for the Supreme Court."
"So it won't be that great a difference," he concluded, if Romney becomes president.
Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh described Soros' move this way: "He's endorsing Romney. 'Romney, that's cool, no difference, I could go either way that way.'"
Soros also told Reuters that many hedge fund managers in the United States are backing Romney because Obama wants to raise their taxes.
Soros predicted that "there won't be a great deal of enthusiasm on either side of the battleground. It will be more civilized than the previous elections have been."
See the article at Newsmax
Soros offered the reassuring news to liberals across Europe during an interview this week in Davos, Switzerland.
As policymakers from Hong Kong to Canada pressed Greece and its creditors to strike a deal to cut the nation’s debt, Soros pressed in on GOP presidential candidate Romney:
"Well, look, either you’ll have an extremist conservative, be it Gingrich or Santorum, in which case I think it will make a big difference which of the two comes in," Soros told Reuters in a videotaped interview.
"If it’s between Obama and Romney, there isn’t all that much difference except for the crowd that they bring with them."
Soros added, "Romney would have to take Gingrich or Santorum as a vice president and you probably have some pretty extreme candidates for the Supreme Court."
"So it won't be that great a difference," he concluded, if Romney becomes president.
Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh described Soros' move this way: "He's endorsing Romney. 'Romney, that's cool, no difference, I could go either way that way.'"
Soros also told Reuters that many hedge fund managers in the United States are backing Romney because Obama wants to raise their taxes.
Soros predicted that "there won't be a great deal of enthusiasm on either side of the battleground. It will be more civilized than the previous elections have been."
See the article at Newsmax
Sunday, January 29, 2012
The $50 Lesson
Recently, while I was working in the flower beds in the front yard, my neighbors stopped to chat as they returned home from walking their dog.
During our friendly conversation, I asked their little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up.
She said she wanted to be President some day.
Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, "If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?"
She replied... "I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people."
Her parents beamed with pride!
"Wow...what a worthy goal!" I said. "But you don't have to wait until you're President to do that!" I told her.
"What do you mean?" she replied.
So I told her, "You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and trim my hedge, and I'll pay you $50. Then you can go over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house."
She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?"
I said, "Welcome to the Republican Party."
Her parents aren't speaking to me.
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: Not a true story, yet it does make sense. Have a good laugh today, and everyday. It helps keep you focused on what is important in life. If you don't laugh at the funny things in life, poeple will eventually be laughing at you. Maybe not to your face, yet they will still be laughing.
During our friendly conversation, I asked their little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up.
She said she wanted to be President some day.
Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, "If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?"
She replied... "I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people."
Her parents beamed with pride!
"Wow...what a worthy goal!" I said. "But you don't have to wait until you're President to do that!" I told her.
"What do you mean?" she replied.
So I told her, "You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and trim my hedge, and I'll pay you $50. Then you can go over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house."
She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?"
I said, "Welcome to the Republican Party."
Her parents aren't speaking to me.
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: Not a true story, yet it does make sense. Have a good laugh today, and everyday. It helps keep you focused on what is important in life. If you don't laugh at the funny things in life, poeple will eventually be laughing at you. Maybe not to your face, yet they will still be laughing.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
A Rainy Night in Georgia
In a hearing before Judge Michael Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings ruled, “State law requires every candidate for federal office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought,” and, “State law also grants the Secretary of State and any elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications”
The court's opinion also clearly stated that Georgia law allows Sec. of State Weldon to challenge candidate Obama's Constitutional qualifications to hold the office of President. This ruling ensures the Georgia court will be the first court to address the substantive Constitutional issue of eligibility. All other courts that have heard challenges to Obama's Constitutional qualifications to hold office have refused to address the substantive issue and have dismissed cases on procedural grounds and not matters of substance, ducking the issue.
In the case Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled: "The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."
The court's opinion also clearly stated that Georgia law allows Sec. of State Weldon to challenge candidate Obama's Constitutional qualifications to hold the office of President. This ruling ensures the Georgia court will be the first court to address the substantive Constitutional issue of eligibility. All other courts that have heard challenges to Obama's Constitutional qualifications to hold office have refused to address the substantive issue and have dismissed cases on procedural grounds and not matters of substance, ducking the issue.
In the case Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled: "The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."
Furthermore: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was decided in a similar fashion and from the Minor case: "At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
And, earlier rulings: Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814), Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830), and Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), the U.S. Supreme Court has declared: a "natural born Citizen" is one who is born on U.S. soil to U.S. citizen parents. Barack Hussein Obama II is, therefore, not a natural born citizen and must be removed from the Presidential ballots in all fifty states!
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: So now where does this take us? I hope many other States will follow through on this issue. At least I hope so. Now, I suppose, the Department of Justice, with Holder in charge, will start having issues with the State of Georgia.
Adrian Vance, thanks for letting me steal the article. The Two Minute Conservative
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: So now where does this take us? I hope many other States will follow through on this issue. At least I hope so. Now, I suppose, the Department of Justice, with Holder in charge, will start having issues with the State of Georgia.
Adrian Vance, thanks for letting me steal the article. The Two Minute Conservative
Friday, January 27, 2012
Gingrich Never Fined on Ethics Matter
Associates of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich are stepping forward to rebut accusations from Republican presidential rival Mitt Romney that he resigned in “disgrace” and paid an ethics “fine.”
Gingrich insisted during a candidates debate Monday that reports he was fined $300,000 for House ethics violations are inaccurate and records back up his claim the payment was not a fine.
A Newsmax examination of the House Ethics Committee report, and the record of the House debate in January 1997 as recorded in the Congressional Record, supports Gingrich’s contention that the $300,000 he paid was a “reimbursement” or “sanction” related to legal fees, but not a fine or admission of any wrongdoing.
Watch the following CNN Report.
Then listen to The Neal Bootz Show
Read more at Newsmax.com
Thoughtsjustofcenter: I thought it was a fine, I guess we all were wrong. However, I still have to ask: "Why haven't the media picked up on Newt's ex-wife saying that he is/was an ethical man?"
Gingrich insisted during a candidates debate Monday that reports he was fined $300,000 for House ethics violations are inaccurate and records back up his claim the payment was not a fine.
A Newsmax examination of the House Ethics Committee report, and the record of the House debate in January 1997 as recorded in the Congressional Record, supports Gingrich’s contention that the $300,000 he paid was a “reimbursement” or “sanction” related to legal fees, but not a fine or admission of any wrongdoing.
Watch the following CNN Report.
Then listen to The Neal Bootz Show
Read more at Newsmax.com
Thoughtsjustofcenter: I thought it was a fine, I guess we all were wrong. However, I still have to ask: "Why haven't the media picked up on Newt's ex-wife saying that he is/was an ethical man?"
Thursday, January 26, 2012
State of the Union Address
I thought the "State of the Union" address was supposed to be about the "status" of America, eg. how the nation is doing. Not a reelection campaign speech.
The President’s presentation repeatedly used words like “fair” and “paying one’s fair share” in his eloquent attempt to make income redistribution and Big Government sound imminently reasonable and even quite logical.
His core message seemed to be…“Vote for me in November and I’ll usher in more wealth redistribution, more government subsidized services, more regulations and taxes on ‘wealthy’ people, more public works projects, more federal bureaucracies…in short, more socialism.”
“It’s time to apply the same rules from top to bottom.”
One of the most memorable phrases in the President’s address – and at the heart of his reelection campaign rhetoric – was his emphasis on building an America in which “everyone plays by the same set of rules.”
Does that apply to you and your administration, Mr. President?
Does that include your Attorney General?
Does that include your out-of-control Department of Justice?
Why can't we get rid of this guy? Get out and VOTE on Nov 06, 2012.
The President’s presentation repeatedly used words like “fair” and “paying one’s fair share” in his eloquent attempt to make income redistribution and Big Government sound imminently reasonable and even quite logical.
His core message seemed to be…“Vote for me in November and I’ll usher in more wealth redistribution, more government subsidized services, more regulations and taxes on ‘wealthy’ people, more public works projects, more federal bureaucracies…in short, more socialism.”
“It’s time to apply the same rules from top to bottom.”
One of the most memorable phrases in the President’s address – and at the heart of his reelection campaign rhetoric – was his emphasis on building an America in which “everyone plays by the same set of rules.”
Does that apply to you and your administration, Mr. President?
Does that include your Attorney General?
Does that include your out-of-control Department of Justice?
Why can't we get rid of this guy? Get out and VOTE on Nov 06, 2012.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Freedom - Are you ready to give it up?
My brother sent this to me in an email. This is an excellent cartoon - from 1948. Hopefully, you all can figure out what is going on 64-years after the making of this video (actually back in the day - film strip).
By the actions and narration in this cartoon, you can tell that it was made for our government and "Hollywood" to use in teaching the difference between capitalism and socialism, or other types of government structures. Wow, how far have we drifted from the ideals our basic principles.
Thanks Keith!
By the actions and narration in this cartoon, you can tell that it was made for our government and "Hollywood" to use in teaching the difference between capitalism and socialism, or other types of government structures. Wow, how far have we drifted from the ideals our basic principles.
Thanks Keith!
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Obama argues against appearing at eligibility hearing - Pt 2
A Georgia judge has refused a demand from Barack Obama to quash a subpoena to appear at a series of administration hearings Jan. 26 at which residents of the state are challenging, as allowed under a state law, ...
See the rest at Vision to America.org and World News Daily
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: "As The Worm Turns" should be the title.
See the rest at Vision to America.org and World News Daily
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: "As The Worm Turns" should be the title.
Obama argues against appearing at eligibility hearing
Barack Obama has outlined a defense strategy for a multitude of state-level challenges to his candidacy on the 2012 presidential ballot in a Georgia case that is scheduled to come before a judge later this month – simply explain that states have nothing to do with the eligibility of presidential candidates.
“Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,” Obama’s lawyer argues in a motion to quash a subpoena for him to appear at the hearings January 26, 2012.
“The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant,” the lawyer said.
Hearings have been scheduled for that date for three separate issues to be handled. They all are raised by Georgia residents who are challenging Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot for various reasons, which they are allowed to do under state law.
It is States, usually through the office of secretary of state, that run elections, not the federal government. The national election is simply a compilation of the results of the individual elections within states.
found at Conservative Byte
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: See Article II, Section One, Paragraphs One and Two of the Constitution of the United States of America. More lawyers still trying to twist the constitution and the laws of our nation. It's a reason why we should have restrictions on how many lawyers there are and why we also need tort reform. Who is "the lawyer" saying this, he/she needs to be censored and have their license revoked as what they are saying is an outright lie.
“Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,” Obama’s lawyer argues in a motion to quash a subpoena for him to appear at the hearings January 26, 2012.
“The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant,” the lawyer said.
Hearings have been scheduled for that date for three separate issues to be handled. They all are raised by Georgia residents who are challenging Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot for various reasons, which they are allowed to do under state law.
It is States, usually through the office of secretary of state, that run elections, not the federal government. The national election is simply a compilation of the results of the individual elections within states.
found at Conservative Byte
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: See Article II, Section One, Paragraphs One and Two of the Constitution of the United States of America. More lawyers still trying to twist the constitution and the laws of our nation. It's a reason why we should have restrictions on how many lawyers there are and why we also need tort reform. Who is "the lawyer" saying this, he/she needs to be censored and have their license revoked as what they are saying is an outright lie.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Here We Go Again - Let the Truth Come Forth - PLEASE
The video starts out with some content from obamasnippets.com, which, of course is contrived. And yet, there seems to be a synthetic truth about what the president says. Is he "natural born" according to the Constitution? No. The requirement is that BOTH parents need to be U. S. Citizens. Two U. S. Citizen parents produce a "natural born" citizen. It's likely that Mr. Obama was REGISTERED in Hawaii, therefore he has a COLB from Hawaii. The truth may well be he was born in Kenya; that is where we believe his "long-form" birth certificate was issued. Nevertheless, "natural born" indicates, and speaks to the fact that BOTH parents have to be U. S. Citizens. His father WAS NEVER a U. S. Citizen, therefore, Barack Hussein Obama is NOT a "natural born" Citizen of the United States, thus he is in violation of Amendment 14, and Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the United States Constitution.
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: Well here we go again. The proof in in the pudding, as my grandparents used to say. So, when will the people of this country - both political parties pay attention to the constitution. By now you would have thought that he would have been impeached, just on these grounds. Oh Boy!
New Hampshire Lawmakers Call for Investigation into Obama's Ballot Eligibility & Citizenship
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Results of OWS
The Democrats say Occupy Wall Street Party was their
answer to the Tea Party. Here see what that means!
answer to the Tea Party. Here see what that means!
The Two Minute Conservative
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: Let the stats speak for themselves. Stats can lie, yet these haven't been tweeked yet.
What If He's (We're) Right?
I've been thinking and saying this for awhile. My friend found someone who teaches history that can help us all understand. WOW! This is not because I believe the same thing, it's because someone else (with a PHD in History) is putting it out there for all to see.
Cowboys & Tea Parties
Wake Up America!
Cowboys & Tea Parties
Wake Up America!
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Idealism and Politics do not Mix Well
The most principled politicians are obliged by the nature of governing real human beings in an imperfect world to practice the craft of statesmanship and the virtue of prudence. This non-utopian reality does not sell well in any election cycle, certainly not in one following a great conservative uprising. The grass-roots repudiation of neo-socialism was to have birthed a true “son or daughter of Buckley.” Though the field does offer several competent statesmen capable of governing the nation, generalized disappointment provokes poignant longing for the great Ronald Reagan.
The memory of the now-divinized Reagan, posthumously purged of the scars of pragmatic political give and take, conjures such nostalgia for “Morning in America” that even the Golfing Marxist and his courtesans have sought legitimacy by laying rhetorical wreaths on the Gipper’s tomb. Understandable. Pardonable.
It would, however, be not only impolitic, but certifiable madness for any candidate to claim to be the reincarnation or vicar of Ronald Reagan. The unworthy and those only slightly touched dare only the alchemy of drawing attention to some likeness between their own ideology and record and that of the great Midas.
Only the ersatz-Republican Rochester’s Wife has climbed on the electoral battlements and actually claimed for himself the title of “He Who Stood with Reagan.” In early September of 2011 Congressman Ron Paul sought to discredit Governor Rick Perry with an ad called Trust vs. Rick Perry.
Pictures of Reagan scroll. The ubiquitous Political Ad Man Voice says, “Reagan was also called extreme and unelectable.” Pictures of a young Paul with Reagan fill the screen. We are told Paul was one of only four Republican congressmen to endorse Reagan. The lesson concludes:
Ron Paul told the late and very great William F. Buckley Jr. on Firing Line in 1987:
In 2008, now-Senator Rand Paul stumped for his father in New Hampshire and told voters what his father really thought about Ronald Reagan:
In 1994 we have another so-called revolution, the Republican Revolution where they take over the House and the Senate and we think good things were coming again, all the things that Reagan had promised, but never did…they all ran on the same platform and what happened? The Republicans got in power and got sick with power and within a few months we had transportation bills that were much worse than any the Democrats had ever given us. The Democrats had put 400 earmarks on the Transportation Bill, the Republicans put down four thousand.
Ron Paul really thinks Reagan was a sell-out. Paul campaign speeches insisted that Reagan was not a good president, but an opportunist who grew government and advanced the American empire. Our democracy defends Ron Paul’s right to assert these opinions, and people who agree with Paul, who are swayed by his substantiation of such claims, are welcome to vote for him.
What should be of serious, rational, and conscientious concern for voters is Ron Paul’s fundamental lack of integrity, clearly seen in his hypocritical use of Ronald Reagan to win the votes of unsuspecting conservatives who do love and honor Reagan’s memory and legacy.
When Ron Paul previewed and approved the attack ad against Rick Perry, he knew he was selling a lie. Voters should know that Ron Paul, who has a sneering and sour disdain for their Reagan “fake conservatism,” does not possess the intellectual honesty to try to win the election based on his actual belief that Reagan destroyed the conservative revolution. Instead, he paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to create an electorally lucrative myth that he is the “Man Who Stood With Reagan.”
His hypocrisy reveals him to be a Brutus who has, since his initial repudiation of Reagan, never rhetorically stood with this most revered statesman except to stab him in the back.
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: That's one of the reason I'm having such a hard time standing behind one of the GOP canidates. I have issue with each one of them. However, no one is perfect. We humans killed the only perfect man - "GOD's" son.
Sorry - the videos wouldn't attach today. I'm working on it.
Who to pick?
The memory of the now-divinized Reagan, posthumously purged of the scars of pragmatic political give and take, conjures such nostalgia for “Morning in America” that even the Golfing Marxist and his courtesans have sought legitimacy by laying rhetorical wreaths on the Gipper’s tomb. Understandable. Pardonable.
It would, however, be not only impolitic, but certifiable madness for any candidate to claim to be the reincarnation or vicar of Ronald Reagan. The unworthy and those only slightly touched dare only the alchemy of drawing attention to some likeness between their own ideology and record and that of the great Midas.
Only the ersatz-Republican Rochester’s Wife has climbed on the electoral battlements and actually claimed for himself the title of “He Who Stood with Reagan.” In early September of 2011 Congressman Ron Paul sought to discredit Governor Rick Perry with an ad called Trust vs. Rick Perry.
Pictures of Reagan scroll. The ubiquitous Political Ad Man Voice says, “Reagan was also called extreme and unelectable.” Pictures of a young Paul with Reagan fill the screen. We are told Paul was one of only four Republican congressmen to endorse Reagan. The lesson concludes:
Rick Perry helped Al Gore’s campaign to undo the Reagan Revolution. Now America must choose who to elect; Al Gore’s Texas Cheerleader or the one who stood with Reagan.Is this true? Is Ron Paul really “The One Who Stood with Reagan”?
Ron Paul told the late and very great William F. Buckley Jr. on Firing Line in 1987:
(Libertarians did poorly in the 1984 elections because) it was the height of the Reagan euphoria. We were at the height of the spending and the deficits and everybody believed that prosperity was here forever. I didn’t run in 1984 because I thought Reagan would be very popular, but I think that now it’s over and he’s much more exposed and the “conservatism” of the Reagan administration is much more exposed now than in 1984.It is unconscionable and indicative of malicious duplicity for a man who condemned Reagan’s presidential record to now use this beloved president’s image to win votes, claiming that he, Ron Paul, has the solutions Reagan and his Republican followers eschewed.
In 2008, now-Senator Rand Paul stumped for his father in New Hampshire and told voters what his father really thought about Ronald Reagan:
We fast forward to 1980, to the Reagan Revolution, Reagan wins in a landslide. Did we get some good things? Yeah, we did, we got lower marginal tax rates. What happens when you get lower marginal tax rates, the revenues actually went up, so the supply-siders were right. What happened to the deficit? The deficit went through the roof under Reagan.In the attack ad, Paul claims that Rick Perry should not be president because the Perry-backed Gore was trying to derail this same revolution.
So how long did it take Ron Paul to figure out the guy he liked, endorsed, campaigned for, who campaigned for him? The very first budget. Ron Paul voted “no” against the very first Reagan budget. Everyone lauded the Reagan budget. It was $100,000,000 in debt, that’s three times worse than Carter’s worst budget…how much guts does it take to vote “no” against a popular Republican president? He was the only one, I think…only a handful. He continued that throughout the 80s. He was disappointed that the Revolution never really came to its fruition.
In 1994 we have another so-called revolution, the Republican Revolution where they take over the House and the Senate and we think good things were coming again, all the things that Reagan had promised, but never did…they all ran on the same platform and what happened? The Republicans got in power and got sick with power and within a few months we had transportation bills that were much worse than any the Democrats had ever given us. The Democrats had put 400 earmarks on the Transportation Bill, the Republicans put down four thousand.
Ron Paul really thinks Reagan was a sell-out. Paul campaign speeches insisted that Reagan was not a good president, but an opportunist who grew government and advanced the American empire. Our democracy defends Ron Paul’s right to assert these opinions, and people who agree with Paul, who are swayed by his substantiation of such claims, are welcome to vote for him.
What should be of serious, rational, and conscientious concern for voters is Ron Paul’s fundamental lack of integrity, clearly seen in his hypocritical use of Ronald Reagan to win the votes of unsuspecting conservatives who do love and honor Reagan’s memory and legacy.
When Ron Paul previewed and approved the attack ad against Rick Perry, he knew he was selling a lie. Voters should know that Ron Paul, who has a sneering and sour disdain for their Reagan “fake conservatism,” does not possess the intellectual honesty to try to win the election based on his actual belief that Reagan destroyed the conservative revolution. Instead, he paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to create an electorally lucrative myth that he is the “Man Who Stood With Reagan.”
His hypocrisy reveals him to be a Brutus who has, since his initial repudiation of Reagan, never rhetorically stood with this most revered statesman except to stab him in the back.
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: That's one of the reason I'm having such a hard time standing behind one of the GOP canidates. I have issue with each one of them. However, no one is perfect. We humans killed the only perfect man - "GOD's" son.
Sorry - the videos wouldn't attach today. I'm working on it.
Who to pick?
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Who is Rick Santorum?
Rick Santorum, former Senator from Pennsylvania, has recently been doing well with conservatives from Iowa to New Hampshire to South Carolina and certainly helped himself out with a strong showing on last night's Republican debate. He's more conservative than Romney,....more disciplined than Newt,...... less bombastic than Rick Perry, and see's the world and the threat much more clearly than Jughead,...err,...Ron Paul. From Rick Santorum's website, we can get a better idea on who Rick Santorum is and his direction for America: Rick Santorum believes that to have a strong national economy, we must have strong families. America’s government must recognize this and help create a positive pro-family environment for our families, our communities and our businesses. Rick believes we are a land of opportunity where all Americans have the chance to rise on their own merits and hard work.
Sadly, President Obama believes just the opposite and using class warfare to divide America.
Rick Santorum is committed to celebrating the family by reviving our economy and creating jobs in America again with a smarter and simpler tax code. Santorum will roll back job-killing regulations, force the federal government to shrink and live within its means by passing a Balanced Budget Amendment and reinvigorate our domestic manufacturing and energy potential. His vision for America is to restore America's greatness through the promotion of faith, family and freedom.
MADE IN AMERICA: EMPOWERING AMERICAN FAMILIES, BUILDING ECONOMIC FREEDOM
1. Cut and simplify personal income taxes by cutting the number of tax rates to just two - 10% and 28% returning to the Reagan era pro-growth top tax rate;
2. Simplify the tax code and reduce middle income taxes by eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT);
3. Simplify the tax code, encourage savings and investment and reduce taxes by eliminating the Death Tax;
4. Lower the Capital Gains and Dividend tax rates to 12% to spur economic growth and investment;
5. Reduce taxes for families by tripling the personal deduction for each child;
6. Reduce and simplify taxes for families by eliminating marriage tax penalties throughout the federal tax code;
7. Retain deductions for charitable giving, home mortgage interest, healthcare, retirement savings, and children;
8. Eliminate the cap on deductions for losses incurred in the sale of a principle residence;
9. Cut the corporate income tax rate in half to make our businesses competitive around the world, from 35% to 17.5%;
10. Eliminate the corporate income tax for manufacturers – from 35% to 0% - which will spur middle income job creation in the United States and will create a job multiplier effect for workers;
11. Spur innovation in America by increasing the Research & Development Tax Credit from 14% to 20% and make it permanent;
12. Eliminate the tax on repatriated taxable corporate income – from 35% from 0% - when manufacturers invest in plant and equipment; and reduce the corporate tax rate from 35% to 5.25% on other repatriated income and allow for 100% expensing for new business equipment;
13. Repeal and Replace ObamaCare with market based healthcare innovation and competition to improve America and America’s health and create jobs;
14. Reduce Federal (non-defense discretionary spending) to 2008 levels through across the board spending cuts;
15. Eliminate all energy and most agriculture subsidies within four years letting the markets work, eliminate resources for job killing radical regulatory approaches at the EPA and refocus its mission on safe and clean water and air and commonsense conservation, eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood and support adoption, reduce funding for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for extreme positions undermining economic freedom, eliminate funding for implementation of ObamaCare, and eliminate funding for United Nations organizations that undermine America’s
interests;
interests;
16. Pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution capping government spending at 18% of GDP;
17. Support Legislation to Reform the Congressional Budget Process and support legislation that requires Congress to pass constitutionally required spending bills or forfeit its members’ pay for the next fiscal year;
18. Eliminate all other Obama era regulations with economic impact over $100 million;
19. Negotiate 5 Free Trade Agreements and submit to Congress in first year of Presidency;
20. Tap into America’s vast domestic energy resources to power our 21st century economy without picking winners and losers so all American families and businesses can have lower energy cost;
21. Unleash innovation in telecommunications and Internet consumer options by getting government out of the way which will expand productivity and lower costs;
22. Reform Social Security and Medicare for sustainable retirements;
23. Block Grant Medicaid, Housing, Job Training, and other social services to the States;
24. Freeze current non-defense related federal worker pay levels for a year and reduce federal workforce by at least 10% with no compensatory increase in the contract workforce;
25. Secure our border, streamline the legal immigration process to attract highly skilled talent and entrepreneurs from around the world and reform the agriculture worker program so it works for America’s farmers;
26. Reclaim the role of parents as the decision makers in their children’s education and incentivize the states to promote parental choice and quality educational options because the family is the foundation of the economy;
27. Promote tort reform and alternatives to litigation for federal policies and programs; and incentivize the states to expand these reforms across our economy;
28. Approve the Keystone Pipeline and other job creating initiatives delayed and burdened excessively by government regulation;
29. Overturn the National Labor Relations decision preventing Boeing from opening up its airplane factory in South Carolina and prevent other decisions like it;
30. Phase out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s government backed role in mortgages and homeownership within five years;
31. Audit the Federal Reserve and return it to it’s original purpose – a single charter to only manage inflation;
32. Strengthen our national security and national defense so that we are not dependent upon our foes or competitors for critical manufacturing, technology, energy and other security needs.
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: Taken from my friend at:
Holder's Quiet Attack on Religious Freedom
January 10, 2012 - 7:35 am - by J. Christian Adams
Like so much from this Justice Department, Holder’s radical legal positions are at odds with long American traditions. This latest species of Holder’s radicalism is a frontal attack on faith communities.
In the case of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Holder’s DOJ argued that a church cannot fire an employee for acting contrary to church teaching, and contrary to an employment contract that incorporates that teaching. A teacher filed a complaint to the government about how the school handled her narcolepsy, which presumably would involve sleeping at work. The church school then fired the teacher because the church forbids lawsuits among believers based on 1 Corinthians 6:1-8. (“But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers!”)
This particular Lutheran church had well established dispute resolution mechanisms within the church, and based on church teaching. Instead, the teacher went to the government, contrary to church teaching.
Holder’s Justice Department believes that religious schools should not be able to enjoy a longstanding exemption to various employment laws which conflict with church teaching, or, the “ministerial exception.”
Assistant to the Solicitor General Leondra R. Kruger (photo below) argued that the religious school could not fire the teacher for filing a complaint to the government even if church teaching forbids it. At oral argument, Kruger advocated positions so extreme that even Justice Elena Kagan appeared to reject them.
It’s not hard to see where this slippery slope slides. What if a teacher in a Catholic school does something directly contrary to Catholic teaching? Or, consider this possibility offered by American Catholic:
At oral argument, she wouldn’t categorically preclude the possibility. Instead, she told the Court that the government interest isn’t currently sufficient to justify an assault on the male priesthood. Kruger said “the government does have a compelling and indeed overriding interest in ensuring that individuals are not prevented from coming to the government with information about illegal conduct.” In other words, even if church doctrine prohibits you from settling disputes with the church through the government, the Obama administration cares not. Holder wants informants, or as the DOJ prefers to call them, complainants.
Sometimes the radicalism of Obama’s Justice Department is on full display, like when it sues Arizona or blocks South Carolina voter ID. Other times, the radicalism creeps along the margins, as Kruger did at the Supreme Court, arguing that the long respected ministerial exception to church doctrine is no longer respected by this president and his Justice Department.
Expect a decision very soon in the case. Let’s hope if Kruger gets her way, the voters notice in November.
See PJ Media.com
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: Just how much are moral Americans going to allow this administration overturn or go around the constitution and the laws of this nation. The main stream media doesn't even cover the story. So, I guess we will all remain dumb to the facts.
Do some research, find out the facts, and share them with anyone and everyone that you can.
Eric Holder’s Department of Justice has quietly advanced legal arguments in direct conflict with Catholic teaching and the teaching of other Christian denominations. If the Department of Justice prevails, the Catholic Church and other churches will have a difficult time preserving doctrinal traditions central to church teaching, particularly in church schools. The quiet and radical legal attack comes with perilous political risk, because active Catholics may determine Obama’s fate in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Mexico, Iowa, and Wisconsin.
Like so much from this Justice Department, Holder’s radical legal positions are at odds with long American traditions. This latest species of Holder’s radicalism is a frontal attack on faith communities.
In the case of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Holder’s DOJ argued that a church cannot fire an employee for acting contrary to church teaching, and contrary to an employment contract that incorporates that teaching. A teacher filed a complaint to the government about how the school handled her narcolepsy, which presumably would involve sleeping at work. The church school then fired the teacher because the church forbids lawsuits among believers based on 1 Corinthians 6:1-8. (“But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers!”)
This particular Lutheran church had well established dispute resolution mechanisms within the church, and based on church teaching. Instead, the teacher went to the government, contrary to church teaching.
Holder’s Justice Department believes that religious schools should not be able to enjoy a longstanding exemption to various employment laws which conflict with church teaching, or, the “ministerial exception.”
Assistant to the Solicitor General Leondra R. Kruger (photo below) argued that the religious school could not fire the teacher for filing a complaint to the government even if church teaching forbids it. At oral argument, Kruger advocated positions so extreme that even Justice Elena Kagan appeared to reject them.
It’s not hard to see where this slippery slope slides. What if a teacher in a Catholic school does something directly contrary to Catholic teaching? Or, consider this possibility offered by American Catholic:
Then, too, what also about Catholic women using this principle to sue the Catholic Church in the United States because they are excluded from the priesthood? There’s absolutely no doubt that when it comes to ordination, the Catholic Church discriminates in favor of males. Should SCOTUS be able to tell the Catholic Church in the United States that it must redress the imbalance?
Yes…if, as an organization, the Catholic Church is bound by federal employment discrimination statutes.
No…if, as an organization, the U.S. Catholic Church is exempt from federal employment discrimination statutes.Far fetched? Not to Kruger.
At oral argument, she wouldn’t categorically preclude the possibility. Instead, she told the Court that the government interest isn’t currently sufficient to justify an assault on the male priesthood. Kruger said “the government does have a compelling and indeed overriding interest in ensuring that individuals are not prevented from coming to the government with information about illegal conduct.” In other words, even if church doctrine prohibits you from settling disputes with the church through the government, the Obama administration cares not. Holder wants informants, or as the DOJ prefers to call them, complainants.
Sometimes the radicalism of Obama’s Justice Department is on full display, like when it sues Arizona or blocks South Carolina voter ID. Other times, the radicalism creeps along the margins, as Kruger did at the Supreme Court, arguing that the long respected ministerial exception to church doctrine is no longer respected by this president and his Justice Department.
Expect a decision very soon in the case. Let’s hope if Kruger gets her way, the voters notice in November.
See PJ Media.com
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: Just how much are moral Americans going to allow this administration overturn or go around the constitution and the laws of this nation. The main stream media doesn't even cover the story. So, I guess we will all remain dumb to the facts.
Do some research, find out the facts, and share them with anyone and everyone that you can.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Obama Humor
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: Although each of these hurt, just a little, they are funny, I'm trying to start the day out with some truth and laughter.
So, PLEASE - try not to cry -
found on the internet at LMAO
So, PLEASE - try not to cry -
found on the internet at LMAO
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Allen West: "Obama has "Complete Contempt" for Congress
Congressman Allen West told Newsmax that President Barack Obama has “complete contempt” for Congress and is starting to believe that he has an “imperial presidency.”
The Florida Republican says Newt Gingrich is the “smartest” GOP candidate but thinks any of the Republican hopefuls can beat Obama in what undoubtedly will be a “brutal bloodbath.”
West also asserts that sanctions will not succeed in deterring Iran’s belligerency and warns that the United States should not cut the defense budget to make the military the “bill-payer” for Washington’s failure to rein in spending.
West, who was elected in 2010, is a member of the House Tea Party Caucus. He is also an Army veteran who served for more than 20 years, with postings in several combat zones, and retired with the rank of lieutenant colonel.
President Obama has said he is hopeful for an improved economy in 2012. In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, West was asked whether Americans should feel that way.
“No, they shouldn’t,” West declares. “President Obama is just going to sit back and hope that things fall into his lap.
“He’s not going to do anything as far as reforming our tax code so that our small business owners have some sort of predictability. He’s not going to do anything to lower the corporate tax rate and eliminate loopholes. He’s not going to do anything to correct the regulatory environment that his administration is putting forth. In 2011, his administration added more than 71,000 pages of new regulations to the federal registry.
That’s not how we’re going to heal this economy.”
Asked whether Obama has given up on “hope and change,” West responds: “I think the president has given up, period, and he’s in a campaign mode. He’s going to disengage from Washington, D.C. That’s not leadership, that’s an abdication of leadership.
“What concerns me is the rhetoric around [Obama’s recent recess appointments]. He is going to bypass Congress. He has a complete contempt for the legislative branch. We don’t have an imperial presidency, but I think that is what he’s starting to believe.
“We have to be very vociferous about this. We’ve got to get in the arena and battle the president and the liberal progressive ideology in the arena of ideas.”
Read more: Newsmax.com
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: I like Representative Allen West, LTC, US Army (Ret). He is a breath of fresh air in a corrupt body of the American legislative process. I wish we had many more Representatives and Senators like him. It is not the governments job to make sure that everyone is successful in life. It's their job to ensure that they have an opportunity to suceed. If someone doesn't use it, it's their (the individuals) fault, not societies.
When is "O" going to provide true leadership? I don't think he can. He has never led anything or anyone larger than a small group of organizers. Has he ever studied leadership, it's traits, or have any of the morals required to be a leader? I think not! He had to have someone else train his dog, as he is incapable of teaching anyone anything.
The Florida Republican says Newt Gingrich is the “smartest” GOP candidate but thinks any of the Republican hopefuls can beat Obama in what undoubtedly will be a “brutal bloodbath.”
West also asserts that sanctions will not succeed in deterring Iran’s belligerency and warns that the United States should not cut the defense budget to make the military the “bill-payer” for Washington’s failure to rein in spending.
West, who was elected in 2010, is a member of the House Tea Party Caucus. He is also an Army veteran who served for more than 20 years, with postings in several combat zones, and retired with the rank of lieutenant colonel.
President Obama has said he is hopeful for an improved economy in 2012. In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, West was asked whether Americans should feel that way.
“No, they shouldn’t,” West declares. “President Obama is just going to sit back and hope that things fall into his lap.
“He’s not going to do anything as far as reforming our tax code so that our small business owners have some sort of predictability. He’s not going to do anything to lower the corporate tax rate and eliminate loopholes. He’s not going to do anything to correct the regulatory environment that his administration is putting forth. In 2011, his administration added more than 71,000 pages of new regulations to the federal registry.
That’s not how we’re going to heal this economy.”
Asked whether Obama has given up on “hope and change,” West responds: “I think the president has given up, period, and he’s in a campaign mode. He’s going to disengage from Washington, D.C. That’s not leadership, that’s an abdication of leadership.
“What concerns me is the rhetoric around [Obama’s recent recess appointments]. He is going to bypass Congress. He has a complete contempt for the legislative branch. We don’t have an imperial presidency, but I think that is what he’s starting to believe.
“We have to be very vociferous about this. We’ve got to get in the arena and battle the president and the liberal progressive ideology in the arena of ideas.”
Read more: Newsmax.com
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: I like Representative Allen West, LTC, US Army (Ret). He is a breath of fresh air in a corrupt body of the American legislative process. I wish we had many more Representatives and Senators like him. It is not the governments job to make sure that everyone is successful in life. It's their job to ensure that they have an opportunity to suceed. If someone doesn't use it, it's their (the individuals) fault, not societies.
When is "O" going to provide true leadership? I don't think he can. He has never led anything or anyone larger than a small group of organizers. Has he ever studied leadership, it's traits, or have any of the morals required to be a leader? I think not! He had to have someone else train his dog, as he is incapable of teaching anyone anything.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Obama Eligibility - The Fight Continues
Eligiblity appeal seeks level election playing field - current standard 'denies redress' when unqualified canidate is on the ballot.
A man who was on the American Independent Party’s presidential ticket in California in 2008 as well as a certified elector for the party have asked a full panel of a federal appeals court to hear their claim that Barack Obama wasn’t qualified to be president, stacking the election unfairly against qualified candidates.
In the case, that a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently determined that election fraud suspected in the campaign essentially became moot when Obama was inaugurated.
The lawsuit was filed on the day of Obama’s inauguration. Obama flubbed the oath of office, and the White House reported he retook it in private later.
The case represents the work of two groups of plaintiffs, one led by lawyer Orly Taitz and the other by attorney Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation.
The petition for a rehearing of the full bench was filed today by Kreep on behalf of his clients. Taitz earlier told WND her plaintiffs will pursue further action but which step would be taken was as yet unclear.
See the full article at World News Daily
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: For all that are interested, here is an update on the current court ongoings.
We have to obey the constitution and the law, why doesn't a political person? Where's the mustaches?
A man who was on the American Independent Party’s presidential ticket in California in 2008 as well as a certified elector for the party have asked a full panel of a federal appeals court to hear their claim that Barack Obama wasn’t qualified to be president, stacking the election unfairly against qualified candidates.
In the case, that a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently determined that election fraud suspected in the campaign essentially became moot when Obama was inaugurated.
The lawsuit was filed on the day of Obama’s inauguration. Obama flubbed the oath of office, and the White House reported he retook it in private later.
The case represents the work of two groups of plaintiffs, one led by lawyer Orly Taitz and the other by attorney Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation.
The petition for a rehearing of the full bench was filed today by Kreep on behalf of his clients. Taitz earlier told WND her plaintiffs will pursue further action but which step would be taken was as yet unclear.
See the full article at World News Daily
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: For all that are interested, here is an update on the current court ongoings.
We have to obey the constitution and the law, why doesn't a political person? Where's the mustaches?
Friday, January 13, 2012
Labor Unions Are Primary Recipients of Obamacare Waivers
Labor unions continued to receive the overwhelming majority of waivers from the president’s health care reform law since the Obama administration tightened application rules last summer.
Documents released in a classic Friday afternoon news dump show that labor unions representing 543,812 workers received waivers from President Barack Obama's signature legislation since June 17, 2011.
By contrast, private employers with a total of 69,813 employees, many of whom work for small businesses, were granted waivers.
The Department of Health and Human Services revised the rules governing applications for health reform waivers June 17, 2011, amid a steady stream of controversial news reports, including The Daily Caller’s story that nearly 20 percent of last May’s waivers went to businesses in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s district in California.
The labor unions receiving waivers include those that are monitored under the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, and those that are not. The waivers granted since June 17 are valid until 2013, but recipients must make sure their employees understand the “limits of their coverage,” according to HHS documents.
HHS granted waivers on a year-by-year basis under its initial application process, but waivers granted after June 17 are valid for a maximum of two-and-a-half years.
(RELATED: Full coverage of the health care law)
By and large, unions backed the health care overhaul, a law from which nearly a half million of their workers are now exempt.
See the Daily Caller
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: More Mustaches?
Documents released in a classic Friday afternoon news dump show that labor unions representing 543,812 workers received waivers from President Barack Obama's signature legislation since June 17, 2011.
By contrast, private employers with a total of 69,813 employees, many of whom work for small businesses, were granted waivers.
The Department of Health and Human Services revised the rules governing applications for health reform waivers June 17, 2011, amid a steady stream of controversial news reports, including The Daily Caller’s story that nearly 20 percent of last May’s waivers went to businesses in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s district in California.
The labor unions receiving waivers include those that are monitored under the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, and those that are not. The waivers granted since June 17 are valid until 2013, but recipients must make sure their employees understand the “limits of their coverage,” according to HHS documents.
HHS granted waivers on a year-by-year basis under its initial application process, but waivers granted after June 17 are valid for a maximum of two-and-a-half years.
(RELATED: Full coverage of the health care law)
By and large, unions backed the health care overhaul, a law from which nearly a half million of their workers are now exempt.
See the Daily Caller
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: More Mustaches?
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Hypocisy of Ron Paul
What does the congressman really think of the Ronald Regan our 40th President?
Idealism and politics do not mix well. The most principled politicians are obliged by the nature of governing real human beings in an imperfect world to practice the craft of statesmanship and the virtue of prudence. This non-utopian reality does not sell well in any election cycle, certainly not in one following a great conservative uprising. The grass-roots repudiation of neo-socialism was to have birthed a true “son or daughter of Buckley.” Though the field does offer several competent statesmen capable of governing the nation, generalized disappointment provokes poignant longing for the great Ronald Reagan.
The memory of the now-divinized Reagan, posthumously purged of the scars of pragmatic political give and take, conjures such nostalgia for “Morning in America” that even the Golfing Marxist and his courtesans have sought legitimacy by laying rhetorical wreaths on the Gipper’s tomb. Understandable. Pardonable.
It would, however, be not only impolitic, but certifiable madness for any candidate to claim to be the reincarnation or vicar of Ronald Reagan. The unworthy and those only slightly touched dare only the alchemy of drawing attention to some likeness between their own ideology and record and that of the great Midas.
Only the ersatz-Republican Rochester’s Wife has climbed on the electoral battlements and actually claimed for himself the title of “He Who Stood with Reagan.” In early September of 2011 Congressman Ron Paul sought to discredit Governor Rick Perry with an ad called Trust vs. Rick Perry:
Pictures of Reagan scroll. The ubiquitous Political Ad Man Voice says, “Reagan was also called extreme and unelectable.” Pictures of a young Paul with Reagan fill the screen. We are told Paul was one of only four Republican congressmen to endorse Reagan. The lesson concludes:
Is this true? Is Ron Paul really “The One Who Stood with Reagan”?
Ron Paul told the late and very great William F. Buckley Jr. on Firing Line in 1987:
In 2008, now-Senator Rand Paul stumped for his father in New Hampshire and told voters what his father really thought about Ronald Reagan:
Rand continues:
Ron Paul really thinks Reagan was a sell-out. Paul campaign speeches insisted that Reagan was not a good president, but an opportunist who grew government and advanced the American empire. Our democracy defends Ron Paul’s right to assert these opinions, and people who agree with Paul, who are swayed by his substantiation of such claims, are welcome to vote for him.
What should be of serious, rational, and conscientious concern for voters is Ron Paul’s fundamental lack of integrity, clearly seen in his hypocritical use of Ronald Reagan to win the votes of unsuspecting conservatives who do love and honor Reagan’s memory and legacy.
When Ron Paul previewed and approved the attack ad against Rick Perry, he knew he was selling a lie. Voters should know that Ron Paul, who has a sneering and sour disdain for their Reagan “fake conservatism,” does not possess the intellectual honesty to try to win the election based on his actual belief that Reagan destroyed the conservative revolution. Instead, he paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to create an electorally lucrative myth that he is the “Man Who Stood With Reagan.”
His hypocrisy reveals him to be a Brutus who has, since his initial repudiation of Reagan, never rhetorically stood with this most revered statesman except to stab him in the back.
See PJ Media.
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: A most excellent article from PJ Media; on January 10, 2012; by Jeanette Pryor. So - Tell me the story behind those newsletters again, hum - Mr. Ron Paul?
Idealism and politics do not mix well. The most principled politicians are obliged by the nature of governing real human beings in an imperfect world to practice the craft of statesmanship and the virtue of prudence. This non-utopian reality does not sell well in any election cycle, certainly not in one following a great conservative uprising. The grass-roots repudiation of neo-socialism was to have birthed a true “son or daughter of Buckley.” Though the field does offer several competent statesmen capable of governing the nation, generalized disappointment provokes poignant longing for the great Ronald Reagan.
The memory of the now-divinized Reagan, posthumously purged of the scars of pragmatic political give and take, conjures such nostalgia for “Morning in America” that even the Golfing Marxist and his courtesans have sought legitimacy by laying rhetorical wreaths on the Gipper’s tomb. Understandable. Pardonable.
It would, however, be not only impolitic, but certifiable madness for any candidate to claim to be the reincarnation or vicar of Ronald Reagan. The unworthy and those only slightly touched dare only the alchemy of drawing attention to some likeness between their own ideology and record and that of the great Midas.
Only the ersatz-Republican Rochester’s Wife has climbed on the electoral battlements and actually claimed for himself the title of “He Who Stood with Reagan.” In early September of 2011 Congressman Ron Paul sought to discredit Governor Rick Perry with an ad called Trust vs. Rick Perry:
Pictures of Reagan scroll. The ubiquitous Political Ad Man Voice says, “Reagan was also called extreme and unelectable.” Pictures of a young Paul with Reagan fill the screen. We are told Paul was one of only four Republican congressmen to endorse Reagan. The lesson concludes:
Rick Perry helped Al Gore’s campaign to undo the Reagan Revolution. Now America must choose who to elect; Al Gore’s Texas Cheerleader or the one who stood with Reagan.
Is this true? Is Ron Paul really “The One Who Stood with Reagan”?
Ron Paul told the late and very great William F. Buckley Jr. on Firing Line in 1987:
(Libertarians did poorly in the 1984 elections because) it was the height of the Reagan euphoria. We were at the height of the spending and the deficits and everybody believed that prosperity was here forever. I didn’t run in 1984 because I thought Reagan would be very popular, but I think that now it’s over and he’s much more exposed and the “conservatism” of the Reagan administration is much more exposed now than in 1984.It is unconscionable and indicative of malicious duplicity for a man who condemned Reagan’s presidential record to now use this beloved president’s image to win votes, claiming that he, Ron Paul, has the solutions Reagan and his Republican followers eschewed.
In 2008, now-Senator Rand Paul stumped for his father in New Hampshire and told voters what his father really thought about Ronald Reagan:
We fast forward to 1980, to the Reagan Revolution, Reagan wins in a landslide. Did we get some good things? Yeah, we did, we got lower marginal tax rates. What happens when you get lower marginal tax rates, the revenues actually went up, so the supply-siders were right. What happened to the deficit? The deficit went through the roof under Reagan.In the attack ad, Paul claims that Rick Perry should not be president because the Perry-backed Gore was trying to derail this same revolution.
So how long did it take Ron Paul to figure out the guy he liked, endorsed, campaigned for, who campaigned for him? The very first budget. Ron Paul voted “no” against the very first Reagan budget. Everyone lauded the Reagan budget. It was $100,000,000 in debt, that’s three times worse than Carter’s worst budget…how much guts does it take to vote “no” against a popular Republican president? He was the only one, I think…only a handful. He continued that throughout the 80s. He was disappointed that the Revolution never really came to its fruition.
Rand continues:
In 1994 we have another so-called revolution, the Republican Revolution where they take over the House and the Senate and we think good things were coming again, all the things that Reagan had promised, but never did…they all ran on the same platform and what happened? The Republicans got in power and got sick with power and within a few months we had transportation bills that were much worse than any the Democrats had ever given us. The Democrats had put 400 earmarks on the Transportation Bill, the Republicans put down four thousand.
Ron Paul really thinks Reagan was a sell-out. Paul campaign speeches insisted that Reagan was not a good president, but an opportunist who grew government and advanced the American empire. Our democracy defends Ron Paul’s right to assert these opinions, and people who agree with Paul, who are swayed by his substantiation of such claims, are welcome to vote for him.
What should be of serious, rational, and conscientious concern for voters is Ron Paul’s fundamental lack of integrity, clearly seen in his hypocritical use of Ronald Reagan to win the votes of unsuspecting conservatives who do love and honor Reagan’s memory and legacy.
When Ron Paul previewed and approved the attack ad against Rick Perry, he knew he was selling a lie. Voters should know that Ron Paul, who has a sneering and sour disdain for their Reagan “fake conservatism,” does not possess the intellectual honesty to try to win the election based on his actual belief that Reagan destroyed the conservative revolution. Instead, he paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to create an electorally lucrative myth that he is the “Man Who Stood With Reagan.”
His hypocrisy reveals him to be a Brutus who has, since his initial repudiation of Reagan, never rhetorically stood with this most revered statesman except to stab him in the back.
See PJ Media.
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: A most excellent article from PJ Media; on January 10, 2012; by Jeanette Pryor. So - Tell me the story behind those newsletters again, hum - Mr. Ron Paul?
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Twisting the Questions, To Confuse Everyone
There are times these days watching the news when I feel I know less when I am finished than when I began. The people who ask the questions seem consistently to ask the wrong questions or to ask them in such a twisted and tendentious way that no possible answer could lead a viewer or reader any closer to the facts of the matter.Two examples from the week just past. Rick Santorum appeared Monday on Fox News’ Studio B with Shepard Smith. Smith challenged Santorum on his stand against gay marriage. Here’s how Smith phrased the question:
Really? Is that what America needs to know about this issue? Santorum handled the question gracefully, pointing out that he wasn’t attacking homosexual relationships but defending the institution of marriage. Still, it was a stupid question stupidly asked and aimed at creating stupidity in its audience. It presumed that marriage was a right; it presumed to know the opinion of the majority of the country; it presumed that that opinion was an advance on Santorum’s, that he needed to “catch up” with it rather than the other way around; and worst of all, it presumed that Santorum could have no other basis for his stance than a sort of prejudice or ignorance that caused him to be blind to everybody’s glowing okayness.
To be clear: the actual issue, gay marriage, has virtually nothing to do with it. Whether you think homosexuality is a sin per se or, like me, you believe that both homosexuals and heterosexuals can act either morally or immorally within the context of their desires — that doesn’t matter here. Santorum is a candidate for high office who has shown a willingness to act on principle even when it might cost him politically. A media that conveyed information rather than distorted it would tell us what his principles are, what conclusions he draws from them, and how those conclusions would relate to his actions as president.
How hard is it to ask those questions? I mean, “everybody’s okay”? Please!
Former Democrat operative and current Democrat-operative-pretending-to-be-a-journalist George Stephanopoulos was at it too during Saturday night’s debate. The Clinton hatchet man asked Mitt Romney a (literally) out-of-left-field question about the 1965 Supreme Court decision that forbid states from banning contraception by discovering a hitherto unheard-of “right to privacy” in the U.S. Constitution. Taken aback by the question’s irrelevance, Romney said he found the whole issue “kind of a silly thing.” The studio audience clearly agreed and let Stephanopoulos know it by booing him.
In this case, it’s not that Stephanopoulos asked the question in a particularly twisted way, it’s that the question itself was intended not to elicit information but to play off audience emotionalism. It clearly had no other purpose than to deceive the listener by distorting the candidate’s image. It was about a Democrat working for Democrats trying to discomfit a Republican candidate for the sake of the Democrats. Left-wing pundits caught the ball and carried it forward the next morning.
Our media — so many of them, like Stephanopoulos, Democrats working for Democrats for the good of the Democrats — consistently confuse principle with prejudice and process with purpose. They then attempt to obscure the confusion with hot button issues that arouse emotions rather than thoughts. They ask about abortion when they should be asking about the behavior of the courts. They ask about contraception when they should be asking about the reach of the federal government.
They know we have strong feelings on these specific issues and hope those strong feelings might induce us to forget the terrible long-term price we pay for scuttling the Constitution in order to get our way short-term.
It doesn’t have to be like this. There are questions that need to be asked and journalists could easily ask them. The fact that they don’t speaks to their purposes. They make us stupid because stupid is how they want us.
See PJ Media.com
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: The dumbing down of Armerica. Yes, some people at FOXNews do it too. That's why you've got to get on your computer and get some research done. Dig down, find out what is going on, and share it with everyone and anyone. Link you statements and articles to the sites where you believe you've found the truth.
How much longer is being anti-gay rights going to be something that’s a conservative principle…? How long before you catch up with the rest of the country and realize everybody’s okay?
Really? Is that what America needs to know about this issue? Santorum handled the question gracefully, pointing out that he wasn’t attacking homosexual relationships but defending the institution of marriage. Still, it was a stupid question stupidly asked and aimed at creating stupidity in its audience. It presumed that marriage was a right; it presumed to know the opinion of the majority of the country; it presumed that that opinion was an advance on Santorum’s, that he needed to “catch up” with it rather than the other way around; and worst of all, it presumed that Santorum could have no other basis for his stance than a sort of prejudice or ignorance that caused him to be blind to everybody’s glowing okayness.
To be clear: the actual issue, gay marriage, has virtually nothing to do with it. Whether you think homosexuality is a sin per se or, like me, you believe that both homosexuals and heterosexuals can act either morally or immorally within the context of their desires — that doesn’t matter here. Santorum is a candidate for high office who has shown a willingness to act on principle even when it might cost him politically. A media that conveyed information rather than distorted it would tell us what his principles are, what conclusions he draws from them, and how those conclusions would relate to his actions as president.
How hard is it to ask those questions? I mean, “everybody’s okay”? Please!
Former Democrat operative and current Democrat-operative-pretending-to-be-a-journalist George Stephanopoulos was at it too during Saturday night’s debate. The Clinton hatchet man asked Mitt Romney a (literally) out-of-left-field question about the 1965 Supreme Court decision that forbid states from banning contraception by discovering a hitherto unheard-of “right to privacy” in the U.S. Constitution. Taken aback by the question’s irrelevance, Romney said he found the whole issue “kind of a silly thing.” The studio audience clearly agreed and let Stephanopoulos know it by booing him.
In this case, it’s not that Stephanopoulos asked the question in a particularly twisted way, it’s that the question itself was intended not to elicit information but to play off audience emotionalism. It clearly had no other purpose than to deceive the listener by distorting the candidate’s image. It was about a Democrat working for Democrats trying to discomfit a Republican candidate for the sake of the Democrats. Left-wing pundits caught the ball and carried it forward the next morning.
Our media — so many of them, like Stephanopoulos, Democrats working for Democrats for the good of the Democrats — consistently confuse principle with prejudice and process with purpose. They then attempt to obscure the confusion with hot button issues that arouse emotions rather than thoughts. They ask about abortion when they should be asking about the behavior of the courts. They ask about contraception when they should be asking about the reach of the federal government.
They know we have strong feelings on these specific issues and hope those strong feelings might induce us to forget the terrible long-term price we pay for scuttling the Constitution in order to get our way short-term.
It doesn’t have to be like this. There are questions that need to be asked and journalists could easily ask them. The fact that they don’t speaks to their purposes. They make us stupid because stupid is how they want us.
See PJ Media.com
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: The dumbing down of Armerica. Yes, some people at FOXNews do it too. That's why you've got to get on your computer and get some research done. Dig down, find out what is going on, and share it with everyone and anyone. Link you statements and articles to the sites where you believe you've found the truth.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Ah - It's the Debates, They're Fair Right?
ABC News Debate a Sham
If there ever was a question as to whether the main stream media is nothing more than the propaganda arm of the Democrat party, ABC News has unequivocally answered: “of course we are!” Saturday’s Presidential debate was hosted by ABC hosts (and liberal puppets) Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos, who did not ask questions addressing the issues facing the American people. They asked questions clearly designed to paint the candidates as right wing extremists.
Stephanopoulos raised a question regarding the Constitutionality of a state government ban on contraceptives. The fact that no state is even considering such a ban makes the political agenda of ABC “so called”News very clear. The political bias of the hacks at ABC News is not only absurd, it leaves me to believe that ABC should now be required to file with the Federal Elections Commission as a Democrat Party organization.
ABC “so called” News highlights Stephanopoulos as “the best man to get to the bottom” of the political issues. If our measure is a race to the bottom, George is the man; otherwise it is time to find someone else. I believe in the freedom our Constitution grants to each individual in regards to political affiliation. I also believe that media organizations cannot be allowed to use their status as a news organization to promote the agenda of a political party without proper disclosure.
Our nation is in the worst crisis we have every faced. By the end of the year we will be over $16 trillion in debt and without government changing the way we count unemployment, America’s unemployment rate remains at record post depression levels. All this and ABC “so called” News can only find time to talk about meaningless issues that play to Obama’s base and distract from the real issues facing the greatest country in the history of the world.
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: Thus far, I've like the debates. However, we all can see the commentators slant their questions. Can't we? Mustaches anyone?
Wasn't George Stephanopoulos asked to step down/leave the 'Clinton Administration' after he was reportedly caught sniffing that "fine white powder" stuff at the 'White House'? Of course, that wasn't the reason given when he left, but he left very quickly after it was reported.
I was going to publish this yesterday, yet I got ahead of myself.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Military Cuts - A Political Strategy
The nation must restrain its spending habits and the Pentagon must do its part. On that there is general agreement, but where it begins coming unglued is just how big a part that should be.
In 2010, outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates pre-emptively proposed $100 billion in cuts over five years.
That barely caused a ripple because the war in Iraq was winding down and the war in Afghanistan, it was thought, soon would be.
Then last summer, congressional leaders had to agree to sizable spending cuts to get rambunctious Republican backbenchers to go along with a bill to keep the nation from defaulting.
The price for the Pentagon was $450 billion in cuts over 10 years, an amount that was grudgingly deemed "manageable."
Late last year, when the congressional "supercommittee" failed to reach satisfactory agreement on additional spending cuts which triggered an additional $600 billion in automatic across-the-board cuts over 10 years in defense spending.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta rightly balked at the damage that $1 trillion in largely indiscriminate slashing of our armed forces would do to our defense posture.
He objected both to the size of the cuts -- "like shooting ourselves in the head" -- and to the manner of the cuts. Across-the-board cuts, he told Congress, were "not executable" because "you cannot buy three-quarters of a ship or a building."
Even if defense hawks in Congress succeed in softening the cuts, it will still mean a change in traditional U.S. defense doctrine, from the ability to fight two sustained traditional ground wars simultaneously to the ability to fight one such war while retaining enough force to frustrate an enemy's ambitions elsewhere.
There is both the room and the reason to downsize the military -- within reason. But these proposed cuts smack more of political than military strategy, and the larger and thus more indiscriminate they are, the more likely some of those cuts will be wrong, some of them dangerously so.
See News Chief
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: Why isn't anyone reading "World History?" What happend after WWI? What happened after WWII? What happened after Korea? What happened after Vietman? What happend after Gulf War I? More lives will be lost if this is not done properly!
Secondly, Where is the reform of the Public Side if the Budget? Wasn't that supposed to be cut also? Why isn't anyone talking about that?
Mustaches anyone?
In 2010, outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates pre-emptively proposed $100 billion in cuts over five years.
That barely caused a ripple because the war in Iraq was winding down and the war in Afghanistan, it was thought, soon would be.
Then last summer, congressional leaders had to agree to sizable spending cuts to get rambunctious Republican backbenchers to go along with a bill to keep the nation from defaulting.
The price for the Pentagon was $450 billion in cuts over 10 years, an amount that was grudgingly deemed "manageable."
Late last year, when the congressional "supercommittee" failed to reach satisfactory agreement on additional spending cuts which triggered an additional $600 billion in automatic across-the-board cuts over 10 years in defense spending.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta rightly balked at the damage that $1 trillion in largely indiscriminate slashing of our armed forces would do to our defense posture.
He objected both to the size of the cuts -- "like shooting ourselves in the head" -- and to the manner of the cuts. Across-the-board cuts, he told Congress, were "not executable" because "you cannot buy three-quarters of a ship or a building."
The Pentagon is preparing a tentative list of cuts for President Barack Obama's fiscal 2013 budget.
And there are any number of cuts that can be made: reduce the size of the armed forces; reduce or cancel purchases of advanced weapons systems such as the F-35 and new naval vessels; reduce or cap military pay, health and retirement benefits; and postpone a badly overdue overhaul of our nuclear arsenal.Even if defense hawks in Congress succeed in softening the cuts, it will still mean a change in traditional U.S. defense doctrine, from the ability to fight two sustained traditional ground wars simultaneously to the ability to fight one such war while retaining enough force to frustrate an enemy's ambitions elsewhere.
There is both the room and the reason to downsize the military -- within reason. But these proposed cuts smack more of political than military strategy, and the larger and thus more indiscriminate they are, the more likely some of those cuts will be wrong, some of them dangerously so.
See News Chief
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: Why isn't anyone reading "World History?" What happend after WWI? What happened after WWII? What happened after Korea? What happened after Vietman? What happend after Gulf War I? More lives will be lost if this is not done properly!
Secondly, Where is the reform of the Public Side if the Budget? Wasn't that supposed to be cut also? Why isn't anyone talking about that?
Mustaches anyone?
Sunday, January 8, 2012
It’s Party Time! 8.5% Unemployment!
Time to party down, gang. Time to party. Well, ’cause of what I’m saying about Romney. Sununu and the Huckster are not happy with me over what they think I’m saying about Romney. Anyway, we’ll get to all that. Don’t get me distracted. It’s party time. It’s time to party down, folks, it’s never been better. Eight and a half percent unemployment, the economy is back, Obama’s policies are working. The media is having orgasm after orgasm after orgasm. I kid you not, 8.5%. It’s time to throw a party. They have so dumbed down our expectations. And all of this, every syllable of it I predicted. Get into the eights and it doesn’t matter, it is going to be mediagasm after mediagasm after mediagasm.
And, by the way, I’ve got a question. Here’s Obama out there. Could somebody explain to me something very quickly? What is the difference in laying off soldiers and laying off cops? On the one hand, Obama cannot wait to cut soldiers. He cannot wait to lay off soldiers. On the other hand, we cannot allow budget cuts to touch firemen or cops or teachers. What’s the difference? Look how eager Obama is to cut soldiers. Look how eager Obama is to cut uniformed personnel that protect us in the US military, but he will not even entertain one cut of uniformed personnel that protect us in our cities.
What’s the difference? Seriously, folks, what is the difference? Exactly right. The military doesn’t have a union, and it doesn’t kick anything back to Obama.
found at Conservative Byte
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: Mustaches anyone?
And, by the way, I’ve got a question. Here’s Obama out there. Could somebody explain to me something very quickly? What is the difference in laying off soldiers and laying off cops? On the one hand, Obama cannot wait to cut soldiers. He cannot wait to lay off soldiers. On the other hand, we cannot allow budget cuts to touch firemen or cops or teachers. What’s the difference? Look how eager Obama is to cut soldiers. Look how eager Obama is to cut uniformed personnel that protect us in the US military, but he will not even entertain one cut of uniformed personnel that protect us in our cities.
What’s the difference? Seriously, folks, what is the difference? Exactly right. The military doesn’t have a union, and it doesn’t kick anything back to Obama.
found at Conservative Byte
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: Mustaches anyone?
Government Employment Report Is 'Fraudulent'
By Amy Woods, Friday, January 06,2012, 01:47 pm
The 8 ½ percent unemployment rate reported today by the U.S. Labor Department is “fraudulent” and misleads Americans into believing the economy is on the mend, Rush Limbaugh said this (yesterday) afternoon on his radio show.
“There’s nothing worth celebrating in this, is my point, and yet, we are being told that it’s party time,” Limbaugh said. “Since when do we celebrate millions of unemployed people?”
The conservative talker said the jobless rate “is still higher than when [President Barack] Obama took office,” and its heralding by the media is “offensive.”
“This assumes that we accept the notion of a systemically high unemployment level,” he said. “The new normal. This is it.”
Limbaugh said the 8 ½ percent rate is not progress, as the administration maintains.
“Five trillion dollars in deficit later, we have an 8 ½ percent unemployment rate,” he said. “That’s it?”
Lack of economic growth is the problem, Limbaugh said.
“The Obama plan [is to] shrink the workforce, expand the welfare state, and then claim economic progress,” he said. “Then, slash the military, take that money, and subsidize public-sector employees who vote reliably Democrat.
That’s the plan in a nutshell, and that’s where we are.”
Read more on Newsmax.com: Rush: Government Employment Report Is 'Fraudulent'
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: This is part of what I've been saying for quite a while. You've got to pay attention, conduct your own research, and read very carefully the "fine print."
Find the answers in this article by Adrian Vance. The government produced this report that Adrian analyzes: The Two Minute Conservative
You have got to give the government a little credit for trying to twist the truth. (More Mustaches?)
The 8 ½ percent unemployment rate reported today by the U.S. Labor Department is “fraudulent” and misleads Americans into believing the economy is on the mend, Rush Limbaugh said this (yesterday) afternoon on his radio show.
“There’s nothing worth celebrating in this, is my point, and yet, we are being told that it’s party time,” Limbaugh said. “Since when do we celebrate millions of unemployed people?”
The conservative talker said the jobless rate “is still higher than when [President Barack] Obama took office,” and its heralding by the media is “offensive.”
“This assumes that we accept the notion of a systemically high unemployment level,” he said. “The new normal. This is it.”
Limbaugh said the 8 ½ percent rate is not progress, as the administration maintains.
“Five trillion dollars in deficit later, we have an 8 ½ percent unemployment rate,” he said. “That’s it?”
Lack of economic growth is the problem, Limbaugh said.
“The Obama plan [is to] shrink the workforce, expand the welfare state, and then claim economic progress,” he said. “Then, slash the military, take that money, and subsidize public-sector employees who vote reliably Democrat.
That’s the plan in a nutshell, and that’s where we are.”
Read more on Newsmax.com: Rush: Government Employment Report Is 'Fraudulent'
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: This is part of what I've been saying for quite a while. You've got to pay attention, conduct your own research, and read very carefully the "fine print."
Find the answers in this article by Adrian Vance. The government produced this report that Adrian analyzes: The Two Minute Conservative
You have got to give the government a little credit for trying to twist the truth. (More Mustaches?)
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Defund NLRB in Response to Obama Appointments
Martin Gould, Thursday, 05 Jan 2012 06:03 PM
Newt Gingrich on Thursday called for Congress to defund the National Labor Relations Board in retaliation for President Barack Obama¹s decision to make three recess appointments to it.
Speaking at a rally in Plymouth, N.H., the Republican presidential candidate said cutting money from the agency would be the "correct response" to Obama's move.
The answer to an imperial president is a Congress which stands on its own rights. And the correct response to what the president just did would be for the Congress to zero out and refuse to fund the National Labor Relations Board," Gingrich said.
"The National Labor Relations Board now has a majority of members who were never confirmed by the U.S. Senate. This is a clear violation of the spirit of the law, and Congress has an obligation to defend our rights, and the correct way is the power of the purse."
Obama made the recess appointments -- two Democrats and a Republican -- on Wednesday, claiming that Congress was trying to defang the agency. He employed a similar tactic to appoint Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Read more: Gingrich: "Defund NLRB in Response to Obama Appointments"
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: At the same time, Congress can investigate and sue the President for violation of the U.S. Constitution. They can also press ahead add all the other stuff to the pot (kettle) and impeach him, which I think they should do. No - it probably won't make it past the Senate, eg. Clinton, yet it will help prosecuters once he loses his reelection bid and is out of office. I would dearly love to see the results of a real investigation into his birth certificate, school and college records, and his passport/travel activities. The first and last being the most important.
Question: When is Obama going to start growing that mustache? You do remember Stalin, Hitler, ect?
Newt Gingrich on Thursday called for Congress to defund the National Labor Relations Board in retaliation for President Barack Obama¹s decision to make three recess appointments to it.
Speaking at a rally in Plymouth, N.H., the Republican presidential candidate said cutting money from the agency would be the "correct response" to Obama's move.
The answer to an imperial president is a Congress which stands on its own rights. And the correct response to what the president just did would be for the Congress to zero out and refuse to fund the National Labor Relations Board," Gingrich said.
"The National Labor Relations Board now has a majority of members who were never confirmed by the U.S. Senate. This is a clear violation of the spirit of the law, and Congress has an obligation to defend our rights, and the correct way is the power of the purse."
Obama made the recess appointments -- two Democrats and a Republican -- on Wednesday, claiming that Congress was trying to defang the agency. He employed a similar tactic to appoint Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Read more: Gingrich: "Defund NLRB in Response to Obama Appointments"
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: At the same time, Congress can investigate and sue the President for violation of the U.S. Constitution. They can also press ahead add all the other stuff to the pot (kettle) and impeach him, which I think they should do. No - it probably won't make it past the Senate, eg. Clinton, yet it will help prosecuters once he loses his reelection bid and is out of office. I would dearly love to see the results of a real investigation into his birth certificate, school and college records, and his passport/travel activities. The first and last being the most important.
Question: When is Obama going to start growing that mustache? You do remember Stalin, Hitler, ect?
Friday, January 6, 2012
Obama Recovery Worse than the Bush Recession
New evidence suggests there’s a reason why this economic “recovery” hasn’t felt much like a recovery. Figures from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, compiled by Sentier Research, show that the “recovery” has actually been harder on most Americans than the recession from which they’ve allegedly been recovering.
According to Sentier’s report, the median American household income has actually fallen during the “recovery.” Not only that, but it has fallen even more than it did during the recession. Gordon Green, former chief of the Governments Division at the U.S. Census Bureau and co-author of the report (with fellow Census veteran John Coder), says, “Real income fell by 3.2 percent during [the recession]. And during the recovery it went down by 6.7 percent.” So “income [has] declined twice as much in the recovery as in the recession itself.”
Continued at: www.weeklystandard.com
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: So this administration claims that the nation is in a recovery and that jobs have increased for every month of the recovery, hum. Then why are there 2-million less jobs available than when the "O" took office in January 2009? If the employment rate has dropped, at all, then it is due to statistical manipulation. Yet, most can't see it because they couldn't understand High School math or received "D's and F's" in the subject. They also don't remember how to read a graph, if they were taught/paid attention at all. Last I checked (last month) the true figure was over 16 percent.
According to Sentier’s report, the median American household income has actually fallen during the “recovery.” Not only that, but it has fallen even more than it did during the recession. Gordon Green, former chief of the Governments Division at the U.S. Census Bureau and co-author of the report (with fellow Census veteran John Coder), says, “Real income fell by 3.2 percent during [the recession]. And during the recovery it went down by 6.7 percent.” So “income [has] declined twice as much in the recovery as in the recession itself.”
Continued at: www.weeklystandard.com
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: So this administration claims that the nation is in a recovery and that jobs have increased for every month of the recovery, hum. Then why are there 2-million less jobs available than when the "O" took office in January 2009? If the employment rate has dropped, at all, then it is due to statistical manipulation. Yet, most can't see it because they couldn't understand High School math or received "D's and F's" in the subject. They also don't remember how to read a graph, if they were taught/paid attention at all. Last I checked (last month) the true figure was over 16 percent.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Five days into 2012 and we've already got the Mother of the Year
-- Now here's the feel-good story of the morning, courtesy of TheDC's Alexis Levinson:
"In order to protect her infant son, an Oklahoma woman asked permission from a police dispatcher to shoot intruders if they entered her home before a police car could arrive — and ultimately pulled the trigger. Eighteen-year-old Sarah McKinley called police as two men were trying to break into her home on New Year's Eve. One was armed with a 12-inch hunting knife, Good Morning America reported. McKinley, whose husband died of cancer on Christmas day, was at home alone with her baby. As the men were trying to gain entry to her house, McKinley reportedly 'quickly got her 12 gauge, went into her bedroom and got a pistol, put the bottle in the baby's mouth and called 911.' She then explained the situation to the dispatcher. 'I've got two guns in my hand — is it okay to shoot him if he comes in this door?' she asked, explaining, 'I'm here by myself with my infant baby, can I please get a dispatcher out here immediately?' 'I can't tell you that you can do that,' said the dispatcher in response to whether McKinley could shoot the intruders, 'but you do what you have to do to protect your baby.' When one of the men 'kicked in the door' and went for McKinley with the hunting knife, she took a shot and killed him."
As the saying goes, "If you don't want to get shot and killed, don't break into a young mother's house and attack her and her baby with a knife." This is a powerful argument for gun control, in that McKinley did a fine job of controlling her gun. Good thing that kid isn't being raised in New York, huh?
Gun Control from "The Daily Caller"
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: Good site picture, controlled breathing, trigger sqeeze - say YES for excellent gun control! GREAT JOB! Thank you so much for not having to burden the court systems and waste taxpayers money.
"In order to protect her infant son, an Oklahoma woman asked permission from a police dispatcher to shoot intruders if they entered her home before a police car could arrive — and ultimately pulled the trigger. Eighteen-year-old Sarah McKinley called police as two men were trying to break into her home on New Year's Eve. One was armed with a 12-inch hunting knife, Good Morning America reported. McKinley, whose husband died of cancer on Christmas day, was at home alone with her baby. As the men were trying to gain entry to her house, McKinley reportedly 'quickly got her 12 gauge, went into her bedroom and got a pistol, put the bottle in the baby's mouth and called 911.' She then explained the situation to the dispatcher. 'I've got two guns in my hand — is it okay to shoot him if he comes in this door?' she asked, explaining, 'I'm here by myself with my infant baby, can I please get a dispatcher out here immediately?' 'I can't tell you that you can do that,' said the dispatcher in response to whether McKinley could shoot the intruders, 'but you do what you have to do to protect your baby.' When one of the men 'kicked in the door' and went for McKinley with the hunting knife, she took a shot and killed him."
As the saying goes, "If you don't want to get shot and killed, don't break into a young mother's house and attack her and her baby with a knife." This is a powerful argument for gun control, in that McKinley did a fine job of controlling her gun. Good thing that kid isn't being raised in New York, huh?
Gun Control from "The Daily Caller"
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: Good site picture, controlled breathing, trigger sqeeze - say YES for excellent gun control! GREAT JOB! Thank you so much for not having to burden the court systems and waste taxpayers money.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
The results of Iowa
Newt Gingrich came in fourth place in the hotly contested Iowa caucuses Tuesday night, a result similar to both Bill Clinton's in 1992 and John McCain's in 2008.
Despite the fourth-place showing in Iowa, Clinton and McCain nabbed their party's nomination. Gingrich hopes to do the same.
Gingrich's top-four showing in Iowa — despite a barrage of local and national TV ads totaling more than $10 million against him — gives him a solid platform to continue his primary battle.
Rick Santorum has not weathered the same intense media scrutiny as Gingrich has, nor does he have the national organizational and fundraising base Gingrich has.
On Monday, the Gallup tracking poll had Romney at 24 percent and Gingrich at 23 percent, a neck-and-neck race. Santorum pulled only 6 percent in the Gallup poll.
Romney, who was considered the Iowa front-runner, faces a daunting challenge as the GOP primary calendar unfolds.
He pulled no more votes in 2012 than he did in 2008. He has spent more than $15 million between both races to win Iowa — forking over $500 a vote for the past two elections combined.
Read more on Newsmax.com: Gingrich in 4th Place May Replay Clinton, McCain
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: I most certainly hope Newt can pull it together. Romney has the demoRATS backing and will propably lose to Obama in the general election for that reason. Romey is definately on the left side of the isle, I still can't figure out why he is running as a Republican.
Despite the fourth-place showing in Iowa, Clinton and McCain nabbed their party's nomination. Gingrich hopes to do the same.
Gingrich's top-four showing in Iowa — despite a barrage of local and national TV ads totaling more than $10 million against him — gives him a solid platform to continue his primary battle.
Rick Santorum has not weathered the same intense media scrutiny as Gingrich has, nor does he have the national organizational and fundraising base Gingrich has.
On Monday, the Gallup tracking poll had Romney at 24 percent and Gingrich at 23 percent, a neck-and-neck race. Santorum pulled only 6 percent in the Gallup poll.
Romney, who was considered the Iowa front-runner, faces a daunting challenge as the GOP primary calendar unfolds.
He pulled no more votes in 2012 than he did in 2008. He has spent more than $15 million between both races to win Iowa — forking over $500 a vote for the past two elections combined.
Read more on Newsmax.com: Gingrich in 4th Place May Replay Clinton, McCain
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: I most certainly hope Newt can pull it together. Romney has the demoRATS backing and will propably lose to Obama in the general election for that reason. Romey is definately on the left side of the isle, I still can't figure out why he is running as a Republican.
More from the Internet
In honor of the 44th President of the United States , Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream has introduced a new flavor: “ Barocky Road .”
Barocky Road is a blend of half vanilla, half chocolate, and surrounded by nuts and flakes. The vanilla portion of the mix is not openly advertised and usually denied as an ingredient. The nuts and flakes are all very bitter and hard to swallow.
The cost is $92.84 per scoop…so out of a hundred dollar bill you are at least promised some change..!
When purchased it will be presented to you in a large beautiful cone, but after you pay for it, the ice cream is taken away and given to the person in line behind you at no charge.
You are left with an almost empty wallet, staring at an empty cone and wondering what just happened. Then you realize this is what “redistribution of wealth” is all about.
Aren’t you just stimulated?
Barocky Road is a blend of half vanilla, half chocolate, and surrounded by nuts and flakes. The vanilla portion of the mix is not openly advertised and usually denied as an ingredient. The nuts and flakes are all very bitter and hard to swallow.
The cost is $92.84 per scoop…so out of a hundred dollar bill you are at least promised some change..!
When purchased it will be presented to you in a large beautiful cone, but after you pay for it, the ice cream is taken away and given to the person in line behind you at no charge.
You are left with an almost empty wallet, staring at an empty cone and wondering what just happened. Then you realize this is what “redistribution of wealth” is all about.
Aren’t you just stimulated?
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Humor from the Internet
How to Start Each Day With a Positive Outlook
1. Open a new file in your computer.
2. Name it “Barack Obama.”
3. Now, Delete it.
4. The computer will ask: "Are you sure you want to remove 'Barack Obama?'"
5. Firmly Click "Yes."
6. Now Empty the trash from your computer.
5. Your computer will ask you, “Do you really want to remove 'Barack Obama' permanently?"
7. Again, Firmly Click “Yes.”
8. Feel better?
PS: Tomorrow we’ll do Nancy Pelosi, the next Harry Reid, then Patty Murry, then...
EVE'S SIDE OF THE STORY
After three weeks in the Garden of Eden, God came to visit Eve. 'So, how
is everything going ?' inquired God.
'It is all so beautiful, God,' she replied. 'The sunrises and sunsets are
breathtaking, the smells, the sights, everything is wonderful, but I have
just one problem.
It's these breasts you have given me. The middle one pushes the other two
out and I am constantly knocking them with my arms, catching them on
branches and snagging them on bushes. They're a real pain.'
And Eve went on to tell God that since many other parts of her body came in
pairs, such as her limbs, eyes, ears, etc She felt that having only two
breasts might leave her body more 'symmetrically balanced'.
'That's a fair point,' replied God, 'But it was my first shot at this, you
know. I gave the animals six breasts, so I figured that you needed only
half of those, but I see that you are right. I will fix it up right away.'
And God reached down, removed the middle breast and tossed it into the bushes.
1. Open a new file in your computer.
2. Name it “Barack Obama.”
3. Now, Delete it.
4. The computer will ask: "Are you sure you want to remove 'Barack Obama?'"
5. Firmly Click "Yes."
6. Now Empty the trash from your computer.
5. Your computer will ask you, “Do you really want to remove 'Barack Obama' permanently?"
7. Again, Firmly Click “Yes.”
8. Feel better?
PS: Tomorrow we’ll do Nancy Pelosi, the next Harry Reid, then Patty Murry, then...
EVE'S SIDE OF THE STORY
After three weeks in the Garden of Eden, God came to visit Eve. 'So, how
is everything going ?' inquired God.
'It is all so beautiful, God,' she replied. 'The sunrises and sunsets are
breathtaking, the smells, the sights, everything is wonderful, but I have
just one problem.
It's these breasts you have given me. The middle one pushes the other two
out and I am constantly knocking them with my arms, catching them on
branches and snagging them on bushes. They're a real pain.'
And Eve went on to tell God that since many other parts of her body came in
pairs, such as her limbs, eyes, ears, etc She felt that having only two
breasts might leave her body more 'symmetrically balanced'.
'That's a fair point,' replied God, 'But it was my first shot at this, you
know. I gave the animals six breasts, so I figured that you needed only
half of those, but I see that you are right. I will fix it up right away.'
And God reached down, removed the middle breast and tossed it into the bushes.
Three weeks passed and God once again visited Eve in the Garden of Eden.
'Well, Eve, how is my favorite creation ?''Just fantastic,' she replied, 'But for one oversight. You see, all the animals are paired off. The ewe has a ram and the cow has her bull. All the animals have a mate except me. I feel so alone.'
God thought for a moment and said, 'You know, Eve, you are right. How could
I have overlooked this? You do need a mate and I will immediately create a
man from a part of you. Let's see....where did I put that useless boob?'
Now doesn't THAT make more sense than the rib story?
'Well, Eve, how is my favorite creation ?''Just fantastic,' she replied, 'But for one oversight. You see, all the animals are paired off. The ewe has a ram and the cow has her bull. All the animals have a mate except me. I feel so alone.'
God thought for a moment and said, 'You know, Eve, you are right. How could
I have overlooked this? You do need a mate and I will immediately create a
man from a part of you. Let's see....where did I put that useless boob?'
Now doesn't THAT make more sense than the rib story?
I think I'd better read Genesis again, I might have missed something.
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: There is stuff out there, in the "ether world" that can make you smile. Just thought I would pass it on to whomever reads this blog. Have a wonderful day!
Monday, January 2, 2012
Just Who Is Barack Obama? (3)
Where are Barack Obama’s Girlfriends?
Think about this e-mail and see if there’s anything here you don’t believe!
I hadn’t thought about this – but where are Obama’s past girl-friends surely he had at least one orfor that matter any friends period? No past girlfriends popping up anywhere? Strange, very strange to the point of being downright weird and crazy.
OK, this is just plain old common sense, no political agendas for either side. Just common knowledge for citizens of a country, especially American citizens, who know every little tidbit about every other president (and their wives) that even know that Andrew Jackson’s wife smoked a corn cob pipe and was accused of adultery, or that Lincoln never went to school or Kennedy wore a back brace, or Truman played the piano.
We are Americans! Our media vets these things out! We are known for our humanitarian interests and caring for our ‘fellow man.’ We care, but none of us know one single humanizing fact about the history of our own president.
Honestly, and this is a personal thing, but it’s continuing to bug me that no one who ever dated him has ever shown up.
Taken his charisma, which caused the women to be drawn to him so obviously during his campaign, looks like some lady would not have missed the opportunity to meet him or date him.
We all know about JFK’s magnetism, McCain was no monk, Palin’s courtship and even her athletic prowess were probed. Biden’s aneurisms are no secret. Look at Cheney and Clinton – we all know about their heart problems. How could I have left out Wild Bill before or during the White House?
Nope… not one lady has stepped up and said, “He was so shy,” or “What a great dancer!"
Now look at the rest of what we do know: no classmates, not even the recorder for the Columbia class notes ever heard of him.
Who was the best man at his wedding? Start there. Check for groomsmen. Pictures? Everyone has pictures of their wedding. Then get the pictures, or camera footage, of the graduation ceremony.
Has anyone talked to the any of the professors or why haven’t they stepped forward to tell what a great student he was – or not? Isn’t it odd that no one is bragging that they knew him, lived with him, or lived next door to him?
When did he meet Michele and how? Are there photos? Every president provides the public with all their photos, etc. for their library. What has he released? Nada – other than what was in this so-called biography! And experts, who study writing styles etc., claim it was not O’s own words or typical of his speech patterns, etc.
Does this make any of you wonder?
Ever wonder why no one ever came forward from Obama’s past, saying they knew him, attended school with him, was his friend, etc? NOT ONE PERSON has ever come forward.
Michelle doesn’t even talk about it. This should really be a cause for great concern.
Did you see the movie titled, The Manchurian Candidate?
Let’s face it. As insignificant as we all are, someone whom we went to school with remembers our name or face, someone remembers we were the clown, the dork, the brain, the quiet one, the bully or something about us.
George Stephanopoulos, ABC News said the same thing during the 2008 campaign. Even George questions why no one has acknowledged that the president was in their classroom or ate in the same cafeteria or made impromptu speeches on campus. Stephanopoulos was a classmate of Obama at Columbia-class of 1984. He says he never had a single class with him. Since he is such a great orator, why doesn’t anyone in Obama’s college class remember him? And, why won’t he allow Columbia to release his records? Do you like millions of others; simply assume all this is explainable – even though no one can?
NOBODY REMEMBERS OBAMA AT COLUMBIA
Looking for evidence of Obama’s past, Fox News contacted 400 Columbia University students from the period when Obama claims to have been there, but not one remembers him. For example,Wayne Allyn Root was (like Obama) a political science major at Columbia , who graduated in 1983. In 2008, Root says of Obama, “I don’t know a single person at Columbia that knew him, and they all know me. I don’t have a single classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia … EVER!
NOBODY RECALLS HIM
Root adds that he was, “Class of ’83 political science, pre-law” and says, “You don’t get more exact or closer than that. Never met him in my life, don’t know anyone who ever met him.” At our 20th class reunion five years ago, who was asked to be the speaker of the class? Me. No one ever heard of Barack! And five years ago, nobody even knew who he was. The guy who writes the class notes, who’s kind of the, as we say in New York, ‘The Macha’ who knows everybody, has yet to find a person, a human who ever met him."
Obama’s photograph does not appear in the school’s yearbook, and Obama consistently declines requests to talk about his years at Columbia, provide school records, or provide the name of any former classmates or friends while at Columbia. Odds are, we are in at least one of the (4-years of) class year books of where we went to school, why isn't he?
HOW CAN THIS BE
Think about this e-mail and see if there’s anything here you don’t believe!
I hadn’t thought about this – but where are Obama’s past girl-friends surely he had at least one orfor that matter any friends period? No past girlfriends popping up anywhere? Strange, very strange to the point of being downright weird and crazy.
OK, this is just plain old common sense, no political agendas for either side. Just common knowledge for citizens of a country, especially American citizens, who know every little tidbit about every other president (and their wives) that even know that Andrew Jackson’s wife smoked a corn cob pipe and was accused of adultery, or that Lincoln never went to school or Kennedy wore a back brace, or Truman played the piano.
We are Americans! Our media vets these things out! We are known for our humanitarian interests and caring for our ‘fellow man.’ We care, but none of us know one single humanizing fact about the history of our own president.
Honestly, and this is a personal thing, but it’s continuing to bug me that no one who ever dated him has ever shown up.
Taken his charisma, which caused the women to be drawn to him so obviously during his campaign, looks like some lady would not have missed the opportunity to meet him or date him.
We all know about JFK’s magnetism, McCain was no monk, Palin’s courtship and even her athletic prowess were probed. Biden’s aneurisms are no secret. Look at Cheney and Clinton – we all know about their heart problems. How could I have left out Wild Bill before or during the White House?
Nope… not one lady has stepped up and said, “He was so shy,” or “What a great dancer!"
Now look at the rest of what we do know: no classmates, not even the recorder for the Columbia class notes ever heard of him.
Who was the best man at his wedding? Start there. Check for groomsmen. Pictures? Everyone has pictures of their wedding. Then get the pictures, or camera footage, of the graduation ceremony.
Has anyone talked to the any of the professors or why haven’t they stepped forward to tell what a great student he was – or not? Isn’t it odd that no one is bragging that they knew him, lived with him, or lived next door to him?
When did he meet Michele and how? Are there photos? Every president provides the public with all their photos, etc. for their library. What has he released? Nada – other than what was in this so-called biography! And experts, who study writing styles etc., claim it was not O’s own words or typical of his speech patterns, etc.
Does this make any of you wonder?
Ever wonder why no one ever came forward from Obama’s past, saying they knew him, attended school with him, was his friend, etc? NOT ONE PERSON has ever come forward.
Michelle doesn’t even talk about it. This should really be a cause for great concern.
Did you see the movie titled, The Manchurian Candidate?
Let’s face it. As insignificant as we all are, someone whom we went to school with remembers our name or face, someone remembers we were the clown, the dork, the brain, the quiet one, the bully or something about us.
George Stephanopoulos, ABC News said the same thing during the 2008 campaign. Even George questions why no one has acknowledged that the president was in their classroom or ate in the same cafeteria or made impromptu speeches on campus. Stephanopoulos was a classmate of Obama at Columbia-class of 1984. He says he never had a single class with him. Since he is such a great orator, why doesn’t anyone in Obama’s college class remember him? And, why won’t he allow Columbia to release his records? Do you like millions of others; simply assume all this is explainable – even though no one can?
NOBODY REMEMBERS OBAMA AT COLUMBIA
Looking for evidence of Obama’s past, Fox News contacted 400 Columbia University students from the period when Obama claims to have been there, but not one remembers him. For example,Wayne Allyn Root was (like Obama) a political science major at Columbia , who graduated in 1983. In 2008, Root says of Obama, “I don’t know a single person at Columbia that knew him, and they all know me. I don’t have a single classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia … EVER!
NOBODY RECALLS HIM
Root adds that he was, “Class of ’83 political science, pre-law” and says, “You don’t get more exact or closer than that. Never met him in my life, don’t know anyone who ever met him.” At our 20th class reunion five years ago, who was asked to be the speaker of the class? Me. No one ever heard of Barack! And five years ago, nobody even knew who he was. The guy who writes the class notes, who’s kind of the, as we say in New York, ‘The Macha’ who knows everybody, has yet to find a person, a human who ever met him."
Obama’s photograph does not appear in the school’s yearbook, and Obama consistently declines requests to talk about his years at Columbia, provide school records, or provide the name of any former classmates or friends while at Columbia. Odds are, we are in at least one of the (4-years of) class year books of where we went to school, why isn't he?
HOW CAN THIS BE
NOTE: Wayne Allyn Root can easily be verified. He
graduated valedictorian from his high school, Thornton-Donovan School, and then
graduated from Columbia University in 1983 as a Political Science major in the
same ’83 class in which Barack Hussein Obama states he
was.
SOME OTHER INTERESTING QUESTIONS
SOME OTHER INTERESTING QUESTIONS
Why was Obama’s law license inactivated in
2002?
Why was Michelle’s law license inactivated by court order?
According to the U.S. Census, there is only one Barack Obama – but 27 Social Security numbers and over 80 aliases.
WHAT?
The Social Security number he uses now originated in Connecticut where he is never reported to have lived.
Criminally, it’s no wonder why all his records are sealed!
Please continue sending this out to everyone. Somewhere, someone had to know him in school, before he “reorganized” Chicago, and burst upon the scene at the 2004 DemocRATic Convention, and made everyone swoon because of his charm, poise, and speaking pizzazz.
Where are his passports, how did he travel to countries that the U.S. State Department had on it's 'Do Not Travel' - 'No Travel Allowed' lists for U.S. Citizens?
This has to be the biggest cons this country has ever seen, and everyone is letting him get away with it.
This is Crazy-Scary on many levels!
Thoughtsjustoffcenter comments: Received in my email. I edited a little. These are questions that should be easy to answer, Yet, the answers can not be found. Why not? I will continue to publish this article every month, throughout the Presidential Campaign Season. Hopefully I won't forget, like a lot of the American Public.
Why was Michelle’s law license inactivated by court order?
According to the U.S. Census, there is only one Barack Obama – but 27 Social Security numbers and over 80 aliases.
WHAT?
The Social Security number he uses now originated in Connecticut where he is never reported to have lived.
Criminally, it’s no wonder why all his records are sealed!
Please continue sending this out to everyone. Somewhere, someone had to know him in school, before he “reorganized” Chicago, and burst upon the scene at the 2004 DemocRATic Convention, and made everyone swoon because of his charm, poise, and speaking pizzazz.
Where are his passports, how did he travel to countries that the U.S. State Department had on it's 'Do Not Travel' - 'No Travel Allowed' lists for U.S. Citizens?
This has to be the biggest cons this country has ever seen, and everyone is letting him get away with it.
This is Crazy-Scary on many levels!
Thoughtsjustoffcenter comments: Received in my email. I edited a little. These are questions that should be easy to answer, Yet, the answers can not be found. Why not? I will continue to publish this article every month, throughout the Presidential Campaign Season. Hopefully I won't forget, like a lot of the American Public.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)









