America’s Orwellian Liberalism

America’s Orwellian Liberalism

By Marvin
Folkertsma

The ink was barely dry on the
asterisk in Jimmy Hoffa, Jr.’s rant about taking out those “son-of-a-b*tches” —
referring to Tea Party members — when the vice president made his own
contribution at a Labor Day rally.  “This is a fight for the existence of
organized labor,” the veep shouted.  “You are the only ones who can stop the
barbarians at the gate!”  And the diatribes have continued with the
establishment of a website designed to track unfair comments made by those who,
in President Obama’s words, want to “cripple” America.  Congresswoman Maxine
Waters’ snippet about telling the Tea Party to “Go to H*ll!”(that pesky asterisk
again) added a nice sentimental touch, and some Wall Street protesters are denouncing free enterprise with
words snatched from Robespierre’s rich vocabulary.

 

This is pretty harsh stuff applied to
a menagerie of mostly gentle souls whose views of constitutional government
differ from those of President Obama & Company, but such perfervid comments
take on a clearer meaning when viewed in a more appropriate context: George
Orwell’s 1984.  That is, somehow the voices of liberalism today sound
less like traditional partisan pep-talks and more like Oceania’s “Two-Minute
Hate” sessions, where party members screamed at a giant telescreen filled with
the face of Emmanuel Goldstein, one of Big Brother’s objective enemies.  The
purpose was to deflect rage against miserable social conditions by directing it
to a foreign source, to siphon off the hatred by venting against Big Brother’s
enemies.

 

The parallels go beyond hurling
epithets at that massive Leon Trotsky lookalike in one of 1984‘s most
memorable scenes.  Consider the three slogans of the Party applied to today’s
Orwellian liberalism: “War is Peace,” “Freedom is Slavery,” and “Ignorance is
Strength.”  As explained in The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical
Collectivism
, “the book” within the book, the purpose of war was to
preserve the domestic power structure.  As applied to today, Orwellian
liberalism’s increasingly vicious attacks against the Tea Party and Republicans
perform the same function, which is to preserve the current liberal power
structure by blaming others for its colossal failures.  High unemployment,
failed foreign policies, high energy prices, horrible housing markets,
disastrous federal deficits — they’re all the fault of liberalism’s enemies.
Republicans, Tea Party members — meet Emmanuel Goldstein.

 

“Freedom is Slavery” offers a host of
villains in civil society to whom the American public is “enslaved” under the
guise of being free, though the slogan offers a variant of what Orwell had in
mind.  Thus, freedom to choose one’s own health care plan or no health care plan
at all is slavery to the insurance companies; Americans “addicted” to oil
driving gas-guzzlers are slaves to Exxon and its partners; freedom to eat French
fries is slavery to clever McDonald’s advertising campaigns; and freedom to make
your own investment decisions is slavery to Wall Street.  In fact, Orwellian
liberalism assumes that citizens’ own decisions to live their lives pretty much
as they please constitute slavery to someone or another in a so-called “free
country,” which is why Big Brother in the form of the nanny state is becoming so
enormous, so oppressive.

 

This leaves us with what likely is
the most important slogan of Orwellian Liberalism: “Ignorance is Strength,”
which means in this context that ignorant citizens constitute the foundation of
the liberal establishment.  Indeed, there is no way America’s Oceania Big
Brother equivalent, President Obama, could get away with ludicrous statements
about “millionaires and billionaires not paying their fair share” of the income
tax without the silent collusion of Americans’ stupendous ignorance about such
matters.  Similarly, the country’s energy shortages could not conceivably exist
with an informed citizenry that is aware of how well-connected environmental
activists have prevented production in resources where North America dominates,
such as coal, natural gas, and shale.  Further, the massive propaganda campaign
centering on anthropogenic global warming could not possibly succeed with an
attentive public.

 

In short, “Ignorance is Strength” for
Orwellian liberals; pierce it, and the whole century-old liberal-progressive
project collapses in a heap of prevarications and pretense.

 

If this happens, liberals’
presumption to govern on the basis of the other two slogans, as well as a thick
vocabulary of Orwellian doublespeak, will collapse as well.  The question is
whether this situation can endure indefinitely, as it did in 1984.  The
answer depends on Americans’ determination to reclaim control of their
government.  Absent that, we had all better learn to love Big
Brother.

 

Dr. Marvin Folkertsma is
a professor of political science and fellow for American studies with The Center for Vision &
Values
at Grove City College.  The author of several books, his latest
release is a high-energy novel titled
The Thirteenth
Commandment
.

Advertisements

Why America Needs Herman Cain

Why America Needs Herman Cain

By Ed
Kaitz

Niccolò Machiavelli once said that “the man who adapts
his course of action to the nature of the times will succeed, and likewise, the
man who sets his course of action out of tune with the times will come to
grief.”

 

What I’d like to argue in this essay is that based on
the current “nature of the times” in America, Herman Cain must be the GOP
nominee for president.  In fact, Cain’s nomination represents what could be the
last and best opportunity Americans have to pry our battered country out from
the clutches of the increasingly strident, divisive, and Marxist pro-Obama
Democrat left.

 

Conversely, if the nomination goes to Rick Perry or
Mitt Romney, it will simply confirm my suspicion that the GOP base is absolutely
clueless when it comes to appreciating the unique contours of the American
left’s long-term strategy to undermine our nation’s constitutional heritage and
disposition.

 

The left has successfully poisoned any possibility for
a white conservative to attract enough minority voters on a platform based on
America’s colorblind founding principles.  Even a Romney or Perry victory, in
other words, will leave America as viciously divided as ever and will merely set
the stage for more Republican compromise with political opponents who rarely if
ever compromise.

 

Martin Luther King, in his 1963 “Letter from a
Birmingham City Jail,” said that when the “disinherited children of God sat down
at lunch counters they were in reality standing up for the best in the American
dream and the most sacred values in our Judeo-Christian heritage.”  In addition,
said King, “[black people] were carrying our whole nation back to those great
walls of democracy which were dug deep by the Founding Fathers in the
formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of
Independence.”

 

King’s early Tea Party proclivities don’t seem to
garner much attention these days.

 

Indeed, soon after King issued those inspiring
remarks, the anti-American left began a long-term and sinister project to wed
Marxist ideology to racial politics in order to frighten white conservatives
into questioning the very basis of their country’s constitutional identity.  The
left’s goal back then was, according to philosopher Eric Hoffer, to “soften up
the white majority and beat it into a pulp.”

 

The left’s long-term objective was to both define a
new standard of civic righteousness and increase the power of the state by
championing the cause of America’s minority populations against what the left
considered the “oppressive” merit-based ethos of “reactionary” white America.
Epithets such as “Oreo” and “sellout” and “acting white,” for example, were
fashioned by leftists in order to intimidate both whites and minorities into
questioning the commonsense beliefs about personal initiative and self-reliance
built into the European Enlightenment tradition.  Duke professor Stanley Fish,
for example, captured the essence of this racial strategy a couple of decades
later in a defense of affirmative action that he wrote
for the Atlantic back in 1993:

 

Individualism, fairness, merit — these three words
are continually in the mouths of our up to date, newly respectable bigots who
have learned that they need not put on a white hood or bar access to the ballot
box in order to secure their ends.

 

And over the years, while a sincere but incredibly
naïve GOP pinned its election fortunes on the “economy,” thousands of teachers
in thousands of classrooms across the country found more and more reasons not to
present America’s founding tradition in a positive light.

 

Indeed, in one of the most prophetic books written in
the last few decades — Beyond All Reason: The Radical Assault on
Truth in American Law
— constitutional law professors Daniel Farber and
Suzanna Sherry argued in 1997 that the quiet invasion of “radical
multiculturalism” in American law schools has put professors “who cling to
Enlightenment aspirations” at some risk “of being labeled racists or bigots.”
Radical multiculturalists were able to accomplish this amazing feat by
relentlessly advancing the claim that “conceptions of merit are invented by the
powerful to reinforce their dominant position in society.”

 

The reason why Ronald Reagan’s conservative
“revolution” miscarried so quickly, in other words, is precisely the same reason
why constitutional law “scholar” and class warfare socialist Barack Obama
captured the most powerful office in the world so soon after Reagan left it: a
perfect storm or “righteous wind” that combined weak-kneed “compassionate” white
conservatives newly softened and distressed over the moral underpinnings of
their own merit-based ideology with legions of self-righteous champions of
“people of color” eager to unleash academia’s long, simmering, and toxic blend
of Marxism, social justice, and identity politics.

 

Mr. Obama stewed for years in this racially charged
environment — not only in college, but in the pews of his pastor Jeremiah
Wright’s black liberation “theology” church.  The effects of Obama’s one-sided
and rather crude education slipped out occasionally on the campaign trail in
2008.  At a Florida fundraiser, for example, Mr. Obama insinuated
that Republicans would create a state of fear by using Obama’s race as a means
to harvest votes for John McCain:

 

We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run.
They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid
of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention
he’s black?

 

The Wall Street Journal‘s James Taranto was
one of the few observers at the time to expose Obama’s pathetic attempt to
malign an entire political party as racist:

 

Obama is baselessly accusing Republicans of racial
prejudice, or at least of cynically pandering to racial prejudice. But by
wording this ‘accusation’ as a prediction, Obama is able to cast aspersions
without needing any evidence to back them up. He implicitly ascribes to the GOP
the view that voters are prejudiced against blacks, then calls on voters to
prove they are not by voting for Obama.

 

One has to add the word “white” to “Republican,”
however, for Taranto’s claims about “racial prejudice” to make any
sense.

 

Allan Bloom once said that “society’s greatest madness
may seem normal to itself.”  Indeed, an American candidate for president
succeeded in getting himself elected even after implying that members of the
opposition party in his own country are racists.  However, according to Newton’s
Third Law, the left’s carefully crafted attack on conservative white America was
bound to give birth to its very nemesis: a highly driven, eloquent, and
successful black political candidate who, unlike our current president, has
nothing but effusive gratitude for the opportunities his country has given
him.

 

Highly esteemed pundits including Daniel
Henninger
, Dorothy
Rabinowitz
, and Michael
Barone
are coming to recognize that Herman Cain’s unique combination of
business expertise, educational credentials, inspiring background, and love of
country is striking a deep cord among American voters.  But the most important
factor may be, as Ms. Rabinowitz observed recently, “Mr. Cain’s unfailing
capacity to speak as though from a core of fire deep inside
him.”

 

The left has spent decades trying to smother that
fire, and to some degree, most white political candidates for president are now
damaged goods — they tend to find it more prudent to triangulate, manage,
strategize, compromise, and appease.  They are also highly unlikely to
accomplish anything close to marginalizing today’s alarmingly radical Democrat
party.  In short, the GOP needs to elevate and highlight courageous and
passionate Tea Party favorites like Star Parker, Allen West, and Nikki Haley
rather than the more tepid Mitt Romney types.

 

On a national stage, Herman Cain and other minority
conservative candidates have the ability to send shockwaves not only through the
political landscape, but down deep into the dark corners of academia, where
legions of liberal professors continue to wield a very harmful but successful
narrative in order to beat young America’s potential defenders — both white and
nonwhite — into a pulp.

 

A Herman Cain-headed ticket for 2012 would be
unbeatable.  It would also represent a new dawn in America where gratitude,
confidence, and initiative would overwhelm the resentment, anger and ingratitude
so characteristic of left-wing political culture.

 

It’s the nature of the times.

Obama’s Numbers No president in recent decades, and perhaps no president ever, has been in such a miserable position a year before the election

Obama’s Numbers

By J. R.
Dunn

I’ve run into a rather strange and obnoxious trope in
various comment threads over the past few weeks.  A usually anonymous poster
wails that there’s no point in campaigning against Obama due to the fact that he
has a certain percentage of the vote “locked up.”  This is generally stated as
around 40%, sometimes the lone figure, sometimes “35 to 40%.”  Whatever the
case, the poster announces that all Obama needs is to pick up 11% and he’s got
in it the bag.  And, you know, Rahm and George will take care of that for him,
so why bother?

Never is the number explicitly broken down into
discrete groups.  No details are offered, no references given.  At the most, a
vague reference is made to ACORN or Chicago graveyards as the source of such
votes.  (I suppose they could be thinking of O’s favorability rating, which is
around 40%, [Whoops! It’s been heading down], but they don’t say so, and no
direct correlation exists between “favorability” and actual
votes.)

There being no point in arguing over assumptions, we
will instead examine actual numbers derived from the real world.  Out here,
liberals constitute about 20% of the voting population.  This is a solid number,
confirmed by several polling organizations including Gallup, Pew, and
Rasmussen.  While the exact figure has varied from 18% to 21%, it always within
one or two points of the one-fifth total.  The liberal vote is slowly sliding
toward extinction.  (In case you were wondering, the conservative vote is around
40%.)

But not even this represents a guaranteed vote for
Obama, since the more radical liberal-leftists are annoyed with him for
not being liberal enough — Bush and Cheney were not hanged, and that awful
Palin woman is still gadding about on television.  But we’ll put this aside,
since, as liberal pundits have taken to saying over the past few weeks, they’ll
vote for Obama because they have no place else to go.

Other blocs awarded to Obama include blacks, Jews,
Hispanics, and the youth vote.  (We’ll ignore all claims of a “welfare vote,”
there being no such thing.)  Many of these voters would be included under the
“liberal” fifth and should not be counted separately.  But we’ll overlook that
factor since, as results will show, it’s scarcely relevant.

Dick
Morris
has kindly done the spadework for us here, analyzing
several recent Fox polls dealing with Obama’s favorability ratings.  According
to Fox, Obama’s popularity among young voters and Hispanics has dropped to 44%.
That is, just above the general level of 39%-40%.  It is clear that O has lost a
large proportion of whatever manna he possessed with these groups.  That will
inevitably be reflected in the vote.

As for the Jewish vote, Bob Turner’s epochal victory
in NY-9 reveals it to be in play, in large part due to Obama’s disdain for
Israeli security.

But of course he can depend on the black vote…can’t
he?  Incredibly, even that most monolithic of American voting blocs has begun to
crack in recent weeks.  A September 20 Washington Post story
reports
that Obama’s “strongly favorable” rating among blacks has fallen from 83% to
58%.  This is astonishing — most blacks have shown a devoted loyalty to
Democratic candidates of whatever background since the New Deal era.  That this
bond should begin to fray under the tenure of the first black president is a
topic that should get more attention than it is likely to
receive.

But what of Obama’s most critical bloc — the
independents?  It was independent voters who put him over the top in 2008,
breaking for him in a big way during the last weeks of the election.  Could the
same happen in 2012?  Not according to a recent McClatchy/Marist poll,
which found that independents intend to vote against Obama by a margin of 53% to
28%.  These numbers can only get worse for Obama.  In 2008, he pulled them in
due to the excitement of the moment, all the media-bred “messiah” nonsense.
There is no excitement surrounding Obama in this race.

So we can put aside all notions of O commanding a
winning or even near-winning percentage of the vote.  In fact, we can put aside
more than that.  The same McClatchy/Marist poll quoted above also found that 49
percent to 36 percent definitely plan to vote against him, and 52 to 38 percent
expect him to lose, no matter whom he’s running against.

The point is this: Obama at the beginning of the
election cycle explicitly controls no single voting bloc.  Not one of the blocs
that went his way so avidly in 2008 remains unquestionably in his corner.  Far
from it — a near-majority fully intends to vote against him.  This is
unprecedented in American presidential politics.  No president in recent
decades, and perhaps no president ever, has been in such a miserable position a
year before the election.

Can he pull out of it?  Anything’s possible, but it
seems unlikely.  It’s hard to see exactly what accomplishment would turn things
around for him.  Though lucky enough to have Osama bin Laden killed on his
watch, he derived no more than a flea-sized bounce from that victory.  Short of
his defeating the King of the Morlocks in single combat, it’s not at clear what
actions would benefit him.

Another widely-discussed scenario involves Obama
taking the LBJ route — that is, stepping aside for the good of the country and
allowing someone else to take up the party standard.  There are two problems
with this: Obama’s narcissism and the simple fact that the white establishment
cannot ask the first black president to do any such thing.  Even if he agreed,
public perception would be that the black man had once again been given the
short end, with both black and true-believer leftist voters sitting out the
election in protest.  No, this particular albatross could not be more firmly
attached.  There is no simple way for the Democrats to avoid taking the
hit.

Lastly, as I have mentioned before, and it deserves
repeating, paid left-wing trolls do not appear on our comments pages simply to
insult and argue, though they do plenty of both.  They also log on to insert
disinformation intended to create confusion and sow despair.  This appears to be
such a case.  Do not hesitate to call such people out, even if only to demand
the source of their numbers.  Since there is no source, what you will get in
return is the customary bile, which will hurt no one and, if nasty enough, will
be intercepted by our sterling moderator staff.  We face the prospect of a very
dirty campaign, one that will be fought out as much on our sites as anywhere
else.  We must not let them utilize AT — or any other conservative site — as a
transmission belt for left-liberal disinformation.

J.R. Dunn is consulting
editor of
American
Thinker.

Should Christians Support Obama?

Should Christians

Support Obama?

 

 

This man was on Dr. Charles Stanley’s program “In Touch” as a guest speaker.

 

I almost shouted “HALLELUJAH” when I finished reading. Forward or discard….it’s your choice…but PLEASE read before you do!


Dr. David Barton

 

is more of a historian than a Biblical speaker, but very famous for his knowledge of historical facts as well as Biblical truths.


Dr. David Barton – on Obama

Respect the Office? Yes.

Respect the Man in the Office? No, I am sorry to say.

I have noted that many elected officials, both Democrats and Republicans, called upon America to unite behind Obama.

Well, I want to make it clear to all who will listen that I AM NOT uniting behind Obama !

I will respect the Office, which he holds, and I will acknowledge his abilities as an orator and wordsmith and pray for him, BUT that is it.

I have begun today to see what I can do to make sure that he is a one-term President!

Why am I doing this ?

It is because:

– I do not share Obama’s vision or value system for America ;

– I do not share his Abortion beliefs;

– I do not share his radical Marxist’s concept of re-distributing wealth;

– I do not share his stated views on raising taxes on those who make$150,000+

 

(the ceiling has been changed three times since August);

– I do not share his view that America is Arrogant;

– I do not share his view that America is not a Christian Nation;

– I do not share his view that the military should be reduced by 25%;

– I do not share his view of amnesty and giving more to illegals than our American Citizens who need help;

– I do not share his views on homosexuality and his definition of marriage;

– I do not share his views that Radical Islam is our friend and Israel is our enemy who should give up any land;

– I do not share his spiritual beliefs (at least the ones he has made public);

– I do not share hisbeliefs on how to re-work the healthcare system in America;

– I do not share his Strategic views of the Middle East; and

– I certainly do not share his plan to sit down with terrorist regimes such as Iran.

Bottom line: my America is vastly different from Obama’s, and I have a higher obligation to my Country and my GOD to do what is Right !

For eight (8) years, the Liberals in our Society, led by numerous entertainers who would have no platform and no real credibility but for their celebrity status, have attacked President Bush, his family, and his spiritual beliefs!

They have not moved toward the center in their beliefs and their philosophies, and they never came together nor compromised their personal beliefs for the betterment of our Country!

They have portrayed my America as a land where everything is tolerated except being intolerant !

They have been a vocal and irreverent minority for years !

They have mocked and attacked the very core values so important to the founding and growth of our Country !

They have made every effort to remove the name of GOD or Jesus Christ from our Society !

They have challenged capital punishment, the right to

bear firearms, and the most basic principles of our criminal code !

They have attacked one of the most fundamental of all Freedoms, the right of free speech!

Unite behind Obama? Never!

I am sure many of you who read this think that I am going overboard, but I refuse to retreat one more inch in favor of those whom I believe are the embodiment of Evil!

PRESIDENT BUSH made many mistakes during his Presidency, and I am not sure how history will judge him. However, I believe that he weighed his decisions in light of the long established Judeo-Christian principles of our Founding Fathers!!!

Majority rules in America , and I will honor the concept; however, I will fight with all of my power to be a voice in opposition to Obama and his “goals for America ….”

I am going to be a thorn in the side of those who, if left unchecked, will destroy our Country!Any more compromise is more defeat!

I pray that the results of this election will wake up many who have sat on the sidelines and allowed the Socialist-Marxist anti-GOD crowd to slowly change so much of what has been good inAmerica !

“Error of Opinion may be tolerated where Reason is left free to combat it.” –Thomas Jefferson

GOD bless you and GOD bless our Country!

(Please, please, please, pass this on if you agree.

If you don’t agree, just delete it.)

Thanks for your time, may you and yours be safe.

“In GOD We Trust”

When will Obama crack in public?

Description: cid:1.481358172@web180206.mail.gq1.yahoo.comDescription: cid:2.481358173@web180206.mail.gq1.yahoo.com

When will Obama crack in public?

by Mychal Massie

At a time when many Americans can barely afford Burger King and a movie, Obama boasts of spending a billion dollars on his re-election campaign. Questioned at a recent appearance about the spiraling fuel costs, Obama said, “Get used to it” – and with an insouciant grin and chortle, he told another person at the event, who complained about the effect high fuel prices were having on his family, to “get a more fuel-efficient car.”

The Obamas behave as if they were sharecroppers living in a trailer and hit the Powerball, but instead of getting new tires for their trailer and a new pickup truck, they moved to Washington . And instead of making possum pie, with goats and chickens in the front yard, they’re spending and living large at taxpayer expense – opulent vacations, gala balls, resplendent dinners and exclusive command performances at the White House, grand date nights, golf, basketball, more golf, exclusive resorts and still more golf. In the 1950’s they called it acting (NIGGER RICH)

Expensive, ill-fitting and ill-chosen wigs and fashions hardly befit the first lady of the United States *. The Obamas have behaved in every way but presidential – which is why it’s so offensive when we hear Obama say, in order “to restore fiscal responsibility, we all need to share in the sacrifice – but we don’t have to sacrifice the America we believe in.”

The American people have been sacrificing; it is he and his family who are behaving as if they’ve never had two nickels to rub together – and now, having hit the mother lode, they’re going to spend away their feelings of inadequacy at the taxpayers’ expense.

Obama continues to exhibit behavior that, at best, can be described as mobocratic and, at worst, reveals a deeply damaged individual. In a February 2010 column, I asked, “Is Obama unraveling?” I wrote that it was beginning to appear the growing mistrust of him and contempt for his policies was beginning to have a destabilizing effect on him.

At that time, I wrote that not having things go one’s way can be a bitter pill, but reasonable people don’t behave as he was behaving. He had insulted Republicans at their luncheon, where he had been an invited guest. I had speculated that was, in part, what had led him to falsely accuse Supreme Court justices before Congress, the nation and the world, during the 2010 State of the Union address.

It appeared, at that time, as if he were “fraying around the emotional edges.” That behavior has not abated – it has become more pronounced. While addressing the nation, after being forced to explain the validity of his unilateral aggression with Libya , America witnessed a petulant individual scowling and scolding the public for daring to insist he explain his actions.

But during an afternoon speech to address the budget/debt, he took his scornful, unstable despotic behavior to depths that should give the nation cause for concern. Displaying a dark psychopathy more representative of an episode of “The Tudors” television series, he invited Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., to sit in the front row during his speech and then proceeded to berate both Ryan and Ryan’s budget-cutting plan. Even liberal Democrats were put off by the act. MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough questioned the sanity of Obama’s actions.

Today, criticism is coming from all sides. A senior Democrat lawmaker said, “I have been very disappointed in [Obama], to the point where I’m embarrassed that I endorsed him. It’s so bad that some of us are thinking, is there some way we can replace him? How do you get rid of this guy?” (“Democrats’ Disgust with Obama,” The Daily Beast, April 15, 2011)

Steve McCann wrote: Obama’s speech “was chock full of lies, deceit and crass fear-mongering. It must be said that [he] is the most dishonest, deceitful and mendacious person in a position of power I have ever witnessed” (“The Mendacity of Barack Obama,”AmericanThinker.com, April 15, 2011).

McCann continued: “[His] performance was the culmination of four years of outright lies and narcissism that have been largely ignored by the media, including some in the conservative press and political class who are loath to call [him] what he is in the bluntest of terms: a liar and a fraud. That he relies on his skin color to intimidate, either outright or by insinuation [against] those who oppose his radical agenda only add to his audacity. It is apparent that he has gotten away with his character flaws his entire life, aided and abetted by sycophants around him. …”

With these being among the kinder rebukes being directed at Obama, and with people becoming less intimidated by his willingness to use race as a bludgeon, with falling poll numbers in every meaningful category and an increasingly aggressive tea-party opposition – how much longer before he cracks completely?

The coming months of political life are not going to be pleasant for Obama. Possessed by a self-perceived palatine mindset, that in his mind places him above criticism, how long before he cracks in public? Can America risk a man with a documented track record of lying and misrepresenting truth as a basic way of life, who is becoming increasingly more contumelious?

Mychal Massie is chairman of the National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives-Project 21 – a conservative black think tank located in Washington, D.C. He was recognized as the 2008 Conservative Man of the Year by the Conservative Party of Suffolk County , N.Y. He is a nationally recognized political activist, pundit and columnist. He has appeared on Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, C-SPAN, NBC, Comcast Cable and talk radio programming nationwide. A former self-employed business owner of more than 30 years, Massie can be followed at mychal-massie.com.


For Those Who Understand No Explanation is Necessary!

For Those Who Do Not Understand No Explanation is Possible!!!

 

* First LADY? re clothing: not to mention the inappropriateness of exercise togs and short-shorts in public! the use of the word lady is being stretched beyond its limits. I prefer to think of her simply as Mrs. Obama, if I think of her at all. [shudder.]

 

 

New Word For The Day – “Dhimmitude” “What Does It Mean” ?

 

Obama used it in the health care bill.

Now isn’t this interesting? It was used in the health care law.

Every day there’s another revelation of what Obama is doing to our country.

Dhimmitude — I had never heard the word until now. Type it into Google and start reading. Pretty interesting. It’s on page 107 of the healthcare bill. I looked this up on Google and yep, it exists.. It is a REAL word.

Word of the Day: Dhimmitude

Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-Muslim populations conquered through jihad. Specifically, it is the TAXING of non-Muslims in exchange for tolerating their presence AND as a coercive means of converting conquered remnants to Islam.

Obama Care allows the establishment of Dhimmitude and Sharia Muslim diktat in the United States . Folks, this is exclusively an Islamic concept under Sharia Law. So exclusive they had to make up an English word to define the concept. Why would our government start interjecting Sharia Law concepts into new broad and sweeping legislation like health care that would control the US population? ….Anyone?Muslims are specifically exempted from the government mandate to purchase insurance, and also from the penalty tax for being uninsured. Islam considers insurance to be “gambling”, “risk-taking”, and “usury” and is thus banned. Muslims are specifically granted exemption based on this.

How convenient. So a Christian would have crippling IRS liens placed against all of their assets, including real estate, cattle, and even accounts receivables, and will face hard prison time because they refuse to buy insurance or pay the penalty tax. Meanwhile, Louis Farrakhan and all other US Muslims will have no such penalty and will have 100% of their health needs paid for by the de facto government insurance. Non-Muslims paying a tax to subsidize Muslims. This is Sharia Law definition of.. Dhimmitude. This is not a Western Civilization concept.

Dhimmit has two purposes: To enrich Muslims AND to drive conversions to Islam.

I recommend sending this post to your contacts. This is desperately important and people need to know about it — quickly!

This really is happening in your country. A fraction at a time.

Wake up America ! They’re coming in the back door.

To check it out on Snopes click here: Health Insurance Exemptions.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/exemptions.asp

 

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.” -Ronald Reagan

 

Inhofe lays long list of nation’s ills at Obama’s feet

Inhofe lays long list of nation’s ills at Obama’s feet

by: RANDY KREHBIEL World Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 24, 2011

BROKEN ARROW — President  Barack Obama alone is  to blame for the nation’s budget  deficit – and just about  everything else, U.S. Sen. Jim  Inhofe told the Broken Arrow  Chamber of Commerce  on Tuesday.

“We now have a president,  and I don’t mean this disrespectfully,  who is destroying  these very institutions that  made America great,” Inhofe,  R-Okla., said.

Inhofe went on to say the  Obama administration has “disarmed America,” is solely  responsible for the federal  budget deficit, mostly  responsible for the nation’s  dependence on imported oil  and suffocating business with  regulations.

He also said Obama engineered  the House Republicans’ ban on earmarks in  order to give himself more  control of the budget.

“When they came along  with this moratorium, you  have to let the president run  everything,” Inhofe said. “They conceded that authority  to the president of the  United States, so that’s why  the president was behind the  whole earmark thing.”

Inhofe said the earmark  ban allowed the administration  to block a new $10 million  control tower scheduled  for Tinker Air Force Base.

He said military spending,  as a share of gross domestic  product, has declined during  the Obama administration  and criticized unflattering  descriptions of the prison  at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,  where terror suspects are  held, saying, “You know the  biggest problem for prisoners  when they get to Gitmo?  Obesity.”

Inhofe said the idea that  prisoners have been tortured  there was invented by Obama  and others “to make you think  something bad is happening  in America — the same thing  he does and others do when  they go around talking about  how bad America is.”

Inhofe said the deficit is  Obama’s fault because “it’s  the president’s budget. Period.  That’s the end of it.”

He said the recent debtlimit  agreement is a sham  that does little or nothing to  reduce overall spending.  One solution, he continued,  would be to repeal the  health-care reform law,  which he said is an example  of “social engineering” designed  to make Americans  more dependent on the federal  government.

Inhofe also cited extended  unemployment benefits,  saying he saw no reason for  them in Oklahoma because  the state has “virtually full  employment.”

Inhofe laid out a long list  of regulatory steps he said  would cost taxpayers and  employers billions of dollars  in taxes and lost productivity,  and said the country could  be “totally independent from  the Middle East in a matter  of weeks, not years,” if the  administration allowed unfettered  oil and gas development  on public lands.

Noting that he will not be  up for re-election until 2014,  Inhofe said, “Don’t misunderstand,  (nothing) I’m saying  now is for political purposes.”