Obama gets last laugh with regards to the 2011 budget agreement. Time for him to get out of town.

Here is Obama, teaching one in one of his three summer classes at the University of Chicago. He was a "senior lecturer" for six summers (1996 -2004) , teaching three classes during those summers, hardly a "law professor" as he claims. On the board, Obama is teaching his class about the power base of the evil corporate world, a precursor to the teachings found in the book, Rules for Radicals.

Obama is working his skinny little butt off trying to shore up his base. With all of his rhetorical strategies, a convoluted soup of promises and lies, we can forget who his base really is. Let's identify them using the words of the fat Michael Moore: "You are one of us." The man [Obama] is no more a "moderate" Democrat than he is a passionate Christian or the past Editor of the Harvard Law Review. Know this, you cannot teach the principles of Rules for Radicals and not be a radical politician and we have at least one picture of him teaching the principles of Saul Alinsky. The fact that he is a proud "community organizer" is proof enough of his radicalism but we have that dang picture and two years of political deceit to prove our point.

So, he is a radical Leftist, a man who believes in a One World economy and an international system of justice; a man who believes that wealth belongs to the unionized workforce; a man who believes that the unprincipled poor of this country deserve and are owed an income that puts them on equal material standing with the "haves" of our society. Marx and Engles (communist innovators) called this "dialectic materialism," this taking from the "haves" and giving it to the "have nots." Obama believes in all this crap.

As a result, he will be busy - for the next 18 months - inflaming passions, pushing back against the patriots of this great nation and their Constitution, and trying to recreate the damaged connection between himself and his Marxist base. I call them "Marxist" because I, as representative Baby Boomer Man - went to college with these punks. They were proud Marxist then. Nothing has changed, as I see it . Understand that the Radical Left can be as politically harsh as us TEA Party folk and it was the radical Left that put him into office in 2008. He knows this and so do they.

Of course he needs the non-partisan voting population, often called "Independents." But he cannot abandon the far far Left and gain in the final vote count by doing so. How he manifests his radicalism while pretending to be a political moderate will spell the end of his political career or push him over the top in the 2012 election.

He is not "moving to the center" to attract votes and win an election. Not at all. His efforts as to Queer Nation and the 2% these gay blades represent in the military is an example of of the "new Obama," you know, the man who is moving to the middle. He has ordered "gay sensitivity training" for the military, at all levels, whether at home or in combat. Such "training" is going on as I write this post. Understand that his rules of engagement have put our troops in danger and have prevented them from winning the war in Afghanistan. Our military cannot search out the enemy and attack the enemy unless and until that enemy force shots first. In some cases, we have to administer Miranda rights. In most cases, we have to release the enemy combatant (also known as Murdering Muslim Jihadists) within 96 hours of their capture. One account I recently read had that soldier telling the reporter that since being in Afghanistan, all of the captures he knew of, had been released under this policy. And now, Queer Nation gets to benefit from battlefield instruction to the normal people in our army.

In another venue, Obama's summons of Paul Ryan to his budget speech for the singular purpose of insulting Ryan to his face, is indicative of the kind of politic we can expect from Obama. That was not a budget speech. It was the first shot of his 2012 presidential campaign, a declaration of war on the Right and conservative minded Independents. It was a 9 page "budget," 7 pages of which were the words of his speech. By contrast, Ryan's budget proposal was 89 pages long. You tell me which is the proposal and which is the speech.

In that speech, Obama introduced the proposition of a controlling 15 man council that would take charge over deficit matters, apart from the work of the legislative branch. You may not understand that he has spent most of his first two years either kissing up to the 111th congress or circumventing that legislative institution altogether, depending on what it is he is trying to do. He has done more to add to the irrelevancy of the Congress of the United States than any president in our history. The plan to circumvent congress with that 15 man council, as laid out in his second and most recent "budget" speech, is borne of his contempt for congress.

His "signing statement" of yesterday is another. Understand that the two sides, the GOP and Obama, forged an 11th hour agreement finalizing the working structure of the 2011 fiscal year. As he signed that agreement into law, this past week, he, also, committed to a "signing statement" in which he specified the parts of that "agreement" he does not intend to enforce or follow. Presidents have issued signing statements for decades. He is no different in that fact. But, when combined with his disdain for congressional processes, this signing statement was especially rude. You can read of the facts of this signing statement in an ABC news release recorded here. Understand that his signing statement is a declaration that Obama will not abide by the agreement he helped pass into law. Clearly, it is time for the death of the "signing statement." Why anyone thought that this would never be misused is beyond me.

Understand that Obama has taken the fringe agreements of our system and have used them to his political and ideological advantage.

The signing statement is being used to, by Obama, to rewrite legislation without the input and approval of congress.

He uses to the regulatory powers of the EPA, the FCC, the SEC to enforce net neutrality, elements of cap and trade, and "legislate" against those on Wall Street that do met with his approval.

He has/had more than 50 "czars" (Bush 43 had 16 - a record until Obama) as he works his personal agenda for this country. Know this: a "czar" has an office, staff, in most cases transportation and a budget and is considered "presidential staff." As presidential staff, none of these people can be subpoenaed or forced to talk about what they are doing. They have "executive privilege" and are only responsible to our Marxist Omama (correct spelling, btw).

Finally, he as a thing called "executive order." He can use that to open the borders, pardon 11 million illegal aliens, confiscate properties for the State, order bankruptcies (ala GM), raped stockholders and on and on.

All of the above and more, has to do with the methodology of his ideology. He talks a good game. You agree. You join his freaking union and all is well. If not, he treats you as if you deserve to ride in the back of the bus, and, off to the dictator's party we all go.

After two years of this Marxist nonsense, we have learned that Congress, over the years, has given the presidency of the United States the powers he or she needs to function as if a dictator. The 113th congress (after the 2012 elections) has no greater responsibility than to defrock the presidency of its dictatorial powers. You can bet that no Establishment Republican or Democrat will participate in this "house clean." That is why the next election needs to be about the Big Government Establishment of both parties.

What is most important in terms of this particular election is this: Obama believes that now is the time to transform the United States of America. He believes he has enough of the populace behind him, supporting him, that he can actually pull off this Marxist/Socialist/One World takeover. That is what this election is all about. He has passed enough of his legislative agenda, combined with his misuse of the regulatory powers of the presidency, to complete the task, even if he loses the Senate. He, himself, must be defeated and ridden out of town.

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.....It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. --- Ronald Reagan

9 comments:

  1. Don't you get tired of preaching hate? You should be ashamed. Obama is plenty deep in the pocket of JP Morgan Chase to be a 'socialist.' We KNOW where that socialist lie came from...

    How do you think Jesus, our socialist role model, would like the GOP plan to support the rich at the expense of hurting the poor??:

    But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just. [Luke 14:13 &14.]

    If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. [Matthew 19:21]

    You cannot serve both God and Money. [Matthew 6:24.]

    For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.
    [1 Timothy 6:10,11}

    Labour not to be rich: cease from thine own wisdom. Wilt thou set thine eyes upon that which is not? for riches certainly make themselves wings; they fly away as an eagle toward heaven.
    (Proverbs 23:4,5)

    He that by usury and unjust gain increaseth his substance, he shall gather it for him that will pity the poor.
    (Proverbs 28:8)

    The wicked borroweth, and payeth not again: but the righteous sheweth mercy, and giveth.
    (Psalm 37:21)

    A faithful man shall abound with blessings: but he that maketh haste to be rich shall not be innocent.
    (Proverbs 28:20)

    What would Jesus think of Republicans targeting the poorest and weakest among us by cutting funding for community health centers, heating for the poor, foodstamps, and medicare? During the election, they lied throught their teeth - accusing the Democrats of wanting to cut medicare... now look at the hypocrites.. cutting programs for the poor and elderly while fighting tooth and nail to preserve a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. Note the titles given to these Bush tax cuts for corps and the rich:

    Cut #1: Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
    Cut #2: Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
    Cut #3: Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005

    Well guess what? There was no economic growth and the worst job creation of any modern presidency. The Republican fantasy of trickle down has a proven record of failure, yet they keep sticking to it because of their puppet masters and their innate mental predispostion of not being able to adapt.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As far as I am concerned, William, you have no business quoting from the Bible. You have said plenty over the course of the past year to convince me that you willfully detest Christianity. So drop dead on that part of your post.

    When will I back off Obama? Never.

    The article you cite as proof of your claim is rather moronic on its surface.

    Two things: first, under Bush 43,our Gross National Product increased each of 52 consecutive months, the longest period of growth in this nation's history.

    Secondly, During Bush years, the workforce of this country grew by a nominal 20 million. His average for unemployment was 4.4 for seven years and 4.9 INCLUDING 2008.

    You do the math. 8 years divided into 20 million new job seekers = 2.5 million jobs per year created. If Bush created only 3 million new jobs, the growth in the workforce would have added more people than were unemployed at the peak of the current Obama recession. You simply cannot maintain a 4.4 without creating enough jobs to offset the new and incoming workforce. Impossible.

    Plus, I have added a new category -- Jobs "saved." If Obama saved 1.8 million jobs (that is the new claim from this genius) and he has averaged more than 9.5% unemployment to date, I maintain that Bush 43 saved more than 23 million jobs using the same ObamaMath (or is that ObamaMeth, him being a cocaine user in the past and all). I mean, if Obama can talk of "jobs created or saved," (the first president to play this particular rhetorical game), then we must allow Bush 43 the same courtesy.

    As to "trickle down economics," that is your word, not mine. My name for your "trickle down" is called "economic reality." There is no alternative for Reagan's economic methodology. What?!! You believe in trickle up economics !?? Understand that no one in any generation in any country, succeeded to move from one financial class to a higher financial class via government redistribution, except, of course, those at the top, folks like Obama and Pelosi and Reid, the moralist Alvin Gore, the fat Michael Moore and on and on. NO ONE at the top of your economic dream world should have any more money and stuff than anyone else. Isn't that what you believe, Willy Boy?

    You see, you are stuck at this point in the debate. If you say yes, I am going to ask about all the fat cats in your Marxist world you vote for and support. If you say no, I am going to ask, "What's the difference between your economic system and mine?"

    Got answers ??

    ReplyDelete
  3. You are living in a fantasy land of denial,

    US GOVERNMEMNT LABOR STATISTICS show GW Bush not only created the fewest jobs per year of his presidency - 375,000, Bush also had the lowest level of payroll expansion - 2.3% Clinton had a 21.1% payroll expansion and created 2.9 million jobs every year of his presidency.

    Why is it that you hate the facts? WHy is it that you are in a state of pathological denial? Are you mentally ill?

    Why won't you address the fact that Jesus was - according to the Bible - a liberal socialist? Jesus was a philosopher who argued that true happiness could be found by charity and kindness, not by accumulation of wealth. Jesus argued that Roman commercialism had corrupted Jewish society. Jesus was a trouble-maker to the Romans and made his feelings known - that is why he was crucified. The only time Jesus was ever documented in the Gospls using physical force was when he expells the money changers from the temple. The small few elite Jews were getting very rich cooperating with the Romans while most were being dispossessed and taxed into oblivion. Under Roman rule, their society was becoming dominated by a wealthy arrogant elite grinding down on an increasingly desperate working class. This disparity was against the principles of Jesus, and the Bible is clear on these values.

    Since conservatives seem to have claimed 'ownership' of religion and 'moral values,' it is also notable that they are ignoring Biblical moral value principles - true to their consistent hypocrisy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh, and since you brought up Reagan, here is an article for your readers by the designer of Reaganomics, David Stockman:

    How the GOP Destroyed the Economy

    and ... another article in the CONSERVATIVE Wall Street Journal about the failure of Reagan's "trickle down" economics'

    ReplyDelete
  5. You know nothing about Christ and I refuse to discuss him with anyone who aggressively works against him.

    Secondly, you have decided to ignore my arguments concerning Bush's economic successes, arguments succinctly and clearly stated in my above post. Why not answer my questions?

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Looking at real data, we see Smithson to be wrong or lying.

    His statement: "under Bush 43, our Gross National Product increased each of 52 consecutive months, the longest period of growth in this nation's history."

    FACT: Clinton, LBJ, FDR, had more GDP growth per capita than Bush.

    Why would anyone believe Smithson or anything on this blog. Note this Smithson post, Smithson is incapable of 8th math. It's truly pathetic.

    Note how he refuses to discuss the scripture when it proves my point. Like many evangelicals, he'll manipulate scriptural passages to justify his reality and ignore the true message. That is evil.

    Therefore, Smithson has proven himself uneducated, evil and a hateful liar.

    ReplyDelete
  8. John Smithson said...

    Again, you deny Jesus so stop quoting him as if you did believe. This is what all you atheist secularists do. You reject the notion of Christ controlling your lives while readily quoting "thou shalt not judge" or "thous shalt not murder," as if you (all) understand anything about the divine message. Christ cautions against throwing pearls before swine. I am thinking this advice applies, in this case.

    Secondly, the facts of my post (near the top of these comments) have not been refuted by William. I wait for a meaningful reply.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think the scripture William cites proves an excellent point. Can you quote scripture to disprove William?

    ReplyDelete