Nov 18, 2011 Political
A man from Idaho named Oscar Ramiro Ortega is in a world of trouble after he fired a weapon at the White House. Barack Obama and his family were not there at the time and ballistic glass prevented any penetration but that does not negate the seriousness of the act. Ortega is being charged with attempted assassination though I think that might be hard to prove. All he has to do is claim he knew Obama was not there (Obama’s travels are in the news) and there can be no intent shown with regard to assassination.
Let me stop here to make it clear. I DO NOT support what this guy did or any act that involves shooting Obama or any other elected person. That is not the proper way to handle things and those kinds of things are not appropriate.
Ortega has been linked to the Occupy DC group, part of the entire Occupy movement which might explain why he was quickly labeled as mentally unstable. Can’t have a left wing radical doing things against the left wing radical Obama.
The question is, since Obama follows Saul Alinsky’s tenets (the ends justify the means) and since he has wholeheartedly supported the Occupy movement, does he support what this guy did?
We already know Obama has no problem with people using violence to get what they want so long as what they want is part of the progressive agenda. Obama is friends with US terrorist Bill Ayers who killed police officers and detonated bombs in this country as part of the progressive movement in the 60s. I know Obama was only a child at that time but one can tell a lot about a person by the company he keeps and Obama kept company with a terrorist. Obama has thrown his support behind the Occupy movement even though they have been committing horrific crimes, vandalizing property and attacking police.
So does Obama support what Ortega did?
Ortega was expressing himself in a manner that is consistent with the Occupy movement, Alinsky and Ayers, all of which Obama supports.
I imagine they charged this guy with the attempted assassination and will push to say he is insane (he might well be) in order to hide him away somewhere to make it easier for the State Run Media to ignore it.
The funny thing about all this is that the Media wing of the Democrat party keeps telling us that the Occupy folks are no different than the TEA Party. Really now? How many TEA Party members ever shot at anyone, politician or otherwise? NONE!
As an aside, how many TEA Party events had public health officials concerned about the spread of disease? Again, NONE!
I am not in support of the act committed by Ortega. I do find it ironic that he is a left wing whack job who committed an act that Big Sis at DHS said would come from right wing extremists.
The only things that would make this story (the association, not the act) sweeter is if Ortega was an illegal alien and the gun he used was traced back to Fast and Furious.
Now that would be funny indeed.
Never surrender, never submit.
Oct 26, 2011 Political
The crowd of Occupy Wall Street (and its many offshoots across the nation) is a mob. They are followers of Saul Alinsky and they are causing social unrest in hope of changing the way the nation does business but not for the best. They falsely claim they represent 99% of the country because they are not the 1% of our nation that is really wealthy. They do not represent the 99%. In fact, they represent only a small part of the 99% in this nation who are not wealthy.
But they do represent the Democrats, the Socialists, the Communists and the Islamic radicals, all of whom have endorsed their activities.
The occupy crowd around the country has been involved or implicated in a number of crimes including drug distribution, rape, and their presence seems to increase the crime rates of their occupied territory. They are supported by the aforementioned groups and that includes Democrats like Barack Obama, Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi, all of whom have stated that support.
The Democrats support these people and dare not talk about the illegal activities, the public defecation, the violence, the vandalism and the assaults on police because they do not want to lose their support. This is their base.
Contrast the FLEA baggers with the TEA Party. There has never been an arrest of a TEA Party member at a TEA Party event. The TEA Party supporters leave places cleaner than when they arrived and there are no allegations of drug use or distribution, rape or any other crime. The only allegations ever made are that the TEA Party members are racist. These allegations are all false and have been proven so many times. The allegations of using the N word toward members of Congress have been shown false and yet, the left continues to harp this lie.
The members of the left who support the degenerates in the Occupy movement have called the TEA Party unpatriotic, racist and a number of names that allude to vulgar sexual activities.
Think about it for a moment. The Democrats openly deride the law abiding and peaceful TEA Party members as un-American and racist for following the law while openly praising and supporting the Occupy members who are breaking laws left and right. The left has yet to address the drug, rape and violence criminal acts by the Occupy crowd but jumps on a racist claim about the TEA Party the moment the word is uttered.
What does that tell you about the Democrats who support the Occupy crowd?
It tells me that they agree with the crimes, they agree with the goals (if anyone in the Occupy crowd could actually give a coherent statement about the goals) and that they agree with the tactics.
The Democrats agree because the tactics come right out of Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals.
This is how radicals try to affect social change. This is what they do to get what they want and what they want is a collapse of the system, the movement to Socialism, the forced redistribution of wealth and more government involvement.
The Democrats support these people because they want the unrest. They want it to escalate and evolve into widespread chaos so that people will clamor for government to do something, anything, to stop the insanity.
And Democrats are waiting for that moment to inject more government into our lives. They will be the saviors. They will stop the insanity by imposing more restrictive rules as they move us closer to Socialism.
They have created and supported a crisis because, as they openly told us, they do not let a crisis go to waste.
This is by design. This is what the Democrats want. This is how they have trained for decades and this is the closest they have come. They are following Alinsky’s script in order to affect change.
This is the Change part of the Hope and Change in Obama’s 2008 campaign.
They think they will succeed.
They are wrong. If this devolves into social unrest the overwhelming part of the 99% in this country who are not wealthy and are not part of this mob will stop them in their tracks. Alinsky said they had to work to get a reaction. Escalating violence will get a reaction they do not like.
I have heard those who support them claim these people are being peaceful and have a right to protest. They have every right to protest but their right ends when it infringes upon the rights of others and these people are doing just that. They are hurting businesses, they are committing acts of violence, and they are breaking the law.
If they want someone to listen to them then they need to obey the law.
And staying where you are not allowed, committing rape, using and distributing drugs, urinating and defecating in public, committing vandalism and being violent are not legal acts and do not constitute obeying the law.
Let me put it in simpler terms for the liberals. You have to obey the law when exercising your right to protest.
When you don’t, you lose your right.
Never surrender, never submit.
Mar 27, 2010 Political
When George Bush made the recess appointments of John Bolton and several judges the left went bonkers. How dare he do that? Who does he think he is? Hell, the Senate had one member in session at times in order to keep him from making such appointments during his time in office. They did not like it because they were obstructing his appointments and he went around them. I did not care because he is allowed under the Constitution to make such appointments. But the Constitution has never really meant much to the left.
Barack Obama waited until Congress took recess to make 15 recess appointments:
Fed up with waiting, President Barack Obama announced Saturday he would bypass a vacationing Senate and name 15 people to key administration jobs, wielding for the first time the blunt political tool known as the recess appointment.
The move immediately deepened the divide between the Democratic president and Republicans in the Senate following a long, bruising fight over health care. Obama revealed his decision by blistering Republicans, accusing them of holding up nominees for months solely to try to score a political advantage on him.
“I simply cannot allow partisan politics to stand in the way of the basic functioning of government,” Obama said in a statement. AP via My Way News
I do not care that he did this because it is allowed under our Constitution. What I find amazing is his rationale for doing it. He said that Republicans were obstructing his appointments for political gain and he needed to fill the positions. This is the rationale Bush used and the left went nuts but in this case, the left encouraged Obama to take a page out of the Bush playbook and do it as well.
Starting in 2007, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid prevented any further recess appointments by Bush. A compromise was worked out for the August break, and Bush did not make any recess appointments. However, no agreement was reached for the two-week Thanksgiving break in November 2007, and as a result, Reid decided to keep the Senate in session by having pro forma sessions every three days. Prior to this, there had been speculation that James Holsinger would receive a recess appointment as U.S. surgeon general. The Senate was also kept in session over the Christmas break as well as during 2008 breaks. Hence, Bush was unable to make any further recess appointments during his presidency. Wikipedia
It makes the case less worthy when the argument is that the other guy did it or that it is OK now because Republican obstruction is different than Democrat obstruction.
What is really amazing is that the Democrats still have a 59-41 advantage in the Senate and they had a 60-40, filibuster proof, majority. They could have easily gotten these guys approved if they had not wasted so much energy on the health care takeover. If getting them in was so important then it should have been done first. Considering most parts of the health care takeover do not take place for four years it seems they could have prioritized a little better.
So Obama has made the appointments and they must be approved by the end of the next session of Congress. I am willing to bet they are not approved and will be vacant seats again at the end of next year.
I know Obama claims obstruction but some of these folks had some real issues that were going to be investigated by the Senate committee. It would have been ugly, particularly for union lawyer Craig Becker who was appointed to the National Labor Relations Board.
They will have to work hard to screw things up further because these guys have until the end of next year and they are done.
Yep, Barry Obama is doing just what Bush did and he has the support of the left, those who bashed Bush for doing the exact same thing.
The left is full of hypocrites. But in their true Alinsky fashion, the ends justify the means.
Never surrender, never submit.
Jan 31, 2010 Political
Team Obama is working on ways to indoctrinate our children. Pam Geller at Atlas Shrugs has a story about a paper sent home with school children in a town in Ohio. The paper describes the experience of a reader of the site and it is explained this way:
Her government class passed out this propaganda recruiting paper so students could sign up as interns for Obama’s Organizing for America (OFA is the former mybarackobama.com site.)
The papers are reproduced at the site and there is no doubt that this is designed to indoctrinate our youth into some kind of Obama SS brigade.
Look at the suggested reading list and you will see the book Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinksy.
If this kind of stuff comes home with my grandson the school is going to find out what it means to have radicalism stomped out.
The Obama folks want to make our children little brown shirted Obama followers, little radicals, little community organizers.
This must be stopped.
Obama said he was not a Bolshevik.
No, he is a Bolshevik artist…
Sep 21, 2009 Political
Obama taped his appearance on Letterman’s show and he addressed the claims that opposition to him is based on racism. I actually agree with what he said and it made sense. Of course, no matter what he might really believe (and I am not doubting what he said is how he feels) he would pretty much have to say what he did. This is how the exchange, which people who are desperate enough to watch Letterman can see tonight, was described at the CBS website:
Addressing suggestions that recent criticism of his health care reform efforts has been grounded in racism, President Obama this afternoon quipped, “I think it’s important to realize that I was actually black before the election.”
The comment, which the president made in an afternoon taping of CBS’ “The Late Show,” promoted laughter from the audenice and this response from host David Letterman: “How long have you been a black man?”
Mr. Obama said the notion that racism is playing a role in the criticism, which has been voiced by former President Jimmy Carter and others, is countered in part by the fact that he was elected in the first place – which, he said, “tells you a lot about where the country’s at.”
Yes, Obama was black before the election (well, half black) and he is black now. Unless he wants to pull a Michael Jackson there is nothing he can do to change that nor should he want or need to. The color of a person should not matter one bit when it comes to any aspect of life. It is a shame that it matters to some people but the fact is, it should not.
However, one thing Obama was before the election is more moderate. He opposed items that Hillary, and later McCain proposed saying that he would bring a new day to DC. He promised transparency and gave the appearance that he was pretty moderate. Once he got into office his far left, radical beliefs came out. Sure, he slipped up with Joe the Plumber but his surrogates quickly violated Joe’s privacy and broke the law in order to attempt to destroy the man.
As an aside, this is one of the reasons Breitbart decided to release the ACORN videos a little at a time. He had a plan to get the information out first before getting into who made the discovery. He wanted to avoid having the people who made the videos destroyed by Obama’s lackeys. He successfully made ACORN the story and made it nearly impossible for the MSM to go after the young film makers.
Anyway, Obama has moved farther left since he was elected. He played the left of center moderate, cool, even tempered guy who would take all opinions into consideration. Now he is working on his agenda, not listening to reasonable alternatives, is not displaying transparency, and is paying back his supporters just as politicians have done for a long time. Whenever he has trouble we are reminded that Bush did it. Czars, why complain about Obama when Bush had czars (more if you believe the DNC)? Why? Because Obama said that he was all about change. You can’t say you are all about change and then justify what you do by saying the other guy did it.
That is not change.
Obama took the time to tell Letterman that he did not believe the opposition was based on racism which runs counter to what the racist Jimmy Carter had to say. It is good that Obama would acknowledge that it is not about racism because that clearly demonstrates that is about opposing his policies and what he wants to do. It is about opposing the guy who is doing the opposite of what he said when campaigning. It is about opposing a guy who disagreed with Hillary and McCain but now wants to use what they proposed.
It is about opposing the radical make over of our country. No matter what the liberals think, they can now drop the whole racist bit because it is not working and your boss does not believe it.
Yes, Obama is a different guy than he was when he campaigned and his very appearance on Letterman shows that. Obama boycotted Imus and said he would never again appear on that show because of Imus’ comment about a women’s basketball team. Obama could not go on a show of a person who demeaned women like that. He had daughters to worry about and could not go on a show of a guy who would treat someone’s daughter like that.
He is on Letterman and Letterman demeaned Sarah Palin and her daughter. Palin is a politician and she is fair game though the “slutty flight attendant” remark is demeaning to women. The real kicker is that Letterman demeaned a person’s daughter who happens to be a minor.
Why is it Obama could not go on Imus but can appear on Letterman?
Do different standards apply if it is the daughter of a Conservative rival? One would think a man of integrity would apply the same standards no matter what.
Obama was black before the election. He was also a shrewd, insider politician brought up in the thug Chicago way and schooled in the art of Alinsky (his deception to get into office is right out of that playbook).
Looks like that has not changed either.