Been saying this from the start yet the only ones we see keeping this alive is American Thinker. Great site. These communist/socialist assholes need to be hung up in the town square and beaten to death. But in towns like Chicago and Washington D.C. socialists and communists are welcomed instead of killed. Where have you gone Joe McCarthy? Real Americans turn their lonely eyes to you. Yes I am one of those that believe ol' Joe did good for America. He set a precedent for the rest of us to follow and even today all these years after the fall of the Soviet Union I still view commies as America's worst enemy. Joe died long before I was born. Islamofascists attack us, commies try to change America.
November 01, 2010
Pay No Attention to the Communists behind the Curtain
By Robert Knight
The evidence is overwhelming. The media interest is zero. The UFO strategy is in force.
Let me explain.
I'm talking about the unsolved Weather Underground murder of San Francisco Police Officer Brian V. McDonnell. A bomb placed on Feb. 16, 1970 outside the Golden Gate Park police station ripped through Sgt. McDonnell, who died two days later. His killers never paid a price.
Apart from simple justice, here's why this open case still matters. According to testimony by undercover FBI agent Larry Grathwohl, William Ayers was almost certainly involved. Ayers helped launch Obama's political career in 1995 at his home in Chicago and served on two boards with him. Ayers told Grathwohl that Ayers' wife, Bernardine Dohrn, planted the bomb. In 1971, the FBI found Ayers' fingerprints and those of other Weather Underground terrorists in an apartment that had been a bomb-making factory.
Because of prosecutorial errors, Ayers went free, boasting, "Guilty as hell, free as a bird." Dohrn remained underground until 1980, spent jail time for lesser charges, and then went on, like Ayers, to be a professor at a major college. Ayers was at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and Dohrn is at Northwestern University.
On Oct. 21, Larry Grathwohl told his story at a seminar at the National Press Club sponsored by America's Survival, Inc. Moderator Cliff Kincaid, who recently obtained a 601-page FBI file of Barack Obama's communist mentor Frank Marshall Davis, unveiled a raft of speakers and evidence pointing to manipulation of American liberals by actual communist revolutionaries.
Among the speakers was New Zealand blogger and investigative reporter Trevor Loudon, who uncovered former "green jobs czar" Van Jones' communist background, which led to Jones' resignation in 2009. Jones is now back at the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress.
I spoke as well, reporting on the FBI file on Harry Hay, a Communist Party member off and on from 1934 to 1948 and a founder of the Mattachine Society, an early homosexual activist group. Hay also co-founded the Radical Faeries and championed the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). Hay was cited as an "inspiration" by longtime homosexual activist Kevin Jennings, whom Obama appointed as the nation's "safe schools czar" at the U.S. Department of Education.
Another speaker was Paul Kengor, best-selling author of a new book, Dupes: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century. Dr. Kengor has the goods on numerous leftists, including the Hollywood Ten, who became famous during the McCarthy era. Four of them, according to FBI files, actually had Communist Party cards with membership numbers. It might be good to recall this the next time you see the media describe them as the "famed Hollywood Ten."
The evidence is so obvious that communists infiltrated many liberal causes and unions and that the liberal media have looked away while crying "McCarthyism." I call this the UFO strategy. Even if you actually saw a UFO, you'd be considered, uh, crazy. What's different here is that the communist influence on America's Left is no delusion. It is thoroughly documented.
On Oct. 23, Kincaid, with a video camera, confronted both Ayers and Dohrn at an environmentalist event in Washington, D.C.
Kincaid: "Why did your husband tell [undercover FBI agent] Larry Grathwohl that you planted the bomb?"
Dohrn: "That is so stupid." She went on to deny involvement.
Kincaid then asked Ayers about the dedication to radicals in the 1974 manifesto Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-Imperialism that included Sirhan Sirhan, the assassin of Robert F. Kennedy. Signed by Ayers, Dohrn, Jeff Jones, and Celia Sojourn, the manifesto says, "We are communist men and women, underground in the United States for more than four years ... The only path to the final defeat of imperialism and the building of socialism is revolutionary war ... Without armed struggle there can be no victory."
Kincaid: "Mr. Ayers, if you're anti-war, why did you dedicate your book to the assassin of the leading anti-war candidate in the country?"
Ayers: "You're delusional." He walked away while others blocked the camera.
In an onstage presentation, Dohrn addressed the charges in a pamphlet that Kincaid had circulated. She said, "We live in a time of greater polarization, of hate speech and hate talk. ... We were never terrorists. It's all crap." That flatly contradicts a New York Times interview published on Sept. 11, 2001, in which an unrepentant Ayers said, "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I feel we didn't do enough."
Dohrn also misrepresented what she and Ayers were doing in the 1970s -- aiding and abetting communism: "We were trying to stop the murderous assault that for 10 years killed three million people in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos and U.S. service people. It was the right thing to do."
In his Oct. 21 presentation, former FBI agent Grathwohl noted that no anti-war literature was found in the Weather Underground bomb factory, just communist booklets urging violent revolution.
In any event, the anti-war movement was instrumental in the U.S. pullout in 1975, leaving Cambodia at the mercy of Khmer Rouge dictator Pol Pot, who killed more than two million of his countrymen. For Dohrn to claim that she and Ayers were merely peaceniks when they were in fact agitating for a communist victory is a lie worthy of the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell's novel 1984.
This all should be very hot stuff, given Ayers' and Dohrn's long association with Barack Obama and their continuing activism, which includes, according to Kincaid, recent visits to Hugo Chávez's Venezuela and with radicals in Gaza. But the press is silent. They have spent far more time, personnel, and treasure searching Sarah Palin's garbage cans.
On May 22, 2008, Kincaid held a seminar unveiling evidence about Frank Marshall Davis and his eight years influencing a young Barack Obama in Hawaii. Among the speakers was Herb Romerstein, the dean of researchers on communism, whose work has spanned six decades. The Big Media skipped it, except for the Washington Post's Dana Milbank, who ignored the facts and viciously ridiculed the gathering, calling Romerstein "a living relic." Milbank likened the event to a "UFO convention."
The UFO strategy. It's very handy against a mountain of inconvenient facts. But facts are stubborn things.
Robert Knight is a Senior Fellow at the American Civil Rights Union, and the author of the recently updated Radical Rulers: The White House Elites Who Are Pushing America Toward Socialism (2010, www.radicalrulers.com).
Showing posts with label Socialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Socialism. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Saturday, November 6, 2010
President Obama and the Radical Socialist Agenda
I got this from American Thinker, still the best website for conservative writings. Been saying this from the start of your president's rise finally someone did some real research and put it in a book. Long overdue but the truth about president fuckface is finally coming to light.
October 30, 2010
President Obama and the Radical Socialist Agenda
By Janice Shaw Crouse
Stanley Kurtz's new book, Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism, is a detailed look into the forces that shaped Barack Obama. Kurtz, senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, has written a highly detailed and definitive account of the president's conversion as a radical activist; he provides minute and abundant evidence confirming the long-disputed label of "socialist" that has dogged the president since his undergraduate days. Kurtz describes Obama's ideology as "stealth socialism" and called his views "Barack Obama's secret." In the preface of the book, Kurtz writes, "The president has systematically disguised the truth about his socialist convictions, sometimes by directly misrepresenting his past and sometimes by omitting or parceling out damaging information to disguise its real importance."
Kurtz begins his account in 1983, presenting evidence that Barack Obama, then a senior undergraduate at Columbia University, attended several annual sessions of the "Socialist Scholars Conference." Kurtz describes the shift of strategy that took place at that meeting to turn the socialist movement from its goal of "nationalization" to community organizing as the best means of promoting the movement during the Reagan administration. Kurtz details the evidence that Socialist Scholars conferences influenced Obama and refutes the president's claim that his embrace of community organizing was an "impulse." Instead, in Kurtz's fully documented account, the Socialist Scholars conferences provided the future president with a vision for transforming America, as well as a way for black Americans to be the driving force behind that transformation through the efforts of the Midwest Academy, a training institute that Kurtz credits with Obama's political ascendancy.
Many of the "class warfare" themes that dominate President Obama's current rhetoric are rooted in that period of his life -- such as the "haves" v. the "have-nots" and big business v. the poor. Kurtz shows that the influence of Chicago politics on the future president's life began at that time with his involvement with Chicago mayor Harold Washington. President Obama extols Washington -- a politician Kurtz says openly identified with Chicago's socialists and the person Kurtz credits with overthrowing the "centrist Democratic machine" in Chicago -- as his "political idol" and role model, along with Saul Alinsky, for his political life.
It is impossible to overemphasize the importance of Harold Washington and other Chicago radicals in the 1980s in shaping the politics of Barack Obama. Kurtz details the ways that Washington spearheaded the radicalization of the Democratic Party and shifted the party's focus to building coalitions of poor and minority voters. He also shows how groups like ACORN functioned to swell the party ranks and fuel the anti-business and class warfare agendas. Perhaps more importantly, Kurtz traces the influence of friends and associates from that era of Obama's life who are now among his most controversial political advisors and appointees. Kurtz describes them: "Barack Obama's colleagues and mentors were some of the smartest and most influential stealth-socialist community organizers in the country. Their strategies of political realignment and social transformation guide the Obama administration to this day."
Kurtz's research reveals the intricate, though sometimes "stealth," connections between Obama and the "populist" radical coalitions of the 1980s. Those connections included links to Jeremiah Wright's radical activities, as well as the activities of coalitions like the Midwest Academy, the Illinois Project Vote, and the "Public Allies" projects.
More troubling than any of the obvious, open, and/or stealth associations are the instances where Kurtz details the ways that President Obama "distorted" and "obfuscated" the record of his involvement with ACORN and his relationships with his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and his mentor, Bill Ayers. Kurtz notes that the deceptions include accounts in the president's memoir, Dreams of My Father. These deceptions, according to Kurtz, are dangerous because "we will be irreversibly down the path toward social transformation before we recognize as a nation what's at stake. The strategy of achieving socialism through a series of 'non-reformist reforms,' so popular among American's community organizing elite, is premised on precisely that deception."
The patterns of behavior, distortion, and rhetorical devices that characterize President Obama's rise to political prominence are disturbing on numerous fronts. The "obfuscation" about his past alignments and associations is particularly troubling, as is the evidence that he continues to govern as president under the same ideology that guided his past behavior and associations. If the driving forces behind his past political ideology and associations remain constant -- as Kurtz's account seems to substantiate beyond refutation -- the questions about his strategy for implementing his vision for change are legitimate and crucial for the future of our nation.
With the 2010 election just around the corner, Obama is engaging in a nationwide campaign similar to the one he waged for the presidency in 2008; his get-out-the-vote strategy is targeting the youth, minority, poor, and women's vote. As centrist independents, all varieties of conservatives plus Tea Party voters look at his past through the lens of Kurtz's exhaustive and thorough research, all have far more information about the "transformation" that the president promised in 2008. Through Kurtz's book, the political picture is crystal clear, and the president's purpose is painfully obvious.
What is equally certain from the evidence Kurtz presents is that the prospect for the nation's future depends upon the results of the 2010 and 2012 elections. We cannot, however, wait until 2012 to place checks and balances on the radical policies and purposes of this most ideologically driven of presidents. As Norman Thomas said, "The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D., is author of Children at Risk (Transaction, 2010) and is senior fellow of Concerned Women for America's think tank, the Beverly LaHaye Institute.
October 30, 2010
President Obama and the Radical Socialist Agenda
By Janice Shaw Crouse
Stanley Kurtz's new book, Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism, is a detailed look into the forces that shaped Barack Obama. Kurtz, senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, has written a highly detailed and definitive account of the president's conversion as a radical activist; he provides minute and abundant evidence confirming the long-disputed label of "socialist" that has dogged the president since his undergraduate days. Kurtz describes Obama's ideology as "stealth socialism" and called his views "Barack Obama's secret." In the preface of the book, Kurtz writes, "The president has systematically disguised the truth about his socialist convictions, sometimes by directly misrepresenting his past and sometimes by omitting or parceling out damaging information to disguise its real importance."
Kurtz begins his account in 1983, presenting evidence that Barack Obama, then a senior undergraduate at Columbia University, attended several annual sessions of the "Socialist Scholars Conference." Kurtz describes the shift of strategy that took place at that meeting to turn the socialist movement from its goal of "nationalization" to community organizing as the best means of promoting the movement during the Reagan administration. Kurtz details the evidence that Socialist Scholars conferences influenced Obama and refutes the president's claim that his embrace of community organizing was an "impulse." Instead, in Kurtz's fully documented account, the Socialist Scholars conferences provided the future president with a vision for transforming America, as well as a way for black Americans to be the driving force behind that transformation through the efforts of the Midwest Academy, a training institute that Kurtz credits with Obama's political ascendancy.
Many of the "class warfare" themes that dominate President Obama's current rhetoric are rooted in that period of his life -- such as the "haves" v. the "have-nots" and big business v. the poor. Kurtz shows that the influence of Chicago politics on the future president's life began at that time with his involvement with Chicago mayor Harold Washington. President Obama extols Washington -- a politician Kurtz says openly identified with Chicago's socialists and the person Kurtz credits with overthrowing the "centrist Democratic machine" in Chicago -- as his "political idol" and role model, along with Saul Alinsky, for his political life.
It is impossible to overemphasize the importance of Harold Washington and other Chicago radicals in the 1980s in shaping the politics of Barack Obama. Kurtz details the ways that Washington spearheaded the radicalization of the Democratic Party and shifted the party's focus to building coalitions of poor and minority voters. He also shows how groups like ACORN functioned to swell the party ranks and fuel the anti-business and class warfare agendas. Perhaps more importantly, Kurtz traces the influence of friends and associates from that era of Obama's life who are now among his most controversial political advisors and appointees. Kurtz describes them: "Barack Obama's colleagues and mentors were some of the smartest and most influential stealth-socialist community organizers in the country. Their strategies of political realignment and social transformation guide the Obama administration to this day."
Kurtz's research reveals the intricate, though sometimes "stealth," connections between Obama and the "populist" radical coalitions of the 1980s. Those connections included links to Jeremiah Wright's radical activities, as well as the activities of coalitions like the Midwest Academy, the Illinois Project Vote, and the "Public Allies" projects.
More troubling than any of the obvious, open, and/or stealth associations are the instances where Kurtz details the ways that President Obama "distorted" and "obfuscated" the record of his involvement with ACORN and his relationships with his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and his mentor, Bill Ayers. Kurtz notes that the deceptions include accounts in the president's memoir, Dreams of My Father. These deceptions, according to Kurtz, are dangerous because "we will be irreversibly down the path toward social transformation before we recognize as a nation what's at stake. The strategy of achieving socialism through a series of 'non-reformist reforms,' so popular among American's community organizing elite, is premised on precisely that deception."
The patterns of behavior, distortion, and rhetorical devices that characterize President Obama's rise to political prominence are disturbing on numerous fronts. The "obfuscation" about his past alignments and associations is particularly troubling, as is the evidence that he continues to govern as president under the same ideology that guided his past behavior and associations. If the driving forces behind his past political ideology and associations remain constant -- as Kurtz's account seems to substantiate beyond refutation -- the questions about his strategy for implementing his vision for change are legitimate and crucial for the future of our nation.
With the 2010 election just around the corner, Obama is engaging in a nationwide campaign similar to the one he waged for the presidency in 2008; his get-out-the-vote strategy is targeting the youth, minority, poor, and women's vote. As centrist independents, all varieties of conservatives plus Tea Party voters look at his past through the lens of Kurtz's exhaustive and thorough research, all have far more information about the "transformation" that the president promised in 2008. Through Kurtz's book, the political picture is crystal clear, and the president's purpose is painfully obvious.
What is equally certain from the evidence Kurtz presents is that the prospect for the nation's future depends upon the results of the 2010 and 2012 elections. We cannot, however, wait until 2012 to place checks and balances on the radical policies and purposes of this most ideologically driven of presidents. As Norman Thomas said, "The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D., is author of Children at Risk (Transaction, 2010) and is senior fellow of Concerned Women for America's think tank, the Beverly LaHaye Institute.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Five Easy Questions for Obama
Found this at AmericanThinker.com. It's good not great. A little on the simple side but it has to be for Obama to understand it. I would love to hear him try to spin these questions.
January 25, 2010
Five Easy Questions for Obama
By Randall Hoven
President Obama, I know you've given lots of speeches, briefings, and statements. And you've schooled us well on subjects ranging from how to create or save jobs to how to change climate and achieve world peace. But there are just a few things I'm still fuzzy on, and no one else seems to be asking you about them.
So if you please, could you answer just a few simple and straightforward questions? I promise that there are no tricks. Here are five questions, four short-answer and one essay.
What is the mission of our military in Afghanistan?
When you entered office a year ago, there were about 37,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. By December, there were about 68,000, when you said you would send yet another 30,000. So you have increased U.S. troop presence there by over 160%. And 2009 was the deadliest year ever for U.S. troops there. But what exactly are those troops supposed to be doing?
Last June, the mission statement for the military in Afghanistan was "Defeat the Taliban. Secure the Population." By October, your Secretary of Defense reportedly thought that "Defeat" was "an open-ended, forever commitment," and perhaps "degrade" might be a better choice of wording.
According to the Washington Post, you are reported to have said at a meeting on the matter,
To be fair, this is what we told the commander to do. Now, the question is, have we directed him to do more than what is realistic? Should there be a sharpening...a refinement?
Well, what did you decide? What does the commander of troops in Afghanistan think his mission is? How does that compare with what you think it is? What is his mission statement? Defeat the Taliban? Degrade the Taliban? Deflate them? Debauch them? How did you finally calibrate the wording of that six-word mission statement?
To be clear, I'm not asking for an essay here. The old mission statement was six words on a PowerPoint slide. What is on the newest version of that slide?
What do your staff members get paid, and how do their salaries compare to that of their predecessors?
This would not seem all that important, but one of the first things you did as president, on your very first day in office, was issue a Presidential Memorandum "to freeze the salaries of senior members of the White House staff, to the extent permitted by law." So you seemed to think it was important then. We did hear that Rahm Emanuel gave you an oral report on that thirty days later, as you ordered, but we never heard the results.
So are the salaries of the senior members of your staff frozen? If so, at what levels? And how do those levels compare to their predecessors' levels?
Again, this is not an essay question. Salaries are numbers. What, for example, is Rahm Emanuel's annual salary?
What exactly did you, or will you, do with the $1.4 million from your Nobel Peace Prize?
According to news reports, your Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said on October 9, 2009 that you would give your Nobel Prize money to charity. When asked more recently, on January 19, 2010, "Any update on where the President is going to donate his Nobel Prize money?" Mr. Gibbs answered,
I know they continue to talk about it. I think he has not received any money yet. But as soon as they -- as he makes those donations, we will let you guys know."
It was later reported that you and Michelle contributed $15,000 to the Haiti earthquake victims via the Clinton-Bush Fund. So just what is the status of that $1.4 million, and who got it, or is going to get it? Any reason the Haitian victims didn't get all of it, instead of 1% of it?
Again, no essay needed. Just list the names of the recipients and the amounts to each.
What were your SAT and LSAT scores and your GPA at graduation from Columbia?
You are one of the youngest presidents ever, with one of the leanest track records in elected or executive office. Virtually all your predecessors served in the U.S. Congress for many years, or served as vice president, or in a cabinet, or a high military command position, or as governor of a state, prior to being president. (See Appendix.)
Yet you served in the U.S. Senate for only one year before starting your run for president, had never held any other national office, had never been a governor of any state, had never held any executive position, and had not even been in the military. We really know very little about you. We have not even seen your real birth certificate, meaning the official "long form" version.
We knew President Bush's SAT scores and his grades at Yale. We also knew Al Gore's SAT scores and grades at Harvard. And John Kerry's grades, too. Yet without ever releasing any test scores or transcripts, you have been proclaimed as "probably the smartest guy ever to become president" by a presidential historian of such credibility that PBS puts him aside noted plagiarist Doris Kearns Goodwin on its News Hour.
So what exactly were your test scores and grades? Did you take any economics courses? Was your SAT score higher than 1206, which was President Bush's score?
You told us your eleven-year-old daughter Malia's score on a third-grade science test. How about telling us your test scores?
Essay Question: What, if anything, is wrong with socialism?
Imagine a world without elections and stubborn legislators to slow down enactment of your agenda. Fast-forward to the U.S. of your dreams. Describe it for us, in terms of who would control things like education, health care, banking, the media, the car companies, and the means of production in general.
Socialism would include single-payer health care. You already said you support that. Socialism would bring about "major redistributive change." You have talked previously about doing that. The government now owns 61% of General Motors and all of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and it backs nearly 90% of new home loans. Why not have more things under the control of government, and specifically the federal government?
What did Stalin and Mao do wrong? What did Fidel Castro do wrong? What is Hugo Chávez doing wrong? Be specific.
Which of the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto do you disagree with? Which parts of the Communist Party USA's 2008 platform do you disagree with? Again, be specific.
On this question, use all the words you'd like.
Appendix: U.S. Presidents since 1900 and their highest levels of executive or national legislative experience.
McKinley - Governor of Ohio
Teddy Roosevelt - Vice President, Governor of New York
Taft - Secretary of War
Wilson - Governor of New Jersey
Harding - U.S. Senator (1915-1921)
Coolidge - Vice President, Governor of Massachusetts
Hoover - Secretary of Commerce
Franklin Roosevelt - Governor of New York
Truman - Vice President, U.S. Senator (1935-1944)
Eisenhower - Supreme Allied Commander in Europe (World War II)
Kennedy - U.S. Senator (1953-1960)
Johnson - Vice President, U.S. Congressman and Senator (1937-1960)
Nixon - Vice President, U.S. Congressman and Senator (1947-1952)
Ford - Vice President, U.S. Congressman (1949-1973)
Carter - Governor of Georgia
Reagan - Governor of California
George H. W. Bush - Vice President, Director of the CIA, U.S. Congressman (1966-1970)
Clinton - Governor of Arkansas
George W. Bush - Governor of Texas
Obama - U.S. Senator (2005-2008)
Of these twenty presidents, fourteen had been vice president and/or governor of a state. Another two had held cabinet posts, and one had been Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during World War II. The remaining three had never held such an executive position, but had been in U.S. Senate.
For those three of the twenty, the number of years in the Senate before becoming president were as follows:
Harding: 6 years.
Kennedy: 6 years.
Obama: 3 years.
Randall Hoven can be contacted at randall.hoven@gmail.com or via his web site, randallhoven.com.
January 25, 2010
Five Easy Questions for Obama
By Randall Hoven
President Obama, I know you've given lots of speeches, briefings, and statements. And you've schooled us well on subjects ranging from how to create or save jobs to how to change climate and achieve world peace. But there are just a few things I'm still fuzzy on, and no one else seems to be asking you about them.
So if you please, could you answer just a few simple and straightforward questions? I promise that there are no tricks. Here are five questions, four short-answer and one essay.
What is the mission of our military in Afghanistan?
When you entered office a year ago, there were about 37,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. By December, there were about 68,000, when you said you would send yet another 30,000. So you have increased U.S. troop presence there by over 160%. And 2009 was the deadliest year ever for U.S. troops there. But what exactly are those troops supposed to be doing?
Last June, the mission statement for the military in Afghanistan was "Defeat the Taliban. Secure the Population." By October, your Secretary of Defense reportedly thought that "Defeat" was "an open-ended, forever commitment," and perhaps "degrade" might be a better choice of wording.
According to the Washington Post, you are reported to have said at a meeting on the matter,
To be fair, this is what we told the commander to do. Now, the question is, have we directed him to do more than what is realistic? Should there be a sharpening...a refinement?
Well, what did you decide? What does the commander of troops in Afghanistan think his mission is? How does that compare with what you think it is? What is his mission statement? Defeat the Taliban? Degrade the Taliban? Deflate them? Debauch them? How did you finally calibrate the wording of that six-word mission statement?
To be clear, I'm not asking for an essay here. The old mission statement was six words on a PowerPoint slide. What is on the newest version of that slide?
What do your staff members get paid, and how do their salaries compare to that of their predecessors?
This would not seem all that important, but one of the first things you did as president, on your very first day in office, was issue a Presidential Memorandum "to freeze the salaries of senior members of the White House staff, to the extent permitted by law." So you seemed to think it was important then. We did hear that Rahm Emanuel gave you an oral report on that thirty days later, as you ordered, but we never heard the results.
So are the salaries of the senior members of your staff frozen? If so, at what levels? And how do those levels compare to their predecessors' levels?
Again, this is not an essay question. Salaries are numbers. What, for example, is Rahm Emanuel's annual salary?
What exactly did you, or will you, do with the $1.4 million from your Nobel Peace Prize?
According to news reports, your Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said on October 9, 2009 that you would give your Nobel Prize money to charity. When asked more recently, on January 19, 2010, "Any update on where the President is going to donate his Nobel Prize money?" Mr. Gibbs answered,
I know they continue to talk about it. I think he has not received any money yet. But as soon as they -- as he makes those donations, we will let you guys know."
It was later reported that you and Michelle contributed $15,000 to the Haiti earthquake victims via the Clinton-Bush Fund. So just what is the status of that $1.4 million, and who got it, or is going to get it? Any reason the Haitian victims didn't get all of it, instead of 1% of it?
Again, no essay needed. Just list the names of the recipients and the amounts to each.
What were your SAT and LSAT scores and your GPA at graduation from Columbia?
You are one of the youngest presidents ever, with one of the leanest track records in elected or executive office. Virtually all your predecessors served in the U.S. Congress for many years, or served as vice president, or in a cabinet, or a high military command position, or as governor of a state, prior to being president. (See Appendix.)
Yet you served in the U.S. Senate for only one year before starting your run for president, had never held any other national office, had never been a governor of any state, had never held any executive position, and had not even been in the military. We really know very little about you. We have not even seen your real birth certificate, meaning the official "long form" version.
We knew President Bush's SAT scores and his grades at Yale. We also knew Al Gore's SAT scores and grades at Harvard. And John Kerry's grades, too. Yet without ever releasing any test scores or transcripts, you have been proclaimed as "probably the smartest guy ever to become president" by a presidential historian of such credibility that PBS puts him aside noted plagiarist Doris Kearns Goodwin on its News Hour.
So what exactly were your test scores and grades? Did you take any economics courses? Was your SAT score higher than 1206, which was President Bush's score?
You told us your eleven-year-old daughter Malia's score on a third-grade science test. How about telling us your test scores?
Essay Question: What, if anything, is wrong with socialism?
Imagine a world without elections and stubborn legislators to slow down enactment of your agenda. Fast-forward to the U.S. of your dreams. Describe it for us, in terms of who would control things like education, health care, banking, the media, the car companies, and the means of production in general.
Socialism would include single-payer health care. You already said you support that. Socialism would bring about "major redistributive change." You have talked previously about doing that. The government now owns 61% of General Motors and all of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and it backs nearly 90% of new home loans. Why not have more things under the control of government, and specifically the federal government?
What did Stalin and Mao do wrong? What did Fidel Castro do wrong? What is Hugo Chávez doing wrong? Be specific.
Which of the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto do you disagree with? Which parts of the Communist Party USA's 2008 platform do you disagree with? Again, be specific.
On this question, use all the words you'd like.
Appendix: U.S. Presidents since 1900 and their highest levels of executive or national legislative experience.
McKinley - Governor of Ohio
Teddy Roosevelt - Vice President, Governor of New York
Taft - Secretary of War
Wilson - Governor of New Jersey
Harding - U.S. Senator (1915-1921)
Coolidge - Vice President, Governor of Massachusetts
Hoover - Secretary of Commerce
Franklin Roosevelt - Governor of New York
Truman - Vice President, U.S. Senator (1935-1944)
Eisenhower - Supreme Allied Commander in Europe (World War II)
Kennedy - U.S. Senator (1953-1960)
Johnson - Vice President, U.S. Congressman and Senator (1937-1960)
Nixon - Vice President, U.S. Congressman and Senator (1947-1952)
Ford - Vice President, U.S. Congressman (1949-1973)
Carter - Governor of Georgia
Reagan - Governor of California
George H. W. Bush - Vice President, Director of the CIA, U.S. Congressman (1966-1970)
Clinton - Governor of Arkansas
George W. Bush - Governor of Texas
Obama - U.S. Senator (2005-2008)
Of these twenty presidents, fourteen had been vice president and/or governor of a state. Another two had held cabinet posts, and one had been Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during World War II. The remaining three had never held such an executive position, but had been in U.S. Senate.
For those three of the twenty, the number of years in the Senate before becoming president were as follows:
Harding: 6 years.
Kennedy: 6 years.
Obama: 3 years.
Randall Hoven can be contacted at randall.hoven@gmail.com or via his web site, randallhoven.com.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Thug Time...Again
Well when you expect everyone to go along with every little word that comes out of your messianic mouth then they don't; you will be left with no alternative but to attack them verbally. We are a mob. Yes a mob. The most brilliant man on earth surrounded by the "best and brightest" liberals that governmental power can buy and this is the best word they can come up with. Not a good mob like those assholes that protest the G-7 summits or the ones that protest at the GOP and DNC conventions but a mob paid to protest by insurance companies. Seriously, this is your strategy for combating the protests to government takeover of the health care of the citizens? Now I am not a "tea party" guy, I am not really up for standing around yelling and chanting without a target. These people who show up at the "town hall meetings" and confront the democrat congressmen and senators are what real Americans are made of. The government machine is broken the people have had enough of it and they are voicing their opinions. So now what does the DNC leadership come up with? NAZIs, the nuclear bomb of insults now we who dislike this presidents ideas are NAZIs. Nice real genius work here. Especially because how much you all love symbols the one has chosen a symbol for the health care package look almost exactly like a NAZI symbol the Reichsadler.
The Reichsadler also had the eagle on top and the leader's symbol of totalitarianism underneath. I thought it wasn't about him. That is what he keeps telling us. I guess fewer and fewer Americans are buying his smooth pimpin' talk. They are beginning to see through this spineless jellyfish who still has not come forth to deliver his whole idea/plan for "health care reform." The people are getting closer and closer to realizing that it is not reform he is after but a complete and total government takeover. Making us all dependent on government for health care, yes I too shudder at the thought. So Just like Hitler he wants to have as much control over our lives as possible. We are to be made wards of the state because they do such a great job with those. I would say he is just plain mad but we know that is not true he is just a typical anti-American liberal fucking asshole. Who now attacks U.S. citizens as if they were mere subjects is his kingdom. Could this guy and his minions be bigger scumbags? Its thug time ladies and gentlemen and I cannot wait to see where they are going to from here.
The Reichsadler also had the eagle on top and the leader's symbol of totalitarianism underneath. I thought it wasn't about him. That is what he keeps telling us. I guess fewer and fewer Americans are buying his smooth pimpin' talk. They are beginning to see through this spineless jellyfish who still has not come forth to deliver his whole idea/plan for "health care reform." The people are getting closer and closer to realizing that it is not reform he is after but a complete and total government takeover. Making us all dependent on government for health care, yes I too shudder at the thought. So Just like Hitler he wants to have as much control over our lives as possible. We are to be made wards of the state because they do such a great job with those. I would say he is just plain mad but we know that is not true he is just a typical anti-American liberal fucking asshole. Who now attacks U.S. citizens as if they were mere subjects is his kingdom. Could this guy and his minions be bigger scumbags? Its thug time ladies and gentlemen and I cannot wait to see where they are going to from here.
No Shit.
I have been saying this for over a year now. Everybody eventually comes around to my way of thinking. At least the intelligent ones do.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
More Socialist Implementations
Ah, socialized medicine. The cornerstone of any communist/totalitarian regime. Here in the U.S. our Stalin/Castro-in-Chief and his lackeys call it "health care reform." Reform, really is that what they are calling it and we are supposed to swallow hook, line and sinker. Now I do not have health insurance, I go to the doctor regularly and need medication to stabilize my blood pressure. I never whined or ever thought I needed the government to pay for this. I pay the doctor for services just like I would any mechanic or plumber. For the meds I have a plan, put out by the drug companies to keep the cost down $13 for 2 prescriptions. They are such evil entities aren't they? Help[ is out there just find it, hell if I when to Wal-Mart pharmacy it would be $4 per. Now I make it part of the plan to keep costs down I do not go to the damn emergency room for every little sniffle and people who do flood the system unnecessarily. Just suck it up if you do not feel better in a few days then go to the doctor better yet try a little preventive medicine. Wash your fucking hands you slob, take some vitamin C,B,E, eat vegetables, drink OJ, don't eat fast food or junk food, mix in a freakin salad. An ounce of prevention and all that.
Now what drives up costs of health care in America? Plain and simple fucking lawyers and there fucking torts. I understand that when mistakes are made doctors should pay. But let's face it not every fucking thing is a million dollar lawsuit for traumatic reasons. Just because the doctor missed something or gave you an incorrect diagnosis of something non life threatening, does not mean you are entitled to millions. Americans have become soft, lazy, stupid and easily manipulated that is why lawyers do so well here. Of course the insurance companies do not want to pay out one cent if they don't have to. These cocksuckers will reject claims for no reason just to see if it gets paid by the patient just keep sending back to them. So I agree with Rush what we need is "tort reform," and stiff penalties for those who bring frivolous law suits. Not just the plaintiffs but for the lawyers too. Medical devices, equipment and supplies are expensive to research and get to the market there is no way to get around this and the same goes for drugs too. This is mainly due to government interference in research and development. Do not forget the animal rights freaks in the cost of R&D too. More groundbreaking discoveries are being made everyday. If government runs things do you think the motivation will be there to get things to the market as with any type of quality or speed? Have you seen how well the Post Office is run by the Post Master "General?" Skyrocketing costs and billions in losses. Do you think the Post Office is 16% of the economy like health care, Which will be run by the Surgeon "General?"
Now the best and brightest are out there battling diseases and cancers and are thinking up new ways to cure our everyday ailments. If government will get out of the way this will continue if they don't we are going to suffer big time. You see the people running the government right now believe they are the best and brightest and they also believe that they know everything about everything. This is a bad combination with a weakening economy. You cannot be everything to everyone. My bad sure you can just ask Hitler or Stalin or Castro. But we are going to need all the socialized medicine we can get when "health care reform" is implemented because some of the money is coming out of the defense budget and by closing Gitmo. Maybe they know something we don't about the future? I hope not for all our sakes.
Now what drives up costs of health care in America? Plain and simple fucking lawyers and there fucking torts. I understand that when mistakes are made doctors should pay. But let's face it not every fucking thing is a million dollar lawsuit for traumatic reasons. Just because the doctor missed something or gave you an incorrect diagnosis of something non life threatening, does not mean you are entitled to millions. Americans have become soft, lazy, stupid and easily manipulated that is why lawyers do so well here. Of course the insurance companies do not want to pay out one cent if they don't have to. These cocksuckers will reject claims for no reason just to see if it gets paid by the patient just keep sending back to them. So I agree with Rush what we need is "tort reform," and stiff penalties for those who bring frivolous law suits. Not just the plaintiffs but for the lawyers too. Medical devices, equipment and supplies are expensive to research and get to the market there is no way to get around this and the same goes for drugs too. This is mainly due to government interference in research and development. Do not forget the animal rights freaks in the cost of R&D too. More groundbreaking discoveries are being made everyday. If government runs things do you think the motivation will be there to get things to the market as with any type of quality or speed? Have you seen how well the Post Office is run by the Post Master "General?" Skyrocketing costs and billions in losses. Do you think the Post Office is 16% of the economy like health care, Which will be run by the Surgeon "General?"
Now the best and brightest are out there battling diseases and cancers and are thinking up new ways to cure our everyday ailments. If government will get out of the way this will continue if they don't we are going to suffer big time. You see the people running the government right now believe they are the best and brightest and they also believe that they know everything about everything. This is a bad combination with a weakening economy. You cannot be everything to everyone. My bad sure you can just ask Hitler or Stalin or Castro. But we are going to need all the socialized medicine we can get when "health care reform" is implemented because some of the money is coming out of the defense budget and by closing Gitmo. Maybe they know something we don't about the future? I hope not for all our sakes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
