Examiner.com
Are you ready to wake up in an America where your family is defenseless against enemies foreign or domestic? This reality is right around the corner. A day after his reelection, Barack Obama signaled the United Nations that he is ready to sign an Arms Treaty to strip you of your U.S. Second Amendment Constitutional right to bear arms.
Obama’s move to sign a United Nations’ Gun Ban Treaty will escalate states’ effort for seceding from America.
This is not new. The United Nations made earlier attempts during the administration of former President George W. Bush. But, President Bush soundly rejected the measure. Now, President Obama, fresh off of this presidential win, feels emboldened to go forward with his design to unilaterally dismember the guaranteed constitutional protections citizens of this nation are entitled to.
Do you feel comfortable with the idea that the U.S. State Department under the control of either Ambassador Hillary Clinton will truly represent your interest? What about her possible replacement nominee, America’s United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice? This is the same Ambassador Rice’s who went on five television network shows to cover up the truth of what happened to four Americans murdered on 9/11 in Benghazi, Libya.
Where does that leave Americans?
The real question is what are you prepared to do in order to defend your right to defend your family? Will you wait to see what happens? Or will you take the necessary steps to make certain that you will not have to wait and see if United Nations gun control officials knock at your door, demanding, and “Gun license and registration, please!”
The right to control your guns is not open for debate or for negotiation. It is a sovereign right that no foreign organization, including the United Nations has the right or the authority to undertake, because a president gives the go ahead.
When any president decides to destroy the nation’s U.S. Constitutional rights afforded its citizens, which he has sworn to uphold, he no longer has the authority to represent the nation’s citizens. He must be impeached!
The U.S. Constitution says with great clarity in Article II, Section 4:
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Your signed petitions should be forwarded to John Boehner, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.
The impeachment process begins in the House of Representatives according to Article I, Section 2: “The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”
You do not need the permission of the White House nor do you need the permission of the mainstream media to determine your course of action to demand the impeachment of Barack Obama. Develop a list of particulars that petitioners in all fifty states will sign. The secessionist movement has already gotten the ball rolling.
Several hundred thousand petitioners representing all fifty states, including battleground state Ohio have signed to secede from the union. This is far more serious than a group of Hollywood actors and entertainers who threatened to vacate and move to Canada after President Bush was reelected in 2004.
This is a significant and determined first step in the process to take back this nation from a president who has made numerous attempts to circumvent the U.S. Constitution.
Impeachment for the purposes of clarification comes from English law and was used in 1640 case against Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford. He had, “traiterously endeavored to subvert the Fundamental Laws and Government of the Realms . . . and instead thereof, to introduce Arbitrary and Tyrannical Government against Law.”
Obama has moved to subvert the fundamental laws and government of the United States, by refusing to enforce DOMA which is congressional legislation passed and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. He has issued an executive order which circumvents federal immigration law, granting nearly a million illegal immigrants the right to be protected from removal which the law demands. These are just a few of his attempt to subvert the U.S. Constitution.
So in plain English, President Obama should face impeachable offenses that can be determined in the House of Representatives.
Begin now to take your first steps of many to protect the integrity of your Second Amendment U.S. Constitution’s right to protect your family. Today, tonight and tomorrow consider: what are you prepared to do to protect your family?
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
God Banned From America?
The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary.
My confession:
I don’t like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don’t think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can’t find it in the Constitution and I don’t like it being shoved down my throat…
Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren’t allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that’s a sign that I’m getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to
.
In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it’s not funny, it’s intended to get you thinking.
In light of recent events… terrorists attack, school shootings, etc.. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O’Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn’t want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school… The Bible says thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK
Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn’t spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock’s son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he’s talking about.. And we said okay..
Now we’re asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don’t know right from wrong, and why it doesn’t bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.
Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with ‘WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.’
Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world’s going to hell.
Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send ‘jokes’ through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.
Are you laughing yet?
Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you’re not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.
Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us
.
Pass it on if you think it has merit.
If not, then just discard it… no one will know you did. But,you discard this thought process, don’t sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.
My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully,
Ben Stein
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
My confession:
I don’t like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don’t think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can’t find it in the Constitution and I don’t like it being shoved down my throat…
Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren’t allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that’s a sign that I’m getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to
.
In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it’s not funny, it’s intended to get you thinking.
In light of recent events… terrorists attack, school shootings, etc.. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O’Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn’t want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school… The Bible says thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK
Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn’t spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock’s son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he’s talking about.. And we said okay..
Now we’re asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don’t know right from wrong, and why it doesn’t bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.
Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with ‘WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.’
Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world’s going to hell.
Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send ‘jokes’ through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.
Are you laughing yet?
Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you’re not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.
Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us
.
Pass it on if you think it has merit.
If not, then just discard it… no one will know you did. But,you discard this thought process, don’t sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.
My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully,
Ben Stein
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Score One For The Kids: Washington And Georgia Produce An Election Night Highlight
by Austin Hill
You’ve probably seen the post-election headlines: private sector employers in the U.S. have begun slashing jobs, attributing their economic hardship to President Obama’s healthcare and environmental policies. But did you hear how some Americans actually voted for some really good things – things that can make for a brighter future?
It’s sad to see what our country has chosen. Barack Obama campaigned in 2008 on a pledge to “bankrupt” the coal industry (if you don’t believe me watch the video on Youtube), and the Obamacare taxes and fees levied against healthcare technology companies are downright onerous. So once it was evident that we chose “more of the same” last Tuesday, it was not surprising to see both the coal energy and healthcare technologies industries announcing thousands of layoffs – they simply can’t afford to continue operating at the same pace, given the President’s policies.
But the good news on election night came from the states of Washington, and Georgia, where residents voted to expand educational choices for children. This is to say that a state which overwhelmingly voted to re-elect President Obama (Washington), and a state that overwhelmingly voted to replace the President with Mitt Romney (Georgia), actually both agreed that increasing kids’ education options by expanding the number of charter schools is an across-the-board good thing.
Charter schools, if you are unfamiliar, are k-12 schools that are partially funded with taxpayer dollars (and partially with private donations), but are usually managed by private individuals and organizations. While each state has their own precise rules, generally speaking charter schools can reach beyond the bureaucratic, one-size-fits-all constraints of the local school district and customize their educational content and approach.
That’s why many charter schools offer academic specialties. Got a kid with an interest in engineering? Some charter schools offer an emphasis in science and mathematics. Does your son or daughter want to be a film maker? A charter school with a fine arts concentration might be a good choice.
The important point is that kids and parents should have these choices available. Charter schools allow people’s tax dollars to be put to use in ways that address the unique needs of students and parents, first and foremost, and in ways that the often self-serving established public schools don’t. Fortunately, Georgians and Washingtonians voted last week to allow even more of these options to flourish.
However, not every good effort to ensure wise use of educational tax dollars was rewarded last week. In Idaho, Indiana, and South Dakota, voters lashed out against state policies that forced local school districts to be transparent with how they spend taxpayer dollars and negotiate labor union contracts, and which provided educational technology in public school classrooms. Initiatives like these may seem like good ideas- and objectively they are-but if you’ve got enough money to spend on advertising, you can successfully portray them as evil.
Who, really, wants to argue that educational tax dollars should be spent on things that don’t benefit students? And who, really, wants to argue against government transparency?
Nobody would try to campaign on these points. But if you’re the AFL-CIO and your teacher’s union members are vested in the status quo, then you want nothing to do with transparency in government, and you certainly don’t want your union members to have to adapt to the “change” of using more computers.
So big labor spent millions in advertising dollars demonizing the education reform laws in Idaho, Indiana and South Dakota, while trashing the policy makers that brought them about. Scrutinizing the negotiation of labor union contracts was equated to “hating teachers,” while using online computer technology was characterized as “trading teachers with laptops” - and the costs of the computers were allegedly going to bankrupt the respective states, according to the teachers’ union’s advertisements.
A quick price comparison between an inexpensive laptop computer purchased in bulk (with enough digital space to store several digital textbooks) and a single hardbound text book suggests that school districts could actually save money with more computers. And expanded internet access can allow kids in the most rural of regions to connect with world class educational content from top universities. But neither of these realities mattered. This wasn’t about the kids, it was about the labor unions – and on election night voters in all three states chose the union’s agenda.
Both the expansion of charter schools, and enhancing transparency and technology in traditional schools, are fundamentally economic agendas: both initiatives have to do with a more efficient use of taxpayer money, and spending money for its intended purposes (improving kids’ education).
Yet one agenda was embraced (by both a “red” and “blue” state), and the other was rejected. The charter school movement has become so successful and popular that even the AFL CIO usually can’t stop it (although unions generally hate charter schools because they produce better academic results while spending less money). But scrutinizing - let alone “changing”-conventional public schools is apparently too uncomfortable. So in three relatively “conservative” states, voters chose with education reform like a majority of voters around the country chose for presidential leadership: they opted for “more of the same.”
Let’s hope that government transparency (even for school districts), and a respect for private enterprise, can become acceptable agendas like charter schools – so more Americans will stop choosing “more of the same.”
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
You’ve probably seen the post-election headlines: private sector employers in the U.S. have begun slashing jobs, attributing their economic hardship to President Obama’s healthcare and environmental policies. But did you hear how some Americans actually voted for some really good things – things that can make for a brighter future?
It’s sad to see what our country has chosen. Barack Obama campaigned in 2008 on a pledge to “bankrupt” the coal industry (if you don’t believe me watch the video on Youtube), and the Obamacare taxes and fees levied against healthcare technology companies are downright onerous. So once it was evident that we chose “more of the same” last Tuesday, it was not surprising to see both the coal energy and healthcare technologies industries announcing thousands of layoffs – they simply can’t afford to continue operating at the same pace, given the President’s policies.
But the good news on election night came from the states of Washington, and Georgia, where residents voted to expand educational choices for children. This is to say that a state which overwhelmingly voted to re-elect President Obama (Washington), and a state that overwhelmingly voted to replace the President with Mitt Romney (Georgia), actually both agreed that increasing kids’ education options by expanding the number of charter schools is an across-the-board good thing.
Charter schools, if you are unfamiliar, are k-12 schools that are partially funded with taxpayer dollars (and partially with private donations), but are usually managed by private individuals and organizations. While each state has their own precise rules, generally speaking charter schools can reach beyond the bureaucratic, one-size-fits-all constraints of the local school district and customize their educational content and approach.
That’s why many charter schools offer academic specialties. Got a kid with an interest in engineering? Some charter schools offer an emphasis in science and mathematics. Does your son or daughter want to be a film maker? A charter school with a fine arts concentration might be a good choice.
The important point is that kids and parents should have these choices available. Charter schools allow people’s tax dollars to be put to use in ways that address the unique needs of students and parents, first and foremost, and in ways that the often self-serving established public schools don’t. Fortunately, Georgians and Washingtonians voted last week to allow even more of these options to flourish.
However, not every good effort to ensure wise use of educational tax dollars was rewarded last week. In Idaho, Indiana, and South Dakota, voters lashed out against state policies that forced local school districts to be transparent with how they spend taxpayer dollars and negotiate labor union contracts, and which provided educational technology in public school classrooms. Initiatives like these may seem like good ideas- and objectively they are-but if you’ve got enough money to spend on advertising, you can successfully portray them as evil.
Who, really, wants to argue that educational tax dollars should be spent on things that don’t benefit students? And who, really, wants to argue against government transparency?
Nobody would try to campaign on these points. But if you’re the AFL-CIO and your teacher’s union members are vested in the status quo, then you want nothing to do with transparency in government, and you certainly don’t want your union members to have to adapt to the “change” of using more computers.
So big labor spent millions in advertising dollars demonizing the education reform laws in Idaho, Indiana and South Dakota, while trashing the policy makers that brought them about. Scrutinizing the negotiation of labor union contracts was equated to “hating teachers,” while using online computer technology was characterized as “trading teachers with laptops” - and the costs of the computers were allegedly going to bankrupt the respective states, according to the teachers’ union’s advertisements.
A quick price comparison between an inexpensive laptop computer purchased in bulk (with enough digital space to store several digital textbooks) and a single hardbound text book suggests that school districts could actually save money with more computers. And expanded internet access can allow kids in the most rural of regions to connect with world class educational content from top universities. But neither of these realities mattered. This wasn’t about the kids, it was about the labor unions – and on election night voters in all three states chose the union’s agenda.
Both the expansion of charter schools, and enhancing transparency and technology in traditional schools, are fundamentally economic agendas: both initiatives have to do with a more efficient use of taxpayer money, and spending money for its intended purposes (improving kids’ education).
Yet one agenda was embraced (by both a “red” and “blue” state), and the other was rejected. The charter school movement has become so successful and popular that even the AFL CIO usually can’t stop it (although unions generally hate charter schools because they produce better academic results while spending less money). But scrutinizing - let alone “changing”-conventional public schools is apparently too uncomfortable. So in three relatively “conservative” states, voters chose with education reform like a majority of voters around the country chose for presidential leadership: they opted for “more of the same.”
Let’s hope that government transparency (even for school districts), and a respect for private enterprise, can become acceptable agendas like charter schools – so more Americans will stop choosing “more of the same.”
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Free Stuff Nation?
by Idaho Conservative Blogger (ICB)
I have to admit that I had a hard time getting out of bed this morning. On twitter last night my last tweet was “Maybe I'll wake up in the morning to find Obama winning a second term was just a nightmare and Romney is Pres.” I knew it wasn’t so. This morning the spin is in full swing. Everyone is trying to explain why Obama won and Romney lost. Even those whose opinion I respect were wrong and are trying to make sense out of the election results.
Dick Morris who said Romney will win by a landslide wrote this morning, “I’ve got egg on my face. I predicted a Romney landslide and, instead, we ended up with an Obama squeaker. The key reason for my bum prediction is that I mistakenly believed that the 2008 surge in black, Latino, and young voter turnout would recede in 2012 to “normal” levels. Didn’t happen.”
Michael Barone who was with Morris on the landslide prediction said today, “What happened? I think fundamentals were trumped by mechanics and, to a lesser extent, by demographics.”
This morning Wall Street reacted negatively to Obama’s re-election by plummeting 200 points.
Some including Dick Morris are partially blaming NJ Governor Chris Christie for his post storm love-fest with Obama. In the same article Morris said, “But the more proximate cause of my error was that I did not take full account of the impact of hurricane Sandy and of Governor Chris Christie’s bipartisan march through New Jersey arm in arm with President (Barack) Obama. Not to mention Christe’s (sic) fawning promotion of Obama’s presidential leadership,” Morris writes. “It made all the difference.”
Some have said America just wasn’t in the mood to throw out our first black President. I'm not sure I subscribe to that though, I do believe Obama’s race played a part in his 2008 win. I wrote last month of Obama’s 2008 win, “There was strangeness in the air. Hope and Change was resonating with many Americans. Many who don’t normally vote or first time voters saw something in Obama that was appealing. The problem: It was all style over substance. It was being able to feel like a part of history. The ability to say, “I voted America’s first black president.” We showed the world despite our history of slavery and racism, we have finally moved past that nasty time. The election of Barack Obama proves it.”
I tend to agree with some of what Bill O’Reilly said last night on Fox News. "It's a changing country," O'Reilly said during Fox News' coverage. "The demographics are changing. It's not a traditional America anymore. And there are 50 percent of the voting public who want stuff. They want things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama. He knows it. And he ran on it."
"Whereby 20 years ago President Obama would have been roundly defeated by an establishment candidate like Mitt Romney, the white establishment is now the minority," O'Reilly added. "And the voters, many of them, feel that this economic system is stacked against them, and they want stuff. You're going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama. Overwhelming black vote for President Obama. And women will probably break President Obama's way. People feel that they are entitled to things, and which candidate between the two is going to give them things?"
When all the counting is done President Obama will probably win just over 50% of the popular vote. Just fewer than 50% of American’s don’t pay any federal income tax, correlation? Why would those who don’t pay any taxes care if those who do pay taxes have to pay more? Taxes will raise now that Obama will be President for another four years.
Obama famous for style without substance did run on one thing, giving free stuff to people. Free health care, free contraception, free Obama phones, etc. I saw this recently and it brought a smile. It reminded me that all good comedy is based on truth. “Latest Chinese Proverb: "Give a man a welfare check, a cell phone, cash for his clunker, food stamps, section 8 housing, Medicaid, 100 weeks of unemployment checks, a 40-ounce malt liquor, needles, drugs, contraceptives, and designer Air Jordan shoes.....and he will vote Democrat for a lifetime."
Has American changed into a free stuff nation? Today, it appears so.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
I have to admit that I had a hard time getting out of bed this morning. On twitter last night my last tweet was “Maybe I'll wake up in the morning to find Obama winning a second term was just a nightmare and Romney is Pres.” I knew it wasn’t so. This morning the spin is in full swing. Everyone is trying to explain why Obama won and Romney lost. Even those whose opinion I respect were wrong and are trying to make sense out of the election results.
Dick Morris who said Romney will win by a landslide wrote this morning, “I’ve got egg on my face. I predicted a Romney landslide and, instead, we ended up with an Obama squeaker. The key reason for my bum prediction is that I mistakenly believed that the 2008 surge in black, Latino, and young voter turnout would recede in 2012 to “normal” levels. Didn’t happen.”
Michael Barone who was with Morris on the landslide prediction said today, “What happened? I think fundamentals were trumped by mechanics and, to a lesser extent, by demographics.”
This morning Wall Street reacted negatively to Obama’s re-election by plummeting 200 points.
Some including Dick Morris are partially blaming NJ Governor Chris Christie for his post storm love-fest with Obama. In the same article Morris said, “But the more proximate cause of my error was that I did not take full account of the impact of hurricane Sandy and of Governor Chris Christie’s bipartisan march through New Jersey arm in arm with President (Barack) Obama. Not to mention Christe’s (sic) fawning promotion of Obama’s presidential leadership,” Morris writes. “It made all the difference.”
Some have said America just wasn’t in the mood to throw out our first black President. I'm not sure I subscribe to that though, I do believe Obama’s race played a part in his 2008 win. I wrote last month of Obama’s 2008 win, “There was strangeness in the air. Hope and Change was resonating with many Americans. Many who don’t normally vote or first time voters saw something in Obama that was appealing. The problem: It was all style over substance. It was being able to feel like a part of history. The ability to say, “I voted America’s first black president.” We showed the world despite our history of slavery and racism, we have finally moved past that nasty time. The election of Barack Obama proves it.”
I tend to agree with some of what Bill O’Reilly said last night on Fox News. "It's a changing country," O'Reilly said during Fox News' coverage. "The demographics are changing. It's not a traditional America anymore. And there are 50 percent of the voting public who want stuff. They want things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama. He knows it. And he ran on it."
"Whereby 20 years ago President Obama would have been roundly defeated by an establishment candidate like Mitt Romney, the white establishment is now the minority," O'Reilly added. "And the voters, many of them, feel that this economic system is stacked against them, and they want stuff. You're going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama. Overwhelming black vote for President Obama. And women will probably break President Obama's way. People feel that they are entitled to things, and which candidate between the two is going to give them things?"
When all the counting is done President Obama will probably win just over 50% of the popular vote. Just fewer than 50% of American’s don’t pay any federal income tax, correlation? Why would those who don’t pay any taxes care if those who do pay taxes have to pay more? Taxes will raise now that Obama will be President for another four years.
Obama famous for style without substance did run on one thing, giving free stuff to people. Free health care, free contraception, free Obama phones, etc. I saw this recently and it brought a smile. It reminded me that all good comedy is based on truth. “Latest Chinese Proverb: "Give a man a welfare check, a cell phone, cash for his clunker, food stamps, section 8 housing, Medicaid, 100 weeks of unemployment checks, a 40-ounce malt liquor, needles, drugs, contraceptives, and designer Air Jordan shoes.....and he will vote Democrat for a lifetime."
Has American changed into a free stuff nation? Today, it appears so.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Ray Stevens: A Case Of Voter Fraud
An actual case of voter fraud has been put to song by the great Ray Stevens
For the past 4 years, our Department of Justice has been doing every thing possible to insure that Voter Fraud is a live and well on November 6, 2012.
Fraud is the only way they can re-elect the anti-America Barack Obama and it is the only way that they can win many local elections. What they cannot win via out right fraud, they contest in the courts -- no doubt blaming those voter roosters that they barred from being purged of dead people and illegal aliens.
The WatchDog will go on record and predict that in spite of the voter intimidation, the millions of illegal votes that the Democrat regime brings to the polls, Mitt Romney will win with a 5% edge in the popular vote and more than enough votes in the electoral tally!
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
For the past 4 years, our Department of Justice has been doing every thing possible to insure that Voter Fraud is a live and well on November 6, 2012.
Fraud is the only way they can re-elect the anti-America Barack Obama and it is the only way that they can win many local elections. What they cannot win via out right fraud, they contest in the courts -- no doubt blaming those voter roosters that they barred from being purged of dead people and illegal aliens.
The WatchDog will go on record and predict that in spite of the voter intimidation, the millions of illegal votes that the Democrat regime brings to the polls, Mitt Romney will win with a 5% edge in the popular vote and more than enough votes in the electoral tally!
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
The “Best Revenge” And The Worst Of Economies
by Austin Hill
It’s “game on” for the politics of retaliation.
While campaigning in the swing state of Ohio, President Obama’s supporters began to boo last Friday when he uttered the name “Mitt Romney.”
“No, no, no,” the President shouted, “don’t boo. Vote. Voting is the best revenge…”
Those who support the President’s re-election are to seek revenge on others. That’s quite a directive from the President of the United States, and it is quite a departure from the candidate of four years ago who promised to unite all Americans in the pursuit of higher purposes.
But it is nonetheless an example of that for which President Obama has become known -turning American against American. It’s more than an “our campaign versus theirs” remark. The implied message is that I will be made to feel better, if you are sufficiently maligned and impugned.
In particular it is meant to convey that if my government punishes you by taking away more of your money, then my life will somehow become more wonderful. It is a false premise that has emanated throughout Mr. Obama’s campaign for re-election and throughout his nearly four years of policies as well.
Reaction this weekend to the President’s “revenge” admonition was eerily similar to that which followed his famous “you didn’t build that” vitriol aimed at business owners last spring. Romney and Ryan made it a talking point from the stump, while the President’s surrogates went in to the usual “he was taken out of context” and “what he really meant was” explanations.
But consider how the President’s propensity for “revenge” on certain categories of Americans is at the epicenter of his economic ideas and rhetoric. Even back four years ago when he was promising to “bring us all together,” candidate Obama nonetheless consistently expressed disdain - and yes, an attitude of revenge – towards successful business enterprises.
Speaking to a stadium full of adoring followers in August of that year, then-Senator Obama went-off with a tirade about how American oil companies were making too much money! As the crowd cheered him on, he said, in part:
“…You’ve got oil companies making record profits…no… no companies in history have made the kind of profits the oil companies are makin’ right now…they..they…….one company, Exxon Mobil, made eleven billion dollars…billion, with a “b” ….last quarter….they made eleven billion dollars the quarter before that…makin’ money hand-over-fist…makin’ out like bandits…”
From there, Senator Obama went on to introduce his new “energy policy.” He wanted to raise taxes on oil companies (because, obviously, it is unfair if a company is “too profitable”), and use that “extra” tax revenue to give “working Americans” a thousand-dollar voucher that they could use to make gasoline purchases.
Senator Obama made no mention of the untold numbers of shareholders who invest their money in oil companies, nor any reference to the men and women who invest their talents and efforts into oil companies. And he certainly made no reference to fact that that oil companies actually provide us all with an essential product. No, Barack Obama is not given to such essential truths. Americans in 2008 were feeling fearful about the economy, and oil companies were enjoying success all at the same time – it was an opportunity to gin-up the desire for “revenge” that couldn’t be ignored.
Fast-forward to 2011. After signing landmark bills that sought “reforms” (read “revenge”) on banks, credit card companies, and – of course- health care providers, President Obama was feeling the heat over an economy that was still was not producing the much-needed job growth that had been promised. And while much of the business community had at that point refrained from admitting that we had a problem in Washington, DC, Las Vegas-based hotelier Steve Wynn finally broke the silence.
In July of that year, Wynn stated on a corporate conference call with his “Wynn Resorts” corporation what millions of us knew in our hearts.: “… This administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime…my customers… are frightened of this administration… Everybody complains about how much money is on the side in America…those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President. And a lot of people don't want to say that. They'll say, God, don't be attacking Obama. Well, this is Obama's deal and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America…”
After acknowledging the Obama-driven “fear” among America’s entrepreneurs and investors, Wynn further states that “the guy (President Obama) keeps making speeches about redistribution and maybe we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest, they’re holding too much money. We haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists. Everybody's afraid of the government and there's no need soft peddling it…It is the truth. And that's true of Democratic businessman and Republican businessman, and I am a Democratic businessman… And I'm telling you that the business community in this country is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the President of the United States… until he's gone, everybody's going to be sitting on their thumbs…”
And here we are, two days away from another election. Those with the means of investing and growing the economy are indeed “on the sidelines,” shielding themselves from the President’s “revenge,” and we all are suffering as a consequence.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
It’s “game on” for the politics of retaliation.
While campaigning in the swing state of Ohio, President Obama’s supporters began to boo last Friday when he uttered the name “Mitt Romney.”
“No, no, no,” the President shouted, “don’t boo. Vote. Voting is the best revenge…”
Those who support the President’s re-election are to seek revenge on others. That’s quite a directive from the President of the United States, and it is quite a departure from the candidate of four years ago who promised to unite all Americans in the pursuit of higher purposes.
But it is nonetheless an example of that for which President Obama has become known -turning American against American. It’s more than an “our campaign versus theirs” remark. The implied message is that I will be made to feel better, if you are sufficiently maligned and impugned.
In particular it is meant to convey that if my government punishes you by taking away more of your money, then my life will somehow become more wonderful. It is a false premise that has emanated throughout Mr. Obama’s campaign for re-election and throughout his nearly four years of policies as well.
Reaction this weekend to the President’s “revenge” admonition was eerily similar to that which followed his famous “you didn’t build that” vitriol aimed at business owners last spring. Romney and Ryan made it a talking point from the stump, while the President’s surrogates went in to the usual “he was taken out of context” and “what he really meant was” explanations.
But consider how the President’s propensity for “revenge” on certain categories of Americans is at the epicenter of his economic ideas and rhetoric. Even back four years ago when he was promising to “bring us all together,” candidate Obama nonetheless consistently expressed disdain - and yes, an attitude of revenge – towards successful business enterprises.
Speaking to a stadium full of adoring followers in August of that year, then-Senator Obama went-off with a tirade about how American oil companies were making too much money! As the crowd cheered him on, he said, in part:
“…You’ve got oil companies making record profits…no… no companies in history have made the kind of profits the oil companies are makin’ right now…they..they…….one company, Exxon Mobil, made eleven billion dollars…billion, with a “b” ….last quarter….they made eleven billion dollars the quarter before that…makin’ money hand-over-fist…makin’ out like bandits…”
From there, Senator Obama went on to introduce his new “energy policy.” He wanted to raise taxes on oil companies (because, obviously, it is unfair if a company is “too profitable”), and use that “extra” tax revenue to give “working Americans” a thousand-dollar voucher that they could use to make gasoline purchases.
Senator Obama made no mention of the untold numbers of shareholders who invest their money in oil companies, nor any reference to the men and women who invest their talents and efforts into oil companies. And he certainly made no reference to fact that that oil companies actually provide us all with an essential product. No, Barack Obama is not given to such essential truths. Americans in 2008 were feeling fearful about the economy, and oil companies were enjoying success all at the same time – it was an opportunity to gin-up the desire for “revenge” that couldn’t be ignored.
Fast-forward to 2011. After signing landmark bills that sought “reforms” (read “revenge”) on banks, credit card companies, and – of course- health care providers, President Obama was feeling the heat over an economy that was still was not producing the much-needed job growth that had been promised. And while much of the business community had at that point refrained from admitting that we had a problem in Washington, DC, Las Vegas-based hotelier Steve Wynn finally broke the silence.
In July of that year, Wynn stated on a corporate conference call with his “Wynn Resorts” corporation what millions of us knew in our hearts.: “… This administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime…my customers… are frightened of this administration… Everybody complains about how much money is on the side in America…those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President. And a lot of people don't want to say that. They'll say, God, don't be attacking Obama. Well, this is Obama's deal and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America…”
After acknowledging the Obama-driven “fear” among America’s entrepreneurs and investors, Wynn further states that “the guy (President Obama) keeps making speeches about redistribution and maybe we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest, they’re holding too much money. We haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists. Everybody's afraid of the government and there's no need soft peddling it…It is the truth. And that's true of Democratic businessman and Republican businessman, and I am a Democratic businessman… And I'm telling you that the business community in this country is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the President of the United States… until he's gone, everybody's going to be sitting on their thumbs…”
And here we are, two days away from another election. Those with the means of investing and growing the economy are indeed “on the sidelines,” shielding themselves from the President’s “revenge,” and we all are suffering as a consequence.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
