No Magic Tricks

The “Blameless Bolsheviks” are at it again.. For eons now, the liberals have been striving towards creating a society that reflexively eschews responsibility, in other words, it is ALWAYS “someone else’s fault”. This “pass the buck” mentality has now become literal through the idiotic progressive puling of OWEbama.. As the members of the fourth estate/fifth column, the ever so “impartial” media, tossed socialist softballs to Dear Leader just a few days ago, it was time to try a new tack on those who NEVER put up a fight even though it is what they are allegedly supposed to do..

According to CNS News, OWEbama feels that he has “no choice” but to “demand an increase in the legal limit on the national debt.” Immediate clarification is needed before we go ANY further.. One line in and we have to clarify the collectivists, that didn’t take long..

OWEbama has had an ample amount of “choice” at his disposal since January of 2009 and the “choice” that he has made from that time “forward” has been to spend the American economy into the ground. Whatever happened to “just say no”? OWEbama made his “choice” and he strong-armed every politician in sight so that the liberal New World Order (make that “New World Odor”..) would come ever closer to fruition.

“Legal” limit.. Since when has the term “legal” mattered to the liberal left? Empowered by their overwhelming “compassion”, (not to mention an imaginary “mandate”..) “results” such as an alarming national debt are irrelevant when the left is out and about “doing the right thing”. The left bends what is “legal” in the same dystrophic manner that they have bent “free speech” to cover ACTIONS. The liberal world is all about making their own agenda obscure through a myriad of shades of gray.. At the same time, the liberals demand that everyone else’s world be painted in the definitive and inflexible hues of black and white. Timetables and exit plans are ONLY applicable to those who don’t worship at the alter of the Hammer and Sickle Party..

Finally, this ISN’T a “national debt”, this is OWEbama’s DEBT.

Suddenly, the “outsider”, our nation’s “Fiscal Cliff” Huxtable is the “victim”. OWEbama HAS NO bearing on what the liberal politicians have pushed for in both the past and the present in both Houses.. Righttt..  At this point, we should “forget” about OWEbama’s copious and surly “demands” made by the bushel basket full after the collectivist coronation in January of 2009, featuring “spending” on the Scamulous and the OWEbamaScare fallacies which by no means were the ONLY hoaxes on the list of collectivist candy store “spending”.. OWEbama is the “victim”..  Devil’s advocate: if he isn’t the ONLY “spender” (he certainly directs/orders the Democrats “spending”) he has NEVER ONCE told the OTHER Democratic “spenders” to stop spending..

OWEbama tried to bring forth his best Othello, “They order me to spend. You need to fund our Defense Department. You need to send Social Security checks. You need to make sure that you are paying to care for our veterans..” Someone needs to remind OWEbama that he isn’t running for office any longer. Note the “buzz words” of “spending” that OWEbama NOW alleges to be concerned with.. “Defense”, “Social Security”, “veterans”..

How about the possibility that maybe if OWEbama would have said “NO” ONCE during the past four years, things might not be as grim as OWEbama has made things today.. “NO” to Solyndra. “NO” to the Scamulous. “NO” to “Cash for Clunkers” and on and on and on.. Had the Brown Bolshevik even mildly applied the brakes, there wouldn’t be this imaginary liberal urgency to play “pass the hat” on OWEbama’s debt limit..

As well, we can be guaranteed that ANY and ALL money collected/stolen on behalf of these worthy causes will be redirected to the lowest class or any of the other liberal Democratic “special interests”.. Yes, the “victims for profit” that overpopulate the liberal left will be crawling on all fours as they always do when the aroma of tax money is in the air..

There is simply no accountability when it comes to the liberal girly spending proclivities and the “impartial” media REFUSE to do their jobs as “watchdogs”. The reason that there is no accountability is because there aren’t enough accountants in charge of accountability. Whatever, its just money and if they can’t manage to strangle the middle class, the liberals will just print more..

Back to the vainglorious “victim”.. “They (Congress, the REAL bad guys according to OWEbama) also have to authorize a raising of the debt ceiling in order to make sure that those bills are paid.” Since when have either OWEbama or the liberals been concerned with “bills being paid”? Even within the last quote, there is no mention of slowing the OWEbama spending spree. Raise the debt ceiling so that I can spend more money!

Suddenly “veterans” are more important to the left than electric cars and solar batteries.. Nonsense. As soon as the money hits the collectivist coffers, ANOTHER liberal “cause” like another flare up of the hoax of Globalony Warming, will become a “national emergency” or a “crisis” in need of immediate attention and buckets full of cash..

Our “victim” IMMEDIATELY exposes himself as the fascist fraud that he is. “OWEbama talked about why he refused to cut federal spending..” Isn’t the OWEbama DEBT a problem of “spending” and not “saving”? This is a matter of sending out more than is being brought in and the left’s reflexive answer to this problem of their making is to do EVERYTHING in order to bring more middle class tax dollars in..

Knowing that he was in front of a group of “friendlies”, OWEbama dove into the deep end of the liberal cesspool without his inflatable arm waders.. “The issue here isn’t whether or not America pays its bills..” WHAT?? He then goes on to “explain” why HE would be better at managing the nation’s money.. Try not to giggle..

“Now if the House and the Senate want to give me the authority so that they don’t have to take these tough votes, if they want to put the responsibility on me to raise the debt ceiling, I’m happy to take it..” This mess IS ALL your fault, thanks for finally taking the “responsibility”. The “responsibility” of what has happened to this once great nation has been YOURS since January of 2009 but it is only NOW that you claim that you want to do something about it, which in the end, will make the problem WORSE due to the actions and inactions of the liberal left..

“There are, you know, no easy outs..” No kidding.. “OWEbama said he did not want to raise the debt ceiling himself unless Congress authorized it but he called on them to expedite it..” No wonder his heroes are charmers like Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot..

OWEbama went on to say that there are “no magic tricks”.. This coming from the “Heretics Houdini”..


21 responses to “No Magic Tricks

  1. Family,

    Stitch and I bang it out again on Thursday!

    Thursday, January 17, 8-8:30am CST on Full Metal Conservatives
    Guest Call-in – 714-816-4696

    Give it a whirl..

    Thanks as always,


  2. “The reason that there is no accountability is because there aren’t enough accountants in charge of accountability.” You have the truth of it right there, Larry… there are all kinds of federal employees ired to spend, spend, spend… but the Inspector Generals get fired when they try to make sure the rules are followed.

  3. Excellent barn burner, Larry! Yes, the Liberals are NEVER responsible for anything . . . . . unless it had excellent results, then it was TOTALLY their idea from start to finish. . . . . . . . . . NOT! One thing you can say about the left, they have an INSATIABLE apatite for spending and nowhere in their vocabulary are there are words for NO or STOP! And above all else, order extra, just in case.

  4. With this continuous wasteful spending, how long will it take for the US dollar to no longer be the world’s standard currency ? Apparently the idiots in DC believe that the “Golden Goose” will NEVER die.

    And, when it happens, what will replace it – another currency , or a precious metal? Which brings up another point – how much gold is still left at Ft. Knox ? Also, what will happen when other countries wish to cash in their US dollars ? Do we trade the dollars for gold ?

    Just asking .

  5. After the above occurs, will the next step be the ” One World Order” , and where will it be headquartered – the UN , Moscow, Beijing, or Switzerland ?

    Or, as some would speculate – Mecca !!

    No, these are not my theories, just a compilation of various comments that have been tossed around recently.

  6. Saw yesterday that 35% of the urrent debt was amassed under Obama’s reign. Wonder if the history books will ever say that…………..?

  7. Found a number of new information about Benghazi. The first is prior to Chris Stevens arrival to the Benghazi Consulate, they were already denials of any security back as far as January, 2012. I found an English speaking Arab website where Benghazi Police took photographs of the scenes “after” the attack. I found photographs of a sneaker that was not charred by fire. Three Diplomatic pouches (although I don’t know if they a fire retardant of not) laying on the floor which showed no signs of fire. The scenes taken by AP never showed such items, so these photos have me scratching my head.

    One major overlooked cause of the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans is the underfunding of civilian agencies that play a vital role in our national security. Instead of building up cadres of skilled diplomatic security guards at the State Department, we have rented security personnel from the lowest bidder, trying to acquire capacity and expertise on the cheap. Benghazi showed how vulnerable that makes us.

    The slapdash security that resulted in the death of Ambassador Stevens, technician Sean Smith and CIA guards Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty started with a seemingly inconsequential decision by Libya’s new government. After the fall of Muammar Qaddafi, Libya’s interim government barred armed private security firms – foreign and domestic – from operating anywhere in the country. This was something I never heard about prior to the article printed on December 2nd. So it seems to be okay for Muslim extremist to own assault weapons but the Diplomat security were not allowed weapons to defend themselves during an attack. Interesting?

    Once the Libyans took away the private security guard option, it put enormous strain on a little-known State Department arm, the Diplomatic Security Service. This obscure agency has been responsible for protecting American diplomatic posts around the world since 1916.

    Though embassies have been contingents of Marines, consulates and other offices do not. Moreover, the main mission of Marines is to destroy documents and protect American government secrets. It is the Diplomatic Security agents who are charged with safeguarding the lives of American diplomats. Today, roughly 900 Diplomatic Security agents guard 275 American embassies and consulates around the globe. Which works out to a shocking four agents per facility. Is this an under funded area of the State Department?

    I found that both in Iraq and Afghanistan, the State Department relied on hundreds of security contractors to guard American diplomats. At times, they even hired private security guards to protect foreign leaders.
    After President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan narrowly survived a 2002 assassination attempt, the State Department hired security guards from DynCorp, a military contractor, to guard him. Their aggressiveness in and around the presidential palace, however, angered Afghan, American and European officials. As soon as Afghan guards were trained to protect Karzai, DynCorp was let go.

    Why has the press not reported on these facts?

    The Diplomatic Security Service were unable to hire contractors, so they rotated a small number of agents through Benghazi to provide security, on what government officials call temporary duty assignments, or “TDY.” Eric Nordstrom, the Diplomatic Security agent who oversaw security in Libya until two months before the attack, recently told members of Congress that when he requested for 12 additional agents he was told he was asking for “the sun the moon and the stars.” After his request was turned down twice, Mr. Nordstrom replied bluntly to his superiors in Washington. It’s dealing and fighting against the people, programs and personnel who are supposed to be supporting me.

    Relying on government bureaucrats, who sit in the walnut furniture offices, taking two hour lunches at the taxpayers expense, who never put themselves in harms way are making bad decisions for those that do. Other State Department officials also say the reliance on contracting created a weakened Bureau for Diplomatic Security Service. They say department officials, short on staff and eager to reduce costs, are being nickeled-and-dimed to death from the Diplomatic Services security requests.

    I will see if this is just something under Obama’s Presidency or if other Presidents have done the same thing. We should be protecting all Americans working for our Government overseas as if they were guarding a Presidential staff member. Was Hillary Clinton partly responsible? Does she put herself in harms way when she’s visiting a foreign Country? No, she’s got the Secret Service protecting her because her husband was President.

    I also found three of the four names of those who were fired because of the grossly inadequate security for the Consulate staff and Ambassador Stevens. They are: Eric J. Boswell, the assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, resigned his post. Charlene R. Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary responsible for embassy security and Raymond Maxwell, a deputy assistant secretary who had the responsibility for North Africa, really? Last time I looked Libya was a middle Eastern Country. Did something change? There were also four other officials, who have been placed on administrative leave pending further action.

    There was another name, Patrick F. Kennedy (no not a member of “that” family), who is the under secretary for management, for the State Department, I think he should be forced to resign, but he’s placing blame on the Bureau for Diplomatic Security Service. Kennedy is a Chicago native and a die-hard Democrat, who has given his time and money to the party that butters his bread.

    If it’s out there I’ll find it.

  8. It seenms to me we must increase the security at all outpost of America. While it may not be feasible to have Marines at such postings, we should look at having private contractors present, such as Blackwater, or other mercenary outfits. Our embassies and consulates should resemble fortresses, complete with firing positions should they be needed. If the bearded barabarians in Benghazi had seen machinegun nests and anti-personnel mines set up, there would have been no massacre, unless they were dumb enough to charge the positions anyway.

    Liberals fail to understand the only thing Arabs understand and respect is strength. Had we done an old-fashioned Vietnam style ‘arclight’ or used a ‘downtown formation’ or two of BUFFs after the Benghazi attack, the tenor of peace talks in the Middle East would have taken a different tone, and having half of downtown Benghazi burning that night would have made for a great photo op, and an attention-getter. Drone attacks are fine for sniping off Al-Queda leaders, but there comes a time when massive collateral damage can and should be used as both a statement and a policy tool, and if the UN doesn’t like it, defund them and evict them from their cozy offices on the East River.

    Listening to our Dear Leader’s speech the other day (an odious task, I grant you, but necessary), it amazes me how he can demand cooperation on one hand and iron-fisted acquiesence on the other, sometimes even in the same breath. Between the ‘fiscal cliff deal’ and his demands for gun control, he’s already spent whatever goodwill he might have accrued from November, and he hasn’t even been inaugerated yet. If the GOP is to be relevant, they need to act as loyal opposition, and not simply rubber stamp whatever the President wants. Notr that it matters to the President or the Progressives, whom are interested only in the final collapse of all opposition to their schemes.

  9. I’m to tired to go look for the site that had these figures in a book published by a Washington economist insider who’d worked under several presidents.
    Although un-biased obama’s name seems to keep popping up as big spender. Gee, I wonder why.

    Queen Elizabeth’s royal expenses to England amounted to $55,430,000 in the year 2012.
    Obama’s and family expenses to the American people: $1,400,000,000 Billion in the year of 2012.

    “We all have to make sacrifices” cept’ me.

  10. Joe,

    And that is on top of all the trillions of dollars that he has cost the American taxpayers.

    BTW, make sure that you follow OWEbaama’s instructions – inflate your tires so that you get good gas mileage, and we can save on fossil fuels !!!

    Actually. we could all save more, if OWEbaama were deported back to Kenya . Just a thought.

  11. JJ-
    I have often wondered who would want BHO if we did deport him. But if we got to the point where we could deport him, he would be behind bars!

  12. I saw on the news this morning that 33% of Americans approved of the direction in which obama is running the country. That compared to the 60% who disapproved of how he is running our country.
    With only a third of the people behind him…HOW IN THE HELL DID HE GET RE-ELECTED?!

    In my previous post I mis-quoted the text from the book “Presidential Perks Gone Royal”, written by Robert Keith Gray and Judy Katz. It can be found on Amazon and purchased there.

    “Last year, it cost the Bristish taxpayers $57.8 Million to maintain Britain’s royal family. During that same year, it cost American taxpayers some $1.4 Billion to house and feed the Obamas in the White House, along with their families, friends and visiting campaign contributors.”
    “In 2010, a year of record unemployment, when most Americans were grateful just to have a job, it was reported that 74% of the White House employees were given an average 9% raise.”

    There are many more no matter which side of the aisle but not habitually abused as with Obama. And in one of the few times obama did anything as a senator, he co-signed a bill making theses expenditures all but impossible to trace. According to him at the time the bill was for “transparency.” But the bill actually mixes the perks in with work of government contractors such as Boeing. Re-worded and re-chatorgerized, it would take a legion of economists a month of Sundays to track one expenditure down if at all. Now that’s transparent!

    I don’t know about the rest of you, but I would rate Obama as the Fourth Best President Ever:
    Reagan and nine others tied for First; 15 Presidents tied for Second, and 18 other Presidents tied for Third.
    In my line of thinking Obama is, and truly deserves to be, Fourth.

  13. Joe,

    I disagree. OWEbaama will never rate as a POTUS, as far as I’m concerned. Therefore , he won’t even rate a ZERO. 🙂

    Nonetheless, I appreciate the humor.

  14. I read an article online about regarding a recent Gallup Poll.

    National Poll

    The question,

    Would you vote for or against a law that would limit the number of terms which members of Congress and the United States Senate? Suppose that on Election Day you would vote on key issues as well as the candidates?

    75% of American adults are for term limits
    21% of adult voters are against term limits
    5% have no opinion

    82% of Republicans are for term limits
    15% of Republicans are against term limits
    3% have no opinion

    79% of Independents are for term limits
    17% of Independents are against term limits
    4% have no opinion

    65% of Democrats are for term limits
    29% of Democrats are against term limits
    5% have no opinion

    Breakdown of Age Groups

    18 to 29 years of age
    74% are for term limits
    22% are against term limits
    4% have no opinion

    30 to 49 years of age
    73% are for term limits
    22% are against term limits
    5% have no opinion

    50 to 64 years of age
    77% are for term limits
    19% are against term limits
    4% have no opinion

    65 and older
    74% are for term limits
    21% are against term limits
    5% have no opinion

    Republicans and independents seem to favor term limits. Nevertheless, all the numbers are high. The poll was taken on January 8-9 and the numbers are similar to a poll taken from 1994 to 1996, in which between two-thirds and three-quarters of Americans said they would vote for a Constitutional amendment to limit the number of terms that a member of Congress and the United States Senate can serve.

    Then, there’s the more interesting poll.

    More Than Six in 10 Would Abolish the Electoral Collage

    Americans seems more open to major electoral reform when it comes to doing away with the Electoral College. Six-three percent would abolish this controversial mechanism for electing Presidents that was formulated by our Founding Fathers. There have been numerous efforts to abolish it over the last 200 plus years, but have met with little results.

    Question is

    Would you vote for or against a law that would do away with the Electoral College and base the election of the President on the total votes cast throughout the Nation?

    Breakdown by Partisanship

    National Adults

    63% of American adults are for doing away with the Electoral College
    29% of American adults are against doing away with the Electoral College
    8% have no opinion

    61% of Republicans are for doing away with the Electoral College
    30% of Republicans are against doing away with the Electoral College
    9% have no opinion

    63% of Independents are for doing away with the Electoral College
    29% of Independents are against doing away with the Electoral College
    8% have no opinion

    66% of Democrats are for doing away with the Electoral College
    30% of Democrats are against doing away with the Electoral College
    4% have no opinion

    Breakdown of Age Groups

    18 to 29 years of age
    69% are for doing away with the Electoral College
    28% are against doing away with the Electoral College
    4% have no opinion

    30 to 49 years of age
    62% are for doing away with the Electoral College
    27% are against doing away with the Electoral College
    11% have no opinion

    50 to 64 years of age
    64% are for doing away with the Electoral College
    28% are against doing away with the Electoral College
    8% have no opinion

    65 and older
    60% are for doing away with the Electoral College
    32% are against doing away with the Electoral College
    8% have no opinion

    The Americans with regard to the Electoral College in a number of ways over the years, and regardless of the precise phrasing, large majorities have always supported doing away with it. That includes 80% support in 1968 and 67% in 1980 with wording was very similar to the phrasing used during the taking of this latest poll.

    Support for the abolishment of the Electoral College has gone slightly lower from 2000 (Gore/Bush Election) through 2011, it ranges from 59% to 62%, when using question that asked the American public if they would rather amend the United States Constitution so the candidate who wins the most votes naturally wins the election, or keep the current system in which the Electoral College decides our fate.

    The data collected shows that Republicans are far less supportive over the Democrats to abolish the Electoral College in 2000, when the Republican President George Bush won, not by popular vote, but from the results of the Electoral College. Since then, however they have become less supportive in protecting the Electoral College, to the point that by 2011, there was a solid majority of Republicans who were in favor of abolishing it.

    The survey taken by Gallup that 1,013 adults were surveyed on January 8-9, 2013 in all 50 States. Both landlines and cellphone were used to make contact. The interviews were conducted in both English and Spanish.

    I think at this point, a large majority of Republican voters see more corruption in the popular vote that has now spread into the results of the Electoral College. I believe there is some bribery, corruption, threats. The corruption goes as deep as ACORN and the various Unions, whom 85% vote Democratic. The bribes could be as simple as giving them State or Federal jobs, lucrative contracts that will bankrupt the Country or a State. The Democrats always think they are the only ones who can count, but we all know their liberal calculator are always off.

    How was Harry Reid re-elected when most polls showed that he was down in the numbers? ACORN and the SEIU were the watchdogs as people voted. A little ballot stuffing seems to be verdict, but maybe they found some votes in the crack of his ass. Anything is possible when it comes to the liberals.

    I’d prefer a honest election and that includes the electoral college but there is no honesty in any election anymore. I think some things need to change. No more early voting, this is where most of the cheating and lying, ballot stuffing takes place. No more states that have the Electoral College where all votes is buy one buy all. If the States start doing that, the conservatives might have a chance, might.

    I don’t have all the answer, this part is only my opinion. The data belongs to Gallop.

  15. As employers, we really need to get our employees working correctly, so:
    We need to totally defund the Government employess pay until Congress stops the spending and LOWERS the debt ceiling and shift all Federal and State workers over to SS, Medicare and all the taxes we pay. We need parity! How about stopping the payroll until certain criteria is met. We are, after all, their employer.

  16. Eileen,

    If American voters truly had the power of the vote, they would have the current issues on their ballots instead of politicians names. For example, nothing on the ballot will ask about Afghanistan. No ballot will address whether the Fed’s “zero interest rate” should persist. And I’ll bet that not a one of them will ask you if you want your washing machine continue being crippled by regulations.

    Why not? if we truly believe in “the will of the people” why shouldn’t such issues be on the ballot? If you think about it, it shouldn’t hardl’y matter at all who carries out these plans. What matters is the results. If majority of the people don’t want our troops in Afghanistan, bring them home. If the Fed’s interest rate is doing no service to the economy, abandon it. And if the majority tells Washington to get their hands out of your laundry, so be it! Lord knows they ought to tend to their dirty laundry first!

    While it is true that our Founding Fathers were responsible for the legislation and initiation of the Electoral College as it is. I believe their veiw, if not need, was totally different than from what it is today. The Father’s concerned themselves with the election of presidents by the people of our new nation. A new nation with no radio or TV and just a handful of scattered printing presses. A man from New York running for the presidency may well never have been heard of, much less his ideals, in Maine. The Electoral College takes the vote out of the people’s hands and, in my mind, outdated in this modern society.

    There is even a darker side to the Electoral College as politicians have managed to change it over the years. Should presidential candidates end up in a tie in Electoral votes, they are then delegated to a political elite taking the vote even further out of the American people’s hand, who will decide who your next “leader” of your “free” world will be.

  17. Joe=
    I, too have felt the Electoral College is way beyond its smell test. Our Founding Fathers did not know of what inventions would come, but God did, and I firmly believe He inspired the minds of our Forefathers. Problem is, the people have abdicated their fortunes to the “I want it now” crowd and there were plenty to give it to them, for a price. Sticker shock is here!

  18. Ok folks, I have to disagree… the Electoral College is a part of the Constitution because we are NOT A DEMOCRACY. We are a Republic, which means that we are a representative government. Democracy is a pretty word that has been mis-used by Socialists for decades to pretend that “the people” will be in charge if only we will get rid of this mean, nastym unfair, stupid rule. Where have we heard that nonsence before? Remember, if we had no electoral college we would have had Al-Jaseera Gore for President.

    This institution was put in the constitution because it was supposed to even out the votes between more populous and less populous states. There may be some corruption there now, but the solution is not to do away with it, as that plays right into the Leftists hands, but to fix the corruption there. Doing away with the pieces of our Consitution that we don’t like is a huge mistake. Look what has happened to the Senate. Those folks were supposed to represent the States. Who has been doing a good job of fixing the ecenomy? The States!! The Governors and state legislators are doing what DC refuses to do. If the states were able to pick the Senators we would have much better Senators than we have today. But we let the “poplulist reformers” who wanted “Democracy” and “the people” to be in charge talk us into changing the Constitution. Don’t let them do it again!!

    Once again the solution is for those who know better to get off of our behinds and start motivating the groops and fighting for what we know to be right.

  19. T,

    Compared to the idiots in DC today, our Founding Fathers could be considered’ genius’.

    We can just imagine what the stupid voters of today would choose , if given the chance – afterall thay gave us OWEbaama.

    Now, if we could simply eliminate K street !!

  20. Holding God deeply in reverance while founding of our country, the insurmmountable thought of fairness and equality for fellow man’s freedom and liberty is beyond touch. Call it genius or inspired by God, but I think these men were genuinely dedicated in seeing the success of a new nation and a type of government that had never been tried before. The thought of corruption in the Electoral College system, at that time I think, wouldn’t have occured to them because the citizens of the colonies at that time were true patriots of their new nation. Not of a political washboard.


    I agree, we are a Republic! Yet next time your out ask your friends or anyone you meet what you should call our nation. 99 and 99/100ths% of the time your going to get the answer, “Democracy.” People, out of stupidity, will pound their chest proudly and tell you this, others, after having to think a while due to the poor education system provided by the government will give you the same answer. These people never question Democracy or what it is. They trade in their autonomy for the power that the politicians and administrators hold over them.
    Our Founding Fathers, in setting up a Republic, tried to set up a system that would be immune from exactly what Democracy has given us. An administrative apparatus that sees all wealth and power as available for the taking and designed to support an wealth-distribution. Bottom line of Democracy: If you produce you will be robbed.

    I see in today’s paper that Obama, having little success in legislative negotiations, (two years majoral Democrat) is now planning on going “outside the beltway” and pursue an outside in strategy instead. Obama wants to mobilize public opinion and put pressure on a minority of Republicans. According to William Galston of the Brookings Institution, “The idea is to find weak spots in the GOP coalition, stick a wedge into the crack and wiggle it back and forth until it breaks.” With the help of the left-bent media I’m sure obama will have no trouble doing this. But the boy doesn’t know a thing about the meaning of the adversity between wedges and cracks.

  21. Can you imagine what we get if the regime were able to replace our Constitution with their own version ? For a clue, look at the disaster they created with just one item – OWEbaamacare !

    I’ve never compared our Constitution with that of any other country, but I have heard it said many , many times that our’s is the best in the world.

    If OWEbaama believes that our Constitution is a negative document and that our country is such a bad place, why do so many want to come here ?

    He has no clue !

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s