Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT) Bennet (D-CO) Blumenthal (D-CT) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Coons (D-DE) Cowan (D-MA) Durbin (D-IL) Feinstein (D-CA) Franken (D-MN) Gillibrand (D-NY) |
Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kaine (D-VA) King (I-ME) Klobuchar (D-MN) Landrieu (D-LA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR) Mikulski (D-MD) Murphy (D-CT) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) |
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schatz (D-HI) Schumer (D-NY) Shaheen (D-NH) Stabenow (D-MI) Udall (D-CO) Udall (D-NM) Warner (D-VA) Warren (D-MA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR |
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Traitors - 46 Of Them!
In March, 2013, we came four votes away from the United States Senate giving our Constitutional rights over to the United Nations. In a 53-46 vote, the senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
The Statement of Purpose from the bill read: To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. , and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry on all private guns and ammo. Astonishingly, 46(forty-six) of our United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.
Here are the 46 senators that voted to give your rights to the U.N.
People this needs to go viral. These Senators voted to let the UN take our guns. They need to lose the election. We have been betrayed. These 46 Senators Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to a FOREIGN POWER....the U.N.
Saturday, August 3, 2013
My Brief For The Maine Supreme Court
Here is my brief in my foreclosure case. Feel free to use any info (other than my personal info, like my name, address..etc) that you think might help you in your case!
In Microsoft Word Format (.doc) Here
In Adobe/Acrobat Reader Format (.pdf) Here
In Microsoft Word Format (.doc) Here
In Adobe/Acrobat Reader Format (.pdf) Here
Saturday, July 20, 2013
More Black Outrage Against Black Racism
Jesse Lee reappeared in true brave form yesterday evening on “Piers Morgan Live” to confront Morgan and his black guest “yes men” who were promoting this ongoing attack on whites, whipping up a potential race war in the nation. Morgan’s motive is obviously his viewership, which is predominantly bleeding heart leftist and sympathetic to this black activist crusade.
Here is what Jesse Lee had to say to Morgan and the destructive black racists he had on the show:
“Well, first, this case was not about race at all, and what happened, you have the race hustlers and poverty pimps like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and others who turned it into a race issue in order to gain power and wealth. And you also have Barack Obama jumping into it by saying that if he had a son, he would look just like Trayvon Martin. And I thought that was insane for him to make that type of comment. He only did that because he want to incite the anger of black Americans and others. … It’s about Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and NAACP and others using black Americans by dividing the races, intimidating white people in order to gather more power or get more power and wealth. …
“Trayvon Martin was a thug. His parents know that. You know that. I know that. … George Zimmerman would have done whatever it took to protect himself. It didn’t matter to George Zimmerman the color of the man. And this notion that Trayvon Martin was some little innocent kid tiptoeing through the tulips and George Zimmerman had nothing else to do but to go out and kill him is a lie. … There were pictures on his Facebook page of Trayvon Martin carrying – having – holding on to a gun, pot in front of him. This wasn’t a good little kid. …”
Good for you, Jesse Lee, and other fine blacks of your brave ilk. Now its time for whites to have Jesse Lee’s courage and tell it like it is. This will benefit not only whites, but also those brave blacks who do not feed at the trough of racial division and hatred.
Here is what Jesse Lee had to say to Morgan and the destructive black racists he had on the show:
“Well, first, this case was not about race at all, and what happened, you have the race hustlers and poverty pimps like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and others who turned it into a race issue in order to gain power and wealth. And you also have Barack Obama jumping into it by saying that if he had a son, he would look just like Trayvon Martin. And I thought that was insane for him to make that type of comment. He only did that because he want to incite the anger of black Americans and others. … It’s about Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and NAACP and others using black Americans by dividing the races, intimidating white people in order to gather more power or get more power and wealth. …
“Trayvon Martin was a thug. His parents know that. You know that. I know that. … George Zimmerman would have done whatever it took to protect himself. It didn’t matter to George Zimmerman the color of the man. And this notion that Trayvon Martin was some little innocent kid tiptoeing through the tulips and George Zimmerman had nothing else to do but to go out and kill him is a lie. … There were pictures on his Facebook page of Trayvon Martin carrying – having – holding on to a gun, pot in front of him. This wasn’t a good little kid. …”
Good for you, Jesse Lee, and other fine blacks of your brave ilk. Now its time for whites to have Jesse Lee’s courage and tell it like it is. This will benefit not only whites, but also those brave blacks who do not feed at the trough of racial division and hatred.
The Chip on Trayvon's Shoulder
************************************************
Posted by Frances Rice at 3:50 PM
By Paul R. Hollrah
George Zimmerman and his wife, Shellie, moved into the Retreat at Twin Lakes, a 260-unit, fully-integrated, townhome community at Sanford, Florida in the summer of 2009. In the weeks that followed their arrival, the Zimmermans and others were terrorized on a number of occasions by a vicious free-roaming pit bull.
After filing complaints with the dog’s owner and with Seminole County Animal Services… all to no avail… the Zimmermans obtained a canister of pepper spray. However, a Seminole County animal control officer advised them otherwise. According to a Zimmerman friend, the animal control officer said, “Don't use pepper spray. It’ll take two or three seconds for the pepper spray to take effect, but only a quarter of a second for the dog to jump you. Get a gun.”
With that advice in mind, the Zimmermans purchased a 9mm Kel-Tec PF-9 handgun, attended firearms training classes at a local firing range, and received concealed-carry handgun permits.
Like most urban communities, Sanford was not without its problems. According to a 2012 U.S. Justice Department report, Sanford had become a hub for the distribution of much-abused pain- killer drugs such as oxycodone or hydrocodone. According to the report, during calendar year 2011, Sanford pharmacies ordered enough painkillers to supply a city eight times its size. With a population of 53,000, Sanford pharmacists ordered enough oxycodone or hydrocodone to support a population of 400,000.
And there were other types of crime, as well. Police records indicate that, between January 1, 2011 and February 26, 2012, police were called to The Retreat 402 times. In that one-year period, Sanford police responded to eight burglaries, nine thefts, one shooting, and dozens of attempted break-ins at The Retreat. In July 2011, a black teenager stole a bicycle from the Zimmermans’ front porch. Police were called, but the bicycle was never recovered.
On August 3, 2011, a resident of The Retreat, Olivia Bertalan, was home alone with her infant son when two black men repeatedly rang her doorbell. She did not answer the door, and when they forced their way in through a sliding glass door at the back of the house she ran upstairs, locked herself inside the baby’s nursery, and called police. According to a report in Reuters, she asked the police dispatcher, “What am I supposed to do? I hear them coming up the stairs!”
With a crying baby in her arms, she armed herself with a pair of rusty scissors and waited for the intruders to burst into the nursery. When police arrived the burglars fled out a back door.
Later, a concerned neighbor, George Zimmerman, arrived. He gave her a card containing his phone number and invited her to call or visit his wife if ever again she felt unsafe. He returned later and gave her a stronger lock for the sliding glass door that had been forced open.
A month later, in September 2011, Sanford police volunteer coordinator Wendy Dorival conducted an organizational meeting at The Retreat during which residents voted to create a neighborhood watch program. George Zimmerman was present at that meeting and was selected by neighbors as their neighborhood watch coordinator.
In late February 2012, a 17-year-old black man, Trayvon Martin, was staying temporarily with his father’s fiancé in a rented home at The Retreat after having been expelled from his Miami-area high school for his third disciplinary suspension of the school year.
At approximately 7:09 PM on February 26, 2012, a dark rainy night in Sanford, Zimmerman was driving down a street near his home when he noticed an unfamiliar person dressed in a “hoodie.” The young man he saw was Trayvon Martin, who was returning to his father’s fiancé’s residence after purchasing some candy and iced tea at a local convenience store.
Zimmerman telephoned Sanford police to report the unknown individual, saying, “We’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there’s a real suspicious guy, just walking around looking about.” He continued, “This guy looks like he is up to no good or he’s on drugs or something… these assholes, they always get away.”
About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman reported, “He’s running!” To which the dispatcher responded, “He’s running? Which way is he running?” Zimmerman then left his vehicle in an attempt to learn the direction in which Martin had fled, but immediately lost sight of him. And when the dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him, and Zimmerman responded, “Yeah,” the dispatcher said, “We don't need you to do that.”
Zimmerman replied, “Okay,” and asked that police call him when they arrived so that he could provide them with his location. However, not knowing the exact street address of his location, Zimmerman proceeded to search for a street name and number. It was then he was confronted by Trayvon Martin. According to Zimmerman’s account, Martin approached him out of the darkness, demanding to know, “You got a f_ _ _ing problem, homie?”
To which Zimmerman replied, “No.”
Martin replied, “Well, you do now,” and punched Zimmerman, knocking him to the ground.
Contrary to the fiction pushed by mainstream media reporters and black race-hustlers such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, the conflict that resulted in the death of Trayvon Martin did not begin when Zimmerman left his truck to see in which direction Martin had fled. Zimmerman had every right to report the presence of a suspicious person in his neighborhood, and he had every right to be on the sidewalk where the confrontation occurred. Likewise, Trayvon Martin had every right to make a trip to the local convenience store and to walk home in the rain. The incident that resulted in Trayvon Martin’s death began at precisely the instant when Martin approached Zimmerman, asked if he had a “problem,” and received a negative response.
If at that point Martin had said, “Okay, fine,” turned on his heel and walked away, he would almost certainly be alive today and there would have been no politically-motivated, nationally-televised show trial with George Zimmerman’s life on the line. What Trayvon Martin did not have is the right to put his fist against George Zimmerman’s face.
In the instant that Trayvon Martin struck George Zimmereman with his fist, breaking his nose and knocking him to the ground, he was guilty of assault. And when he sat astride Zimmerman’s prostrate form, punching him with repeated blows to the face and pounding his head against the concrete sidewalk, all the while shouting, “Shut the f_ _ k up. You’re going to die tonight motherf_ _ _ er!” he was guilty of a second crime: attempted murder.
Putting ourselves in Zimmerman’s shoes, it is easy to understand that the only thought running through his mind was that he was about to suffer grievous bodily injury, or death. Accordingly, he was totally justified in taking his 9mm pistol from its holster and using it to subdue Trayvon Martin. Being in fear for his life he had every right to use whatever deadly force he had at his disposal, and that is exactly what he did.
Within the black community, nationwide, there is a euphemism for a race-related phenomenon called “driving while black,” or DWB, describing a situation in which black male drivers are the target of traffic stops far more frequently than their white or Asian counterparts. However, the Trayvon Martin episode is indicative of yet another race-related phenomenon within the black community, a phenomenon that might be referred to as “walking with chip on shoulder.”
Yes, black unemployment in the United States is at least twice that of the overall population. And yes, unemployment among black teens is well over 40%, six times the rate for all U.S. workers, so it is understandable that young blacks might feel as if they are being denied access to economic opportunities. To fully explore why this is the case would require volumes.
However, it is safe to say that, since the dawn of the civil rights era in the 1950s and ‘60s, much has been done to level the playing field for minorities. Trillions of dollars have been spent on economic support programs such as AFDC and housing, while affirmative action programs have given minorities a decided advantage in access to employment opportunities and higher education. The opportunities are there for anyone who wishes to take advantage of them.
However, recalling the old adage that “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink,” it is clear that far too many young blacks fail to take advantage of the many opportunities available to those who are willing to study hard, work hard, and behave themselves. What it all comes down to is a matter of good parenting versus bad parenting. Instead, they blame others for their lack of success while they walk around with a huge chip on their shoulders.
When Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman on that sidewalk in Sanford, Florida, on the evening of February 26, 2012, it was not a well-behaved, academically superior, optimistic, and enthusiastic young teen who asked George Zimmerman, “You got a f_ _ _ing problem, homie?” That wasn’t Trayvon Martin speaking. Those words came directly from the huge chip Trayvon carried on his shoulder. It is a major tragedy for the Martins, for the Zimmermans, and for every caring person who continues to believe that America is still the greatest nation on Earth.
By Paul R. Hollrah
George Zimmerman and his wife, Shellie, moved into the Retreat at Twin Lakes, a 260-unit, fully-integrated, townhome community at Sanford, Florida in the summer of 2009. In the weeks that followed their arrival, the Zimmermans and others were terrorized on a number of occasions by a vicious free-roaming pit bull.
After filing complaints with the dog’s owner and with Seminole County Animal Services… all to no avail… the Zimmermans obtained a canister of pepper spray. However, a Seminole County animal control officer advised them otherwise. According to a Zimmerman friend, the animal control officer said, “Don't use pepper spray. It’ll take two or three seconds for the pepper spray to take effect, but only a quarter of a second for the dog to jump you. Get a gun.”
With that advice in mind, the Zimmermans purchased a 9mm Kel-Tec PF-9 handgun, attended firearms training classes at a local firing range, and received concealed-carry handgun permits.
Like most urban communities, Sanford was not without its problems. According to a 2012 U.S. Justice Department report, Sanford had become a hub for the distribution of much-abused pain- killer drugs such as oxycodone or hydrocodone. According to the report, during calendar year 2011, Sanford pharmacies ordered enough painkillers to supply a city eight times its size. With a population of 53,000, Sanford pharmacists ordered enough oxycodone or hydrocodone to support a population of 400,000.
And there were other types of crime, as well. Police records indicate that, between January 1, 2011 and February 26, 2012, police were called to The Retreat 402 times. In that one-year period, Sanford police responded to eight burglaries, nine thefts, one shooting, and dozens of attempted break-ins at The Retreat. In July 2011, a black teenager stole a bicycle from the Zimmermans’ front porch. Police were called, but the bicycle was never recovered.
On August 3, 2011, a resident of The Retreat, Olivia Bertalan, was home alone with her infant son when two black men repeatedly rang her doorbell. She did not answer the door, and when they forced their way in through a sliding glass door at the back of the house she ran upstairs, locked herself inside the baby’s nursery, and called police. According to a report in Reuters, she asked the police dispatcher, “What am I supposed to do? I hear them coming up the stairs!”
With a crying baby in her arms, she armed herself with a pair of rusty scissors and waited for the intruders to burst into the nursery. When police arrived the burglars fled out a back door.
Later, a concerned neighbor, George Zimmerman, arrived. He gave her a card containing his phone number and invited her to call or visit his wife if ever again she felt unsafe. He returned later and gave her a stronger lock for the sliding glass door that had been forced open.
A month later, in September 2011, Sanford police volunteer coordinator Wendy Dorival conducted an organizational meeting at The Retreat during which residents voted to create a neighborhood watch program. George Zimmerman was present at that meeting and was selected by neighbors as their neighborhood watch coordinator.
In late February 2012, a 17-year-old black man, Trayvon Martin, was staying temporarily with his father’s fiancé in a rented home at The Retreat after having been expelled from his Miami-area high school for his third disciplinary suspension of the school year.
At approximately 7:09 PM on February 26, 2012, a dark rainy night in Sanford, Zimmerman was driving down a street near his home when he noticed an unfamiliar person dressed in a “hoodie.” The young man he saw was Trayvon Martin, who was returning to his father’s fiancé’s residence after purchasing some candy and iced tea at a local convenience store.
Zimmerman telephoned Sanford police to report the unknown individual, saying, “We’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there’s a real suspicious guy, just walking around looking about.” He continued, “This guy looks like he is up to no good or he’s on drugs or something… these assholes, they always get away.”
About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman reported, “He’s running!” To which the dispatcher responded, “He’s running? Which way is he running?” Zimmerman then left his vehicle in an attempt to learn the direction in which Martin had fled, but immediately lost sight of him. And when the dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him, and Zimmerman responded, “Yeah,” the dispatcher said, “We don't need you to do that.”
Zimmerman replied, “Okay,” and asked that police call him when they arrived so that he could provide them with his location. However, not knowing the exact street address of his location, Zimmerman proceeded to search for a street name and number. It was then he was confronted by Trayvon Martin. According to Zimmerman’s account, Martin approached him out of the darkness, demanding to know, “You got a f_ _ _ing problem, homie?”
To which Zimmerman replied, “No.”
Martin replied, “Well, you do now,” and punched Zimmerman, knocking him to the ground.
Contrary to the fiction pushed by mainstream media reporters and black race-hustlers such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, the conflict that resulted in the death of Trayvon Martin did not begin when Zimmerman left his truck to see in which direction Martin had fled. Zimmerman had every right to report the presence of a suspicious person in his neighborhood, and he had every right to be on the sidewalk where the confrontation occurred. Likewise, Trayvon Martin had every right to make a trip to the local convenience store and to walk home in the rain. The incident that resulted in Trayvon Martin’s death began at precisely the instant when Martin approached Zimmerman, asked if he had a “problem,” and received a negative response.
If at that point Martin had said, “Okay, fine,” turned on his heel and walked away, he would almost certainly be alive today and there would have been no politically-motivated, nationally-televised show trial with George Zimmerman’s life on the line. What Trayvon Martin did not have is the right to put his fist against George Zimmerman’s face.
In the instant that Trayvon Martin struck George Zimmereman with his fist, breaking his nose and knocking him to the ground, he was guilty of assault. And when he sat astride Zimmerman’s prostrate form, punching him with repeated blows to the face and pounding his head against the concrete sidewalk, all the while shouting, “Shut the f_ _ k up. You’re going to die tonight motherf_ _ _ er!” he was guilty of a second crime: attempted murder.
Putting ourselves in Zimmerman’s shoes, it is easy to understand that the only thought running through his mind was that he was about to suffer grievous bodily injury, or death. Accordingly, he was totally justified in taking his 9mm pistol from its holster and using it to subdue Trayvon Martin. Being in fear for his life he had every right to use whatever deadly force he had at his disposal, and that is exactly what he did.
Within the black community, nationwide, there is a euphemism for a race-related phenomenon called “driving while black,” or DWB, describing a situation in which black male drivers are the target of traffic stops far more frequently than their white or Asian counterparts. However, the Trayvon Martin episode is indicative of yet another race-related phenomenon within the black community, a phenomenon that might be referred to as “walking with chip on shoulder.”
Yes, black unemployment in the United States is at least twice that of the overall population. And yes, unemployment among black teens is well over 40%, six times the rate for all U.S. workers, so it is understandable that young blacks might feel as if they are being denied access to economic opportunities. To fully explore why this is the case would require volumes.
However, it is safe to say that, since the dawn of the civil rights era in the 1950s and ‘60s, much has been done to level the playing field for minorities. Trillions of dollars have been spent on economic support programs such as AFDC and housing, while affirmative action programs have given minorities a decided advantage in access to employment opportunities and higher education. The opportunities are there for anyone who wishes to take advantage of them.
However, recalling the old adage that “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink,” it is clear that far too many young blacks fail to take advantage of the many opportunities available to those who are willing to study hard, work hard, and behave themselves. What it all comes down to is a matter of good parenting versus bad parenting. Instead, they blame others for their lack of success while they walk around with a huge chip on their shoulders.
When Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman on that sidewalk in Sanford, Florida, on the evening of February 26, 2012, it was not a well-behaved, academically superior, optimistic, and enthusiastic young teen who asked George Zimmerman, “You got a f_ _ _ing problem, homie?” That wasn’t Trayvon Martin speaking. Those words came directly from the huge chip Trayvon carried on his shoulder. It is a major tragedy for the Martins, for the Zimmermans, and for every caring person who continues to believe that America is still the greatest nation on Earth.
Sunday, July 7, 2013
A Discussion With A Marxist On Obama And America
I had a discussion with a Marxist on FB which was very interesting. Thought I'd include it here because I also have found a visual aide for Mr. Jon Doe to show him not only what I said was correct, but that it's so obvious that a vast majority of other people who follow and connect the dots on Obama come to the same inevitable conclusion. (I've inserted this video after the 3rd paragraph below). Hope Jon Doe sees it! :-)
Jon Doe - I agree with a lot of what the comments left on this post. Just remember that Obama is NOT a Muslim, Obama is NOT socialist and He was in fact born in the United States. Yet, he has continued almost all of G.W's empire building, spying on citizens, starting undeclared wars and selling out the economy to the highest bidder insanity.
Wednesday at 4:15am via mobile
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...then it's a duck! Make NO mistake about it, Obama IS a Muslim!!!
Debby Reagan - Also Jon Doe...how can you say Obama's not a socialist? Obama who began his political career as a community organizer and whose entire approach to politics is based on the book “Rules for Radicals” by the godfather of all radical community organizers, Saul Alinsky, said “It was that education that was seared into my brain. It was the best education I ever had, better than anything I got at Harvard.” Barack Obama is the apotheosis of Saul Alinsky’s gameplan to destroy the republic and replace the Constitution with an all-powerful socialist central government. If assassinating people and Americans with drones and having kill lists isn't socialistic enough for you, how about being listed on a panel sponsored by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), University of Chicago Democrats, and University of Chicago DSA? Or having marxist academic Manning Marable saying: "What makes Obama different is that he has also been a community organiser. He has read left literature, including my works, and he understands what socialism is. A lot of the people working with him are, indeed, socialists with backgrounds in the Communist Party or as independent Marxists. There are a lot of people like that in Chicago who have worked with him for years". Or where he states that communist party member Frank Marshall Davis "as being a decisive influence in helping him to find his present identity as an African-American", in a letter at the funeral of Addie Wyatt, Obama called Wyatt: "a “champion of equality and a fierce advocate for working Americans”? Wyatt was a long time affiliate of the Chicago Communist Party USA. Vernon Jarrett was a prominent Chicago journalist and was a family friend and later father-in-law of Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett.
In the 1940s Jarrett worked in several communist influenced organizations in Chicago, including serving on the publicity committee of the communist controlled Packing House Workers Strike Committee, with Frank Marshall Davis.
He also ran a radio show with Communist Party USA member Oscar Brown, Jr.
Vernon Jarrett was also a fan of Barack Obama. He watched his career from its early stages and became an influential supporter.
In 1992 Obama worked for the ACORN offshoot, Project Vote to register black voters in aid of the Senate Campaign of Carol Moseley Braun-who had strong Communist Party USA ties and was Harold Washington's legislative floor leader.
Obama helped Carol Moseley Braun win her Senate seat, then took it over himself in 2004-backed by the same communist/socialist alliance that had elected Washington and Moseley Braun. The Communist Party USA actively campaigned for Obama during his successful 2004 Illinois Senate race. Senior Chicago Communist Party USA member Bea Lumpkin, and her husband and comrade Frank Lumpkin were longtime supporters and a fans of Barack Obama. In March 2008, Barack Obama sent a message of support to the Communist Party USA controlled Cesar E. Chavez National Holiday organization: "Chavez left a legacy as an educator, environmentalist, and a civil rights leader. And his cause lives on. As farmworkers and laborers across America continue to struggle for fair treatment and fair wages, we find strength in what Cesar Chavez accomplished so many years ago. And we should honor him for what he's taught us about making America a stronger, more just, and more prosperous nation. That's why I support the call to make Cesar Chavez's birthday a national holiday. It's time to recognize the contributions of this American icon to the ongoing efforts to perfect our union."
Senator Barack Obama March 31, 2008.
I could go on...but I think this suffices to show that Obama IS A SOCIALIST... a MARXIST and a COMMUNIST without any doubt!
Wednesday at 4:53pm
Jon Doe - Interesting rant. Yet, I know Obama is not a socialist because I am actually a Marxist and none of Obama`s polices or decision making is in line with Marxist thought or any socialist model. At best, Obama is a servant of the Capitalist class. I really don`t put much stock into the whole `Obama conspiracy theory` because I see it as nothing more than reactionary. Yet, I am sure I am speaking to a brick wall. So, go on hating all Muslims, thinking that Obama is a socialist and the `evil commies` are coming to get you.
Wednesday at 2:14pm
Debby Reagan - LOL... it's not a conspiracy theory when it proves to be true. And I never said I hate ALL Muslims...just those who believe in either converting me or killing me if I don't convert and those who want to take away my country's Republic constitutional government and way of life. And as usual, people like you seem to overlook the 80 pound gorilla in the room by steering things away from facts and calling them conspiracy theories when they clearly and obviously are not. It is a fact that Obama was raised up around socialists, reveres them, and follows their way of thinking and teachings. It is a fact that he has clearly implemented these socialist agendas and ways that are in complete contradiction to our constitution and is trying to become a dictator that revels the reign of Stalin and Mussolini. It is a fact that the rest of the world sees him and recognizes him as a socialist. The only difference with THIS socialist is that he is a Muslim socialist, which makes him even more deadly to our way of life. So, you go right ahead and try to cloud these facts even more because to do so, will help your Marxist beliefs even further. But we Americans can not only SEE the 80 pound gorilla in the room now...but we also are now addressing how to remove it...even in spite of the socialist agenda of those in power in the White House and Marxists, Communists and Socialists worldwide who are assisting them and wishing them good fortune!
Wednesday at 2:39pm
Jon Doe - First of all, I am an American so you are not speaking for me when you say `we Americans` Second, the CPA has not been an actual Communist Party for a very long time. Saying the CPA is communist is like saying the Communist Party of China is still communist. Third, again considering that fact that I am a Marxist I can tell you with high confidence that Obama is not a socialist. There are many American Marxist who have no love for Obama. The only communist in the United States who support Obama are the higher ups and their rank and file lackeys in the joke that is the CPA. Fourth, I have been living overseas in Asia for many years now and I have never been to any Asian country in which it is commonly believed that Obama is a socialist. I also have many friends from all over the world and none of them believe that Obama is a socialist; it is something that only right-wing Americans believe. Lastly, let me repeat this again that none of Obama`s policies or decisions reflect any attempt to establish any socialist model. His policies do reflect a desire to increase the power of the American police state and further along the globalization of economies to achieve a global capitalist agenda.
Wednesday at 2:53pm
Debby Reagan - Ok, let me reword it...us Republic Constitutionalist Americans, better? Second, the CPA was considered by all means to have been a communist party at the time when Obama was growing up and being affected by it. The CPA even considered themselves communists back then. Just because they might not be effectively thought as communists NOW, doesn't mean that they weren't then. And third, just because a lot of American Marxists don't consider Obama a socialist, doesn't mean that he doesn't have many socialist ideas enough to be considered one by us Republic Constitutionalists! He embraces too many ideologies of socialism that is in contradiction to what our country was built upon and embraces! Fourthly, I don't know where you have been or who your many friends are, but it is clear that the European Union Times considers Obama a socialist. French socialist Francois Hollande’s and Obama’s platforms are virtual carbon copies, and Hollande is quite open about and proud of being a socialist.There can be no doubt that Obama is a socialist in the European reform-Marxism tradition. In France, Obama would be the candidate of the French socialist party. In Spain, he would be at home in the Socialist Worker’s Party. In Germany, Obama would be torn between the Social Democrats and Die Linke. In “Old Europe,” the welfare state is well entrenched. Elections are about tinkering at the margin. The United States has still to decide whether it wants the European welfare state or not. Obama does. So, is Obama a "true" socialist? Maybe not...yet! But he thinks too much like one and has as he said been well educated in the beliefs of one of the best known Marxist in America, Saul Alinsky, teachings and beliefs to be called any friend of a Republic Constitutional form of government. So, in that vein of view...yes, he's a socialist!
And lastly, just because he is right now catering to the capitalists doesn't mean that he's not working toward the beliefs taught to him and "seared into his brain" of socialism by Alinsky! And frankly, we Republic Constitutionalist can't afford to 'wait and see' if Obama's agenda will eventually become truly totally socialistic because by then, it'd be much too late to rectify! It is enough that he has more leanings towards true socialism than not. It's enough that he has more leanings towards extreme Muslim beliefs than not. And it's enough that he has done more to destroy our Republic and Constitution than than any other president in our history and where he's too close to socialistic thinking for comfort and needs to be removed!
Wednesday at 4:24pm
Jon Doe - I am not going to not comment on all the reactionary comments in your last post. Although, I will comment on what you are trying to express. Many people, and groups, can call themselves Communist or socialist but that does not make it so at all. A person can be educated by someone who has Marxist beliefs but that does not make one a Marxist. Heck, I had two professors in University who taught Marxist ideas, in West Virginia no less, and they were not what influenced me to become a Marxist; life made me a Marxist. There are many political parties and vanguard parties out in the world who say they are `for the worker` but often they are full of donkey dung and only playing the fool at the king`s feast. There are actual Communist and Red groups in the world today fighting for a better future for the common man and women but usually those groups are not talked about by the right-wing because those groups are actually effecting things in a real and material way; i.e. the Maoist in Nepal as one example. Instead, the right-wing likes to mention what we `commies` like to refer to as `lipstick Communist.`They talk a big game but don`t work toward changing anything. Hollande in France is a good example of that.
Wednesday at 4:18pm
Debby Reagan - Jon...we have an old saying up here in the northeast...when you lay down with dogs that have fleas, chances are quite good that you'll get up with fleas. And so it is with life. So, even though technically true that being around a Marxist doesn't a Marxist make of one, if you have been brought up in your formative years with socialistic views, if you say that a Marxist's socialist beliefs are seared into your brain and has given you the best education of your life, what are the chances that you yourself aren't at least in part, a socialist? Life made Obama an Islamic socialistic sympathizer in the least and a true Islamic socialist at the most. And as far as what "commies" have done for the working man and women, well, I'll leave that for a discussion at a different time, for it is off topic here. But, I will say this much...tell your story of commie helpfulness to the estimated 20 million people killed by Stalin, the 45 million killed by Mao and the 11 million people Hitler killed. Bet they'd all disagree with your viewpoint on that! These 'commies' ruined their countries and it took many years for their people to reconstruct them. So, your kind of change, I'll pass on, tyvm! And as you'll point out, not all 'commies' are the same, so too goes for 'right-wingers'.
Wednesday at 4:52pm ·
Jon Doe - I am a citizen of America. I was born in America and grew up in America. To suggest that someone who does not share your `ideas` should toss away their US citizenship is not only insulting but expresses a sense of fascism which have been brewing in American society for a while now. (NOTE: this was a comment made to another commentator who suggested that Doe should find another country that fits his belief system.) If any president is violating the US Constitution they should be kicked out of office. Yet, where was the right-wing when G.W. was doing many of the exact same things Obama has kept doing? All silent back then as I remember. It was all gun-ho `American is number one!` Now that a different political faction hold the position of president in the `liberal democracy` style of government America practices, the right-wing suddenly starts screaming about violations of the constitution. It is nothing more than bourgeois politics at it`s ugly finest. Sadly, the average American is taken along for the ride every time. If it`s `our guy` then everything is all gravy, but if it is `their guy` then he must be the devil. BTW the phrase `playing semantics` is usually used as a bailing out of dealing with actual material conditions.
Wednesday at 3:31pm
Debby Reagan - And for the record Jon...I was just as upset with Georgie boy when he too turned 'turn coat" and did these things! So, I'm just as appalled by his "socialistic" tendencies. But with that said, he (Bush) was just a wee school boy compared to Obama! Obama is (being conservative here) 10 times worse and is in a vastly different playground altogether from Bush!
Wednesday at 4:52pm
Jon Doe - The US constitution is one of the most interesting docs ever written IMO. It has a lot of good ideas which have never really been fully practiced in America. Religion and politics have always been connected at the hip in America. Try to get elected in America without at least stating that you are a Christian and see what happens. If Americans really want separation of church and state then stop voting for people who profess a belief in a higher power. `All men are created equal` that has never been true in American society. The fourth Amendment, that has never been followed all that closely. The first amendment, just talk to any right-winger for about 15 minutes and one will clearly see how such ideas are viewed by people. I could go on and on and really give detailed case examples of how the US constitution has never really been followed all that closely in the USA.
Wednesday at 4:32pm
Jon Doe - I hate to break it to you but the 'American experiment' was never intended to 'free' anyone. It was a revolution spurred by land owning, slave owning white men who did not want to pay their taxes. Those are the kind of people who founded America. It has been though many struggle, worker and even leftist movements that any strive towards freedom and equality has happened in America at all. The founding principles of America did not give women the right to vote and made slavery legal and protected legally. It is things like what I just mentioned which make the founding principles of America argument hard for a lot of people to follow.
Wednesday at 4:48pm via mobile
Debby Reagan - No Jon...you are wrong. The revolution was in 1776 and started due to King George's taxing the people here but giving them no voice in the political arena over there. What you are referring to is the Civil War. (And, you're wrong about the true reasonof why the Civil War started too!). The 'American Experiment' was coined that after a Frenchman visited America and wrote a book on democracy in America LONG AFTER the pilgrims voyage here. First, we're a Republic, not a democracy and second, the pilgrims who came here didn't consider this an 'experiment'. They came here to escape religious persecution from the Church of England. So yes, it WAS to free people! And these pilgrims did not own slaves. So if you're going to state America's history, then state it correctly. Slavery didn't start in America and was brought to America in 1619. So, by the time our founding fathers made America in 1776, slavery was entrenched. Even though a good number of them owned slaves, not all did. And by vast majority, these slave owning founding fathers exhibited considerable aversion to slavery during the era of the Articles of Confederation (1781–89) by prohibiting the importation of foreign slaves to individual states and lending their support to a proposal by Jefferson to ban slavery in the Northwest Territory. But, the Founders demonstrated their commitment to maintaining the unity of the new United States by resolving to diffuse sectional tensions over slavery. To this end the Founders drafted a series of constitutional clauses acknowledging deep-seated regional differences over slavery while requiring all sections of the new country to make compromises as well. They granted slaveholding states the right to count three-fifths of their slave population when it came to apportioning the number of a state’s representatives to Congress, thereby enhancing Southern power in the House of Representatives. But they also used this same ratio to determine the federal tax contribution required of each state, thus increasing the direct federal tax burden of slaveholding states. Georgians and South Carolinians won a moratorium until 1808 on any Congressional ban against the importation of slaves, but in the meantime individual states remained free to prohibit slave imports if they so wished. Southerners also obtained the inclusion of a fugitive slave clause (see Fugitive Slave Acts) designed to encourage the return of runaway slaves who sought refuge in free states, but the Constitution left enforcement of this clause to the cooperation of the states rather than to the coercion of Congress. So, they did start to end slavery even in the beginning. And it did eventually get done. But the founding fathers considered keeping the states united as a country more important than giving ALL men the freedoms stated in the founding documents. And as far as women's rights from the founding principles...well, that has been more of a sexist problem and has been a worldwide problem since the beginning of time and even though wrong, can't be blamed on the founding fathers as they were a product of their times and had yet to be enlightened. The whole point is though, that eventually, it has worked out. And even though not perfect, it is the best "experiment" of a true Constitutional Republic form of government ever accomplished. And we Republic Constitutionalists want to keep it that way...and constantly striving to become better. That's why your Marxist beliefs, and what the US Government has done to erode this Republic cannot, and will not, be tolerated by us! It is NOT our way and we have the right, as all other countries do, to keep our founding ways and not have to explain why or apologize for it!
Wednesday at 6:00pm
Jon Doe - I have been to DC many times for many different reasons. I have seen all the monuments and read all the cute statements. Yet, the US Constitution says separation of church and state and that has never really been true at all.
Wednesday at 4:34pm
Debby Reagan - Once again Jon...you're wrong. Nowhere in our Constitution does it say that church and state are to be separate. What the 1st Amendment says is: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. And what this means is that this amendment prevents the establishment of a national religion, prohibits government aid to any religion, even on an non-preferential basis, as well as protecting the right of the individual to choose to worship, or not, as he or she sees fit. That's it. Nowhere does it state that the church can't be involved in political affairs and that those in politics can't be involved in church affairs! It only stops the government from religious dictatorship and preference (like what the pilgrims escaped from with the Church of England) and persecuting anyone who thought differently on religious beliefs (or the lack of any beliefs!). The "wall of separation" was written by Thomas Jefferson about what the 1st Amendment was about and the phrase is commonly thought to mean of what was just stated above that the GOVERNMENT itself should not establish, support, or otherwise involve itself in any religion on the behalf of the nation's people.
Jon Doe - I agree with a lot of what the comments left on this post. Just remember that Obama is NOT a Muslim, Obama is NOT socialist and He was in fact born in the United States. Yet, he has continued almost all of G.W's empire building, spying on citizens, starting undeclared wars and selling out the economy to the highest bidder insanity.
Wednesday at 4:15am via mobile
Debby Reagan - Also Jon Doe...he was a Muslim, born and bred as one until (supposedly) he was 10 years old. He idolizes his father who was a Muslim, he BOWED before a Muslim king (MY President does NOT bow to no man...he is ALL leaders equal!), he has restricted FBI monitoring on ALL mosques here in the USA where some 80% of them preach violent jihad or distribute violent literature to worshippers, he overturned the Bush era ban on the radical Swiss born Muslim Cleric Tariq Ramadan from entering the United States, last year ordered the US government bailed out General Electric Capital Corporation to became the first Western multinational to issue an Islamic bond, and commanded that all of his governments security documents eliminate the words “Islamic extremism” and “jihad”, six American Muslim leaders who work with the Obama administration (that Obama appointed) are Muslim Brotherhood operatives who have significant influence on U.S. policy
(Arif Alikhan, assistant secretary of Homeland Security for policy development; Mohammed Elibiary, a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council; Rashad Hussain, the U.S. special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference; Salam al-Marayati, co-founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, or MPAC); Imam Mohamed Magid, president of the Islamic Society of North America, or ISNA; and Eboo Patel, a member of President Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships), appoints a Czar as the State Department’s legal advisor Harold Koh who believes America should defer to the International Court of Justice to determine legal precedents; a totally unconstitutional endeavor. (Koh is a member of the “trans-nationalism” school of legal thought that believes all distinctions between American Constitutional law and international law should vanish. Incredibly, he even believes Muslim law –Sharia law– should be applied to some disputes in US courts. Clearly, his views are in contradiction to the Constitution he swore to uphold, but no matter, he is now in charge of all legal issues for the U.S. State Department). Obama makes apologies to the Islamic world for America, and insists the “Arab Spring” was a movement toward democracy in the region despite the ascendency of the Muslim Brotherhood and the return of al-Qaida terrorism. His slight of Israel's president and he refuses to support Israel but yet supports anything Islamic is quite telling. And if all of this STILL doesn't assure you that Obama is a Muslim, then maybe HIS OWN WORDS will convince you!!!
In the 1940s Jarrett worked in several communist influenced organizations in Chicago, including serving on the publicity committee of the communist controlled Packing House Workers Strike Committee, with Frank Marshall Davis.
He also ran a radio show with Communist Party USA member Oscar Brown, Jr.
Vernon Jarrett was also a fan of Barack Obama. He watched his career from its early stages and became an influential supporter.
In 1992 Obama worked for the ACORN offshoot, Project Vote to register black voters in aid of the Senate Campaign of Carol Moseley Braun-who had strong Communist Party USA ties and was Harold Washington's legislative floor leader.
Obama helped Carol Moseley Braun win her Senate seat, then took it over himself in 2004-backed by the same communist/socialist alliance that had elected Washington and Moseley Braun. The Communist Party USA actively campaigned for Obama during his successful 2004 Illinois Senate race. Senior Chicago Communist Party USA member Bea Lumpkin, and her husband and comrade Frank Lumpkin were longtime supporters and a fans of Barack Obama. In March 2008, Barack Obama sent a message of support to the Communist Party USA controlled Cesar E. Chavez National Holiday organization: "Chavez left a legacy as an educator, environmentalist, and a civil rights leader. And his cause lives on. As farmworkers and laborers across America continue to struggle for fair treatment and fair wages, we find strength in what Cesar Chavez accomplished so many years ago. And we should honor him for what he's taught us about making America a stronger, more just, and more prosperous nation. That's why I support the call to make Cesar Chavez's birthday a national holiday. It's time to recognize the contributions of this American icon to the ongoing efforts to perfect our union."
Senator Barack Obama March 31, 2008.
I could go on...but I think this suffices to show that Obama IS A SOCIALIST... a MARXIST and a COMMUNIST without any doubt!
Wednesday at 4:53pm
(Here is the newly added visual aide for you Jon Doe)
Jon Doe - Interesting rant. Yet, I know Obama is not a socialist because I am actually a Marxist and none of Obama`s polices or decision making is in line with Marxist thought or any socialist model. At best, Obama is a servant of the Capitalist class. I really don`t put much stock into the whole `Obama conspiracy theory` because I see it as nothing more than reactionary. Yet, I am sure I am speaking to a brick wall. So, go on hating all Muslims, thinking that Obama is a socialist and the `evil commies` are coming to get you.
Wednesday at 2:14pm
Debby Reagan - LOL... it's not a conspiracy theory when it proves to be true. And I never said I hate ALL Muslims...just those who believe in either converting me or killing me if I don't convert and those who want to take away my country's Republic constitutional government and way of life. And as usual, people like you seem to overlook the 80 pound gorilla in the room by steering things away from facts and calling them conspiracy theories when they clearly and obviously are not. It is a fact that Obama was raised up around socialists, reveres them, and follows their way of thinking and teachings. It is a fact that he has clearly implemented these socialist agendas and ways that are in complete contradiction to our constitution and is trying to become a dictator that revels the reign of Stalin and Mussolini. It is a fact that the rest of the world sees him and recognizes him as a socialist. The only difference with THIS socialist is that he is a Muslim socialist, which makes him even more deadly to our way of life. So, you go right ahead and try to cloud these facts even more because to do so, will help your Marxist beliefs even further. But we Americans can not only SEE the 80 pound gorilla in the room now...but we also are now addressing how to remove it...even in spite of the socialist agenda of those in power in the White House and Marxists, Communists and Socialists worldwide who are assisting them and wishing them good fortune!
Wednesday at 2:39pm
Jon Doe - First of all, I am an American so you are not speaking for me when you say `we Americans` Second, the CPA has not been an actual Communist Party for a very long time. Saying the CPA is communist is like saying the Communist Party of China is still communist. Third, again considering that fact that I am a Marxist I can tell you with high confidence that Obama is not a socialist. There are many American Marxist who have no love for Obama. The only communist in the United States who support Obama are the higher ups and their rank and file lackeys in the joke that is the CPA. Fourth, I have been living overseas in Asia for many years now and I have never been to any Asian country in which it is commonly believed that Obama is a socialist. I also have many friends from all over the world and none of them believe that Obama is a socialist; it is something that only right-wing Americans believe. Lastly, let me repeat this again that none of Obama`s policies or decisions reflect any attempt to establish any socialist model. His policies do reflect a desire to increase the power of the American police state and further along the globalization of economies to achieve a global capitalist agenda.
Wednesday at 2:53pm
Debby Reagan - Ok, let me reword it...us Republic Constitutionalist Americans, better? Second, the CPA was considered by all means to have been a communist party at the time when Obama was growing up and being affected by it. The CPA even considered themselves communists back then. Just because they might not be effectively thought as communists NOW, doesn't mean that they weren't then. And third, just because a lot of American Marxists don't consider Obama a socialist, doesn't mean that he doesn't have many socialist ideas enough to be considered one by us Republic Constitutionalists! He embraces too many ideologies of socialism that is in contradiction to what our country was built upon and embraces! Fourthly, I don't know where you have been or who your many friends are, but it is clear that the European Union Times considers Obama a socialist. French socialist Francois Hollande’s and Obama’s platforms are virtual carbon copies, and Hollande is quite open about and proud of being a socialist.There can be no doubt that Obama is a socialist in the European reform-Marxism tradition. In France, Obama would be the candidate of the French socialist party. In Spain, he would be at home in the Socialist Worker’s Party. In Germany, Obama would be torn between the Social Democrats and Die Linke. In “Old Europe,” the welfare state is well entrenched. Elections are about tinkering at the margin. The United States has still to decide whether it wants the European welfare state or not. Obama does. So, is Obama a "true" socialist? Maybe not...yet! But he thinks too much like one and has as he said been well educated in the beliefs of one of the best known Marxist in America, Saul Alinsky, teachings and beliefs to be called any friend of a Republic Constitutional form of government. So, in that vein of view...yes, he's a socialist!
Wednesday at 4:24pm
Jon Doe - I am not going to not comment on all the reactionary comments in your last post. Although, I will comment on what you are trying to express. Many people, and groups, can call themselves Communist or socialist but that does not make it so at all. A person can be educated by someone who has Marxist beliefs but that does not make one a Marxist. Heck, I had two professors in University who taught Marxist ideas, in West Virginia no less, and they were not what influenced me to become a Marxist; life made me a Marxist. There are many political parties and vanguard parties out in the world who say they are `for the worker` but often they are full of donkey dung and only playing the fool at the king`s feast. There are actual Communist and Red groups in the world today fighting for a better future for the common man and women but usually those groups are not talked about by the right-wing because those groups are actually effecting things in a real and material way; i.e. the Maoist in Nepal as one example. Instead, the right-wing likes to mention what we `commies` like to refer to as `lipstick Communist.`They talk a big game but don`t work toward changing anything. Hollande in France is a good example of that.
Wednesday at 4:18pm
Debby Reagan - Jon...we have an old saying up here in the northeast...when you lay down with dogs that have fleas, chances are quite good that you'll get up with fleas. And so it is with life. So, even though technically true that being around a Marxist doesn't a Marxist make of one, if you have been brought up in your formative years with socialistic views, if you say that a Marxist's socialist beliefs are seared into your brain and has given you the best education of your life, what are the chances that you yourself aren't at least in part, a socialist? Life made Obama an Islamic socialistic sympathizer in the least and a true Islamic socialist at the most. And as far as what "commies" have done for the working man and women, well, I'll leave that for a discussion at a different time, for it is off topic here. But, I will say this much...tell your story of commie helpfulness to the estimated 20 million people killed by Stalin, the 45 million killed by Mao and the 11 million people Hitler killed. Bet they'd all disagree with your viewpoint on that! These 'commies' ruined their countries and it took many years for their people to reconstruct them. So, your kind of change, I'll pass on, tyvm! And as you'll point out, not all 'commies' are the same, so too goes for 'right-wingers'.
Wednesday at 4:52pm ·
Jon Doe - I am a citizen of America. I was born in America and grew up in America. To suggest that someone who does not share your `ideas` should toss away their US citizenship is not only insulting but expresses a sense of fascism which have been brewing in American society for a while now. (NOTE: this was a comment made to another commentator who suggested that Doe should find another country that fits his belief system.) If any president is violating the US Constitution they should be kicked out of office. Yet, where was the right-wing when G.W. was doing many of the exact same things Obama has kept doing? All silent back then as I remember. It was all gun-ho `American is number one!` Now that a different political faction hold the position of president in the `liberal democracy` style of government America practices, the right-wing suddenly starts screaming about violations of the constitution. It is nothing more than bourgeois politics at it`s ugly finest. Sadly, the average American is taken along for the ride every time. If it`s `our guy` then everything is all gravy, but if it is `their guy` then he must be the devil. BTW the phrase `playing semantics` is usually used as a bailing out of dealing with actual material conditions.
Wednesday at 3:31pm
Debby Reagan - And for the record Jon...I was just as upset with Georgie boy when he too turned 'turn coat" and did these things! So, I'm just as appalled by his "socialistic" tendencies. But with that said, he (Bush) was just a wee school boy compared to Obama! Obama is (being conservative here) 10 times worse and is in a vastly different playground altogether from Bush!
Wednesday at 4:52pm
Jon Doe - The US constitution is one of the most interesting docs ever written IMO. It has a lot of good ideas which have never really been fully practiced in America. Religion and politics have always been connected at the hip in America. Try to get elected in America without at least stating that you are a Christian and see what happens. If Americans really want separation of church and state then stop voting for people who profess a belief in a higher power. `All men are created equal` that has never been true in American society. The fourth Amendment, that has never been followed all that closely. The first amendment, just talk to any right-winger for about 15 minutes and one will clearly see how such ideas are viewed by people. I could go on and on and really give detailed case examples of how the US constitution has never really been followed all that closely in the USA.
Wednesday at 4:32pm
Jon Doe - I hate to break it to you but the 'American experiment' was never intended to 'free' anyone. It was a revolution spurred by land owning, slave owning white men who did not want to pay their taxes. Those are the kind of people who founded America. It has been though many struggle, worker and even leftist movements that any strive towards freedom and equality has happened in America at all. The founding principles of America did not give women the right to vote and made slavery legal and protected legally. It is things like what I just mentioned which make the founding principles of America argument hard for a lot of people to follow.
Wednesday at 4:48pm via mobile
Debby Reagan - No Jon...you are wrong. The revolution was in 1776 and started due to King George's taxing the people here but giving them no voice in the political arena over there. What you are referring to is the Civil War. (And, you're wrong about the true reasonof why the Civil War started too!). The 'American Experiment' was coined that after a Frenchman visited America and wrote a book on democracy in America LONG AFTER the pilgrims voyage here. First, we're a Republic, not a democracy and second, the pilgrims who came here didn't consider this an 'experiment'. They came here to escape religious persecution from the Church of England. So yes, it WAS to free people! And these pilgrims did not own slaves. So if you're going to state America's history, then state it correctly. Slavery didn't start in America and was brought to America in 1619. So, by the time our founding fathers made America in 1776, slavery was entrenched. Even though a good number of them owned slaves, not all did. And by vast majority, these slave owning founding fathers exhibited considerable aversion to slavery during the era of the Articles of Confederation (1781–89) by prohibiting the importation of foreign slaves to individual states and lending their support to a proposal by Jefferson to ban slavery in the Northwest Territory. But, the Founders demonstrated their commitment to maintaining the unity of the new United States by resolving to diffuse sectional tensions over slavery. To this end the Founders drafted a series of constitutional clauses acknowledging deep-seated regional differences over slavery while requiring all sections of the new country to make compromises as well. They granted slaveholding states the right to count three-fifths of their slave population when it came to apportioning the number of a state’s representatives to Congress, thereby enhancing Southern power in the House of Representatives. But they also used this same ratio to determine the federal tax contribution required of each state, thus increasing the direct federal tax burden of slaveholding states. Georgians and South Carolinians won a moratorium until 1808 on any Congressional ban against the importation of slaves, but in the meantime individual states remained free to prohibit slave imports if they so wished. Southerners also obtained the inclusion of a fugitive slave clause (see Fugitive Slave Acts) designed to encourage the return of runaway slaves who sought refuge in free states, but the Constitution left enforcement of this clause to the cooperation of the states rather than to the coercion of Congress. So, they did start to end slavery even in the beginning. And it did eventually get done. But the founding fathers considered keeping the states united as a country more important than giving ALL men the freedoms stated in the founding documents. And as far as women's rights from the founding principles...well, that has been more of a sexist problem and has been a worldwide problem since the beginning of time and even though wrong, can't be blamed on the founding fathers as they were a product of their times and had yet to be enlightened. The whole point is though, that eventually, it has worked out. And even though not perfect, it is the best "experiment" of a true Constitutional Republic form of government ever accomplished. And we Republic Constitutionalists want to keep it that way...and constantly striving to become better. That's why your Marxist beliefs, and what the US Government has done to erode this Republic cannot, and will not, be tolerated by us! It is NOT our way and we have the right, as all other countries do, to keep our founding ways and not have to explain why or apologize for it!
Wednesday at 6:00pm
Jon Doe - I have been to DC many times for many different reasons. I have seen all the monuments and read all the cute statements. Yet, the US Constitution says separation of church and state and that has never really been true at all.
Wednesday at 4:34pm
Debby Reagan - Once again Jon...you're wrong. Nowhere in our Constitution does it say that church and state are to be separate. What the 1st Amendment says is: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. And what this means is that this amendment prevents the establishment of a national religion, prohibits government aid to any religion, even on an non-preferential basis, as well as protecting the right of the individual to choose to worship, or not, as he or she sees fit. That's it. Nowhere does it state that the church can't be involved in political affairs and that those in politics can't be involved in church affairs! It only stops the government from religious dictatorship and preference (like what the pilgrims escaped from with the Church of England) and persecuting anyone who thought differently on religious beliefs (or the lack of any beliefs!). The "wall of separation" was written by Thomas Jefferson about what the 1st Amendment was about and the phrase is commonly thought to mean of what was just stated above that the GOVERNMENT itself should not establish, support, or otherwise involve itself in any religion on the behalf of the nation's people.
Thursday, July 4, 2013
Hemp Oil For Cancer, Diabetes And Other Health Problems?
CLICK HERE FOR WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS TO MAKE HEMP OIL
AN EASIER WAY TO MAKE HEMP OIL
Another easy way!
MAKE THE OIL
DOSAGE RECOMMENDATIONS
AN EASIER WAY TO MAKE HEMP OIL
Another easy way!
MAKE THE OIL
DOSAGE RECOMMENDATIONS
Give Me Liberty...Or Give Me Death!
William Wirt, the biographer of Patrick Henry, says that when Henry took his seat, “no murmur of applause was heard. The effect was too deep. After the trance of a moment several members started from their seats. The cry to arms! seemed to quiver on every lip, and gleam from every eye. They became impatient of speech. Their souls were on fire for action.”
We once again as a nation have before us a government that does not heed its people's cry for justice; that has long abused its powers given to it by its people; that violates the founding document upon which all of its members have sworn to protect and uphold, the US Constitution and has also violated its people's unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and our rights under the Bill of Rights without any regard to justice and the rule of law.
So my fellow Americans, when do we too become impatient of speech and cause our souls to be on fire for action?
Wirt, William. Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry .
(Philadelphia) 1836, as reproduced in The World's Great Speeches, Lewis Copeland and Lawrence W. Lamm, eds., (New York) 1973.
We once again as a nation have before us a government that does not heed its people's cry for justice; that has long abused its powers given to it by its people; that violates the founding document upon which all of its members have sworn to protect and uphold, the US Constitution and has also violated its people's unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and our rights under the Bill of Rights without any regard to justice and the rule of law.
So my fellow Americans, when do we too become impatient of speech and cause our souls to be on fire for action?
NO man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony.Sources:
The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason toward my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings. Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those, who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort.
I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy in this quarter of the world to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain.
Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer. Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded, and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne!
In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free—if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending—if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon, until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained—we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak—unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?
Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature has placed in our power. Three millions of people armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, air, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable—and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come!
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace—but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! - Patrick Henry
Wirt, William. Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry .
(Philadelphia) 1836, as reproduced in The World's Great Speeches, Lewis Copeland and Lawrence W. Lamm, eds., (New York) 1973.
Happy Independence Day!
The Star Spangled Banner
By Francis Scott Key 1814
Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
CIA Whistleblower Kiriakou to Snowden: ‘Do not cooperate with the FBI’
The former CIA analyst, John Kiriakou, who spoke out against the CIA's illegal torture program (use of waterboarding as an interrogation tool against suspected terrorists) and for telling the public that torture was official US government policy, wrote an open letter of support just published from behind bars to Edward Snowden.
In a letter dated June 13 and published Tuesday by Firedoglake Kiriakou wrote:
Kiriakou also offered this advice to Snowden:
In a letter dated June 13 and published Tuesday by Firedoglake Kiriakou wrote:
“Thank you for your revelations of government wrongdoing over the past week,” Kiriakou writes. “You have done the country a great public service.”
“I know that it feels like the weight of the world is on your shoulders right now, but as Americans begin to realize that we are devolving into a police state, with the loss of civil liberties that entails, they will see your actions for what they are: heroic.”
Kiriakou also offered this advice to Snowden:
“First, find the best national security attorneys money can buy,” writes Kiriakou. “I was blessed to be represented by legal titans and, although I was forced to take a plea in the end, the shortness of my sentence is a testament to their expertise.”
“Second, establish a website that your supporters can follow your case, get your side of the story and, most importantly, make donations to support your defense.”
“DO NOT, under any circumstances, cooperate with the FBI,” Kiriakou warns. “FBI agents will lie, trick and deceive you. They will twist your words and play on your patriotism to entrap you. They will pretend to be people they are not — supporters, well-wishers and friends — all the while wearing wires to record your out-of-context statements to use against you. The FBI is the enemy; it’s a part of the problem, not the solution.”
“I wish you the very best of luck,” Kiriakou writes before signing off. “I hope you can get to Iceland quickly and safely. There you will find a people and a government who care about the freedoms that we hold dear and for which our forefathers and veterans fought and died.”
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
For Those Of You Who Buy Into The "Our Government Doesn't Want To And Won't Take Your Guns" Lie
In a series of videos, the National Rifle Association has documented the stunning weapons grab by police in New Orleans, assembling videos that show them physically taking weapons from individuals, including one woman who was stunned when officers threw her against her kitchen wall because she had a small handgun for self-defense.
So my questions to you now are:
1) When will the next "emergency" hit your neck of the woods?
2) What will you do when law enforcement officers are as bad as the thugs and act like gestapo officers and force you out of your home, at gun point when there is no need just because they think that your right against illegal and unwarranted search and seizure and to bear arms is just wishful thinking instead of constitutional rights??
3) Do you really think that it can't happen any where else and that this was just a fluke?
4) Can you connect the dots between this, the government stock piling ammo and tanks, and the rush by Obama, Hilliary, Feinstein, Holder and others of their ilk to pass gun bans and see the agenda of our government?
If not, then when they come for you and yours, and this is done to you, don't complain because you have asked for this.
If you do see, then I suggest that you educate yourself on what the government's true agenda is and make sure to not let them become anymore of a police state than what they already are and join in with others to make sure this never happens again!
Herb Titus, a nationally known constitutional attorney and law professor, told WND government’s claim always is that such draconian powers will only be used “in an emergency situation.”
But there are so many “emergencies,” he said, that “all of our rights are in jeopardy.”
“It’s typical of the government to do this, typical of this age. You see the government believes it can make the decision for you better than you can make it for yourself. There’s a lot of this from the Obama administration,” he said.
The result? Government “as our master, rather than servant,” he said. - WND
So my questions to you now are:
1) When will the next "emergency" hit your neck of the woods?
2) What will you do when law enforcement officers are as bad as the thugs and act like gestapo officers and force you out of your home, at gun point when there is no need just because they think that your right against illegal and unwarranted search and seizure and to bear arms is just wishful thinking instead of constitutional rights??
3) Do you really think that it can't happen any where else and that this was just a fluke?
4) Can you connect the dots between this, the government stock piling ammo and tanks, and the rush by Obama, Hilliary, Feinstein, Holder and others of their ilk to pass gun bans and see the agenda of our government?
If not, then when they come for you and yours, and this is done to you, don't complain because you have asked for this.
If you do see, then I suggest that you educate yourself on what the government's true agenda is and make sure to not let them become anymore of a police state than what they already are and join in with others to make sure this never happens again!
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Don't Let The Light Go Out
My fellow Americans....
What is the memory that's valued so highly
That we keep it alive in that flame?
What's the commitment to those who have died
That we cry out they've not died in vain?
We have come this far always believing
That justice would somehow prevail
This is the burden, this is the promise
This is why we will not fail
Don't let the light go out
It's lasted for so many years
Don't let the light go out
Let it shine through our love and our tears
Marriage and DOMA
I really see you people's, who disagree with the Supreme Court's decision, position on DOMA very hypocritical. You say that you want freedom and rights for all Americans, yet when it comes to marriage, you want to define that for ALL Americans based upon your own religious belief/faith and then force down everybody's throats and make them swallow it if they don't believe that that is right for them. You are so religiously narrow minded on this subject that you do not see that this decision by the Supreme Court is NOT supporting gay marriage, but supporting the individual's right to decide a very basic constitutional and unalienable right for themselves, whom to marry and how that'll occur, without interference by anyone.
No one knows the mind of God. There are many religious scripts out in this world and no one can officially stand up and say that they know for absolute surety that they have God's word on matters. All the scripts were written by man, edited, put together, translated etc, by man. Man is flawed and has his own agenda and thus, religious scripts must be taken with advisement.
Besides, it is GOD who is the judge, not man. Each of us will have to stand before our Creator and answer to Him ourselves. So, if we are wrong here, we'll find that out when we stand before Him. It is NOT your job, or anyone else's here to judge anyone's personal choices about whom they should love and how to express that love. God gave each of us the power and right to choose that for ourselves. And as far as I know, He hasn't abdicated His throne to you, or anyone else here on earth to decide that for us.
So, you keep and hold dear your religious faith and beliefs, FOR YOURSELF, and leave the rest of us to OUR OWN, thank you very much! THAT my dear fellow American, is what true sovereignty really is. The ability to decide what is best for one's self in one of the most personal of all personal rights, who to marry and how to define that marriage for one's self.
(And BEFORE I get any messages on this, I'm talking about consenting adult people. So all you sickos who want to argue pedophilia, beastiality and any other unnatural arguments to prop up your religious stand on this issue need not message me!)
No one knows the mind of God. There are many religious scripts out in this world and no one can officially stand up and say that they know for absolute surety that they have God's word on matters. All the scripts were written by man, edited, put together, translated etc, by man. Man is flawed and has his own agenda and thus, religious scripts must be taken with advisement.
Besides, it is GOD who is the judge, not man. Each of us will have to stand before our Creator and answer to Him ourselves. So, if we are wrong here, we'll find that out when we stand before Him. It is NOT your job, or anyone else's here to judge anyone's personal choices about whom they should love and how to express that love. God gave each of us the power and right to choose that for ourselves. And as far as I know, He hasn't abdicated His throne to you, or anyone else here on earth to decide that for us.
So, you keep and hold dear your religious faith and beliefs, FOR YOURSELF, and leave the rest of us to OUR OWN, thank you very much! THAT my dear fellow American, is what true sovereignty really is. The ability to decide what is best for one's self in one of the most personal of all personal rights, who to marry and how to define that marriage for one's self.
(And BEFORE I get any messages on this, I'm talking about consenting adult people. So all you sickos who want to argue pedophilia, beastiality and any other unnatural arguments to prop up your religious stand on this issue need not message me!)
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Rand Paul Basically Says Snowden Is Right
Asked if Snowden is a traitor or a patriot, Rand Paul responds: "History will determine that, and history will probably compare and contrast the national intelligence director who lied to Congress and Mr. Snowden, who actually told the truth about the program. So there is some question.
"It won't be good for Mr. Snowden if he cozies up to countries that at least on the surface are not our friends or don't appear to be. So it depends on how this all plays out, but history will make that judgment." - NEWSMAX
-------------------------------------------------------------
Then I guess Snowden was right to separate himself from the US Government and better not work with them in any way, because today's US Government is definitely NOT our friend! I'll put this as a vote for Snowden as a Patriot by Rand Paul on my tally list.
Friday, June 21, 2013
God Bless The U.S.A.
Many say...that we Americans are no longer free...
Many say...that our government has taken our constitutional rights and have shredded them...
Many say....that we now live in a fascist/communist country.
Well I say...it is our government that is fascist...not my country.....
I say...that as long as Americans believe in freedom...our constitution LIVES....
and I say...that as long as we have even ONE patriot that lives and breathes...the light of FREEDOM exists!
Many say...that our government has taken our constitutional rights and have shredded them...
Many say....that we now live in a fascist/communist country.
Well I say...it is our government that is fascist...not my country.....
I say...that as long as Americans believe in freedom...our constitution LIVES....
and I say...that as long as we have even ONE patriot that lives and breathes...the light of FREEDOM exists!
I'm ONE patriot! How many more are out there?
SHARE this to show the world how many there are!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)