Wars that the Democrats have started or gotten America involved in.

Harry Truman (Democrat) dawn of the muslim brotherhood

Black Republican http://s1.zetaboards.com/Express_Yourself/topic/4225164/1/

If you listen to the Democrats talk, you would think that they were Saints. Well I’m going to name some Wars that the Democrats have started or gotten America involved in.

1. Democrat got America in the Vietnam War.
A. Democrat President John Kennedy sent money and advisors to South Vietnam.
B. Democrat president Lyndon Johnson sent American troops into Vietnam.
C. 2 Million people died in the Vietnam war.
4. 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam, and another 350,000 were injured.

democrat wars  Democrat got America in the Vietnam War.

Democrats got America involved in the Korean war.
A. It was Democrat president Harry Truman that sent Americans to fight in the Korean war.
B. 33,000 Americans were killed in that war.

3. Democrats used nuclear weapons on Japan.
A. It was Democrat president Harry Truman that dropped 2 nuclear bombs on Japan killing innocent women and children, killing over 200,000 innocent civilians.

 

Harry Truman (Democrat)  harry truman that dropped 2 nuclear bombs on innocent women and children in japan

Harry Truman (Democrat)

worldwar1 Democrat president Woodrow Wilson that got America involved in World War 1.

  1. Democrats got America involved in World War 1. A. It was Democrat president Woodrow Wilson that got America involved in World War 1. B. 37 million people died in that war.C. 117,000 Americans were killed in that war.

united-states-national-cemetery Democrat president Franklin Roosevelt that got America involved in World War 2.

Democrats got America involved in World War 2. A. It was Democrat president Franklin Roosevelt that got America involved in World War 2. B. 70 million people died in that war. C. 406,000 Americans died in that war.

bay of pigs time magazine6. Democrats started the Bay of Pigs. A. It was Democrat president John F Kennedy that started the Bay of Pigs, which was a war against Cuba

A Libyan rebel prays next to his gun on the outskirts of Ajdabiya Democrat president Barack Obama that bombed Libya 7. Democrats bombed Libya.
A. It was Democrat president Barack Obama that bombed Libya killing 1000’s of innocent women and children.

Hillary more of the same.jpg 2It appears that Hillary Clinton was getting personally briefed on the battlefield crimes of her beloved anti-Gaddafi fighters long before some of the worst of these genocidal crimes took place.

The most well-documented example of Tawergha an entire town of 30,000 black and “dark -skinned” Libyans which vanished by August 2011 after its takeover by NATO-backed NTC Misratan brigades.

 Hillary’s Dirty War in Libya: New Emails Reveal Propaganda, Executions, Coveting Libyan Oil and Gold

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Donald Trump Foreign relations and America’s role in the world

Trump is, articulating a coherent vision of international relations and America’s role in the world.

donald_trump_flag.jpg 2.jpg

David Sanger and Maggie Haberman capture it well here is a portion of their lengthy New York Times interview with Trump:

“In Mr. Trump’s worldview, the United States has become a diluted power, and the main mechanism by which he would re-establish its central role in the world is economic bargaining. He approached almost every current international conflict through the prism of a negotiation, even when he was imprecise about the strategic goals he sought.” The United States, Trump believes, has been “disrespected, mocked, and ripped off for many, many years by people that were smarter, shrewder, tougher. We were the big bully, but we were not smartly led. And we were … the big stupid bully, and we were systematically ripped off by everybody.”

Trump hasn’t the slightest objection to being perceived as a bully, but he doesn’t want to be ripped off. Thus, he says, he’d be willing to stop buying oil from the Saudis if they don’t get serious about fighting the Islamic State; limit China’s access to U.S. markets if Beijing continues its expansionist policies in the South China Sea; and discard America’s traditional alliance — from NATO to the Pacific — partners if they won’t pull their own weight.

To those who criticize his apparent contradictions, his vagueness about his ultimate strategic objectives, or his willingness to make public threats, he offers a simple

and Machiavellian response: “We need unpredictability.” To Trump, an effective negotiator plays his cards close to his chest: He doesn’t let anyone know his true bottom line, and he always preserves his ability to make a credible bluff. (Here it is, from the transcript of his conversation with the New York Times: “You know, if I win, I don’t want to be in a position where I’ve said I would or I wouldn’t [use force to resolve a particular dispute].… I wouldn’t want to say. I wouldn’t want them to know what my real thinking is.”)

Trump has little time for either neoconservatives or liberal interventionists; he thinks they allow their belief in American virtue to blind them to both America’s core interests and the limits of American power.

He has even less time for multilateralist diplomats: They’re too willing to compromise, trading away American interests in exchange for platitudes about friendship and cooperation.

And he has no time at all for those who consider long-standing U.S. alliances

sacrosanct. To Trump, U.S. alliances, like potential business partners in a real-estate transaction, should always be asked: “What have you done for me lately?”

In his inimitable way, Trump is offering a powerful challenge to many of the core assumptions of Washington’s bipartisan foreign-policy elite. And if mainstream Democrats and Republicans want to counter Trump’s appeal, they need to get serious about explaining why his vision of the world isn’t appropriate — and they need to do so without merely falling back on tired clichés.

The Tired clichés roll easily off the tongue:

U.S. alliances and partnerships are vital. NATO is a critical component of U.S. security.

Forward-deployed troops in Japan and South Korea are vital to assurance and deterrence.

We need to maintain good relations with Saudi Arabia. And so on. How do we know these things? Because in Washington, everyone who’s anyone knows these things.

But this is pure intellectual and ideological laziness.

Without more specificity, these truisms of the Washington foreign-policy elite are just pablum.

Why, exactly, does the United States need to keep troops in Japan, or Germany, or Kuwait? Would the sky really fall if the United States had fewer forward-deployed troops? What contingencies are we preparing for? Who and what are we deterring, and how do we know if it’s working?

Who are we trying to reassure? What are the financial and opportunity costs? Do the defense treaties and overseas bases that emerged after World War II still serve U.S. interests? Which interests? How?

Does a U.S. alliance with the Saudis truly offer more benefits than costs?

What bad things would happen if we shifted course, taking a less compromising stance toward “allies” who don’t offer much in return?

Questions like these are legitimate and important, and it’s reasonable for ordinary Americans to be dissatisfied by politicians and pundits who make no real effort to offer answers.

Trump’s vision of the world — and his conception of statecraft — it reflects a fairly coherent theory of international relations. It’s realist, transactional, and Machiavellian — and it demands a serious, thoughtful, and nondefensive response.

If those in the foreign-policy community can’t be bothered to offer one, a “TRUMP” sign on the White House may be better than we deserve.

Share +

Hillary more of the same.jpg 2Tired clichés

 

 

 

 

 

The goal Democrat amnesty supporters is not to bring 11 million illegal immigrants humanely “out of the shadows,” but to turn them into voters.

rubio gang og 8

breitbart.com

A Politico cover story perfectly encapsulates the bizarre, insular world of the D.C. political establishment. The article purports to take readers behind the scenes of the strategic machinations of the Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) campaign

It is a fairly basic rule of thumb that campaign staffs should always make political stories about the candidate, not themselves. Barely 100 words into the story, however, the reader introduced to no fewer than three top aides to Rubio. Worse, the story is devoted to chronicling an allegedly brilliant trap the three had set for one of Rubio’s rivals.

Obviously, staff have a large role in developing and executing a campaign, but publicly this should always be subordinate to the candidate. Did the staff who leaked this story want to profile Marco Rubio or themselves?

Read the article, you’ll learn that was a rhetorical question.

Most political campaigns are surrounded by people who seek the limelight for themselves. On its own, this Politico story is part of a sad legacy of campaign advisors who try to use an election to raise their own personal profile.

This article, though, creates an entirely new chapter of the genre because it chooses to highlight a strategy that can only be described as inane. The “trap” supposedly hatched by the Rubio staff was to pick an arcane fight over technicalities of a bill that itself represents an existential threat to Rubio’s candidacy.

One of the biggest obstacles to Marco Rubio winning the Republican nomination was his decision to co-sponsor the infamous “Gang of 8” immigration reform bill. Written primarily by Sens. Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer, the legislation provided a quick path to amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants with the barest fig-leaf of border protections far into the future.

Rubio took the lead on the effort just months after President Obama won reelection, at a time that the D.C. Republican party establishment was desperate to enact some kind of immigration reform. It represented a complete misreading of the public and, especially, the Republican base.

Just over a year later, Republicans would thunder into a Senate Majority, largely by campaigning against the very amnesty provisions contained in Rubio’s bill.

Recognizing that the amnesty legislation currently represents a challenge to Rubio’s ambitions, the Rubio campaign staff, according to Politico, has chosen to actually use this legislation against one of his chief rivals, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)

. Their “smoking gun” was an amendment to the Gang of 8 bill proposed by Cruz that would have allowed legalizing illegal immigrants but permanently blocked them from becoming citizens.

Politico sets the scene in Rubio’s headquarters when Cruz said during the most recent debate that he didn’t support legalization:

In that moment, Rubio campaign manager Terry Sullivan, top adviser Todd Harris and communications director Alex Conant recognized what they’d accomplished because they’d been planning this exchange all along. Not only had Cruz just contradicted his own statements from 2013, he’d used words that gave them the opening they had been wanting to turn their rival’s anti-establishment narrative on its head.

So, Rubio’s “trap” for Cruz was to compare his stated position to a hostile legislative amendment filed to a proposal he was opposing.

“This was an attempt by Cruz to kill the  Amnesty bill,” Sen. Chuck Schumer, co-author of the Gang of Eight bill said of Cruz’s amendment. “And there was no doubt at the time that Senator Cruz knew it would do exactly that.”

What Cruz understands is that the goal of Sens. Schumer, Durbin and other Democrat amnesty supporters is not to bring 11 million illegal immigrants humanely “out of the shadows,” but to turn them into voters.

Cruz’s amendment exposed that truth.

The particularly inane part of the Rubio staff’s strategy is that they are choosing to focus on complicated, inside-baseball legislative machinations around legislation that was sponsored by Rubio and hated by an overwhelming majority of Republicans.

Rubio’s campaign ought to focus on foreign policy and try to forget the Senator ever embraced amnesty in the first place. When the chief opponent of Rubio’s amnesty legislation, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) 80% publicly lists Cruz as an ally against amnesty, no one, other than a Politico reporter, is going to take seriously Rubios campaign’s spin.

If anything, the entire episode simply reminds Republican voters that Marco

Rubio did team up with Sens. Schumer and Durbin to push amnesty legislation.

In the 1980 primary, Ronald Reagan’s primary challenges tried to argue that he had supported tax hikes in the past or had been pro-choice on abortion. These weren’t really true, but rather based on creative reading of past legislative debates. Voters didn’t buy it, no matter how clever the challengers, or their staffs, tried.

Rubio’s weird attempt to blunt his own record on amnesty by claiming that Cruz at one time supported something like it seems equally doomed to fail.

Pollster Frank Luntz reported that Ted Cruz scored the highest positive ratings during the Las Vegas debate. Cruz didn’t really have any of the memorable zingers or one-liners that political pundits dissect. What he did have was composure and confidence, at a time that much of the public is filled with anxiety.

ted cruz bst flag

That anxiety is fueled in no small part by a feeling that the political class in Washington is out of touch and almost inhabits an alternate universe. A universe where a campaign to be the leader of the free world leaks its internal strategy deliberations to Politico.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/18/marco-rubio-staff-leak-inane-strategy-politico/

 

 

 

Politicians Putting The Squeeze On The Elderly and Middle Class

206165_453413278032501_108773658_n

As the growth of tax revenue has slowed, states have faced tensions over whether to raise taxes or cut spending to balance their budgets as required by law.

“Rising income inequality is not just a social issue,” said Gabriel Petek, the S&P credit analyst who wrote A report for msn money.. “It presents a very significant set of challenges for the policymakers.”

The Blood Sucking Politicians at the Local Level  are blaming it on income inequality. Never mentioning it was created by Politicians and our Federal Government.  Now they want more taxes which will again decimate the Elderly and middle class.

Stagnant pay for  people has compounded the pressure on states to preserve funding for education highways and social programs.

 Their investments in education and infrastructure ??   have also fueled economic growth. ?? What!  Yet we are told they’re at risk without a strong flow of tax revenue.?? Local Governments have been given our Tax Dollars for infrastructure for 40 years or more and they have spent it on social programs to help them stay elected.

We already pay more than any country in the world for education with zero results.  And how about Obamas ,Bush, Bill Clinton and Hillary’s  Open Border policy creating more mouths to educate, house, cloth, and feed. And guess who pays! You the voter and, the old time Democrats who they have convinced must pay more tax’s to save your Social Security. Already most young people are not aware you paid into Social Security during a life time of hard work sometime at two jobs.

obamacare truck fixedDebbie Wasserman Schultz wants Floridians to believe a lie. Wasserman Schultz wants you to believe some people (religious conservatives, of course) are trying to block women’s access to routine health care. But nobody is. – See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/amy-ridenour/2014/04/01/rep-debbie-wasserman-schultz-tells-four-lies-one-sentence.

Hillary is the war on women says kathleen wiley  Hillary is the “War on Woman”

In Florida,  Progressive  Democrats frighten Seniors into obeying their voting instructions. And spent millions running a proven fool Charlie Christ against A successful Governor.

A List of Liberal Lies and the Truth
1. Count Every Vote– This was the mantra of the Al Gore campaign after the 2000 presidential election, when they were hand counting votes in 3 highly Democratic counties, while at the same time trying to disqualify military votes. In effect they were trying to change the rules of the election after the election had taken place, which violated federal election law. A liberal Florida Supreme Court ruled in the favor of the Gore Campaign until the U.S. Supreme Court put a stop to it. To this very day, liberals actually believe George Bush stole the election.

2. There is a vast right wing conspiracy- There is a far right wing in the Republican Party, but it is a small fringe element. However, there is a far left wing in this country and it is a large part of the main stream of the Democratic party. Remember when Hillary Clinton went on the Today Show and responded to the allegation of an affair between her husband (President Clinton) and an intern (Monica Lewinsky) as untrue and blamed it on a Right Wing Conspiracy? Over the past ten years Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Mario Cuomo, Richard Gephardt and Jesse Jackson have been the loudest and most influential voices in the Democratic party. Are any of these people Moderates? Also please note, there is a liberal bias in the media. You might make the argument that there is a vast left wing conspiracy.

Hillary more of the same

3. This is a tax break for the rich- This is class warfare at it’s finest. If a person earning $40,000 a year gets a 10% tax reduction and a person earning $1,000,000 per year gets a 1% tax reduction- the person earning $1,000,000 will get a much greater tax break. Tom Daschle and Richard Gephardt once stood next to a car in front of the Capital Building holding up a muffler. They made a statement that a proposed George Bush tax cut would allow the rich to buy a new car and the average American to buy a muffler. This is a strategy Democrats use on every Republican proposed tax cut. They stop everyone from getting a reduction in their taxes by using class warfare. Please note, tax reductions are not an entitlement program.

4. There is no liberal bias in the media- For close to 50 years the news in America was controlled by ABC, NBC and CBS. In the last 20 years CNN came on to the scene. This is pretty much comparable to the BBC in Europe and AL Jazzera in the Arab world today. It was in the last 6 years when Fox News and other cable news networks were born to give a more balanced approach to news analysis. However, if you look at the major networks today, they are still run by the left. . In print media there is the Los Angeles Times in California, The New York Times in New York and The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Georgia. These have been the major newspapers in our most populous cities for many years and their reporting has a liberal bias.

5. Republicans want to cut school lunch programs- This was the attack leveled by Democrats against the Republicans during a budget battle in 1995. Democrats proposed a double digit increase in funding for school lunch programs, while Republican proposed a more modest increase. To put this in perspective, you must ask this question. How many people get a double digit increase in their pay each year? Democrats called the Republican proposal a cut and charged they wanted to starve children, because the proposal was less than what Democrats proposed. Please note, the Republican proposal called for an increase in funding. The media printed the story, never challenging it, even though it was not true. This became famous for when does an increase become a cut- only in Washington DC.

6. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky- We all know the truth here. There is nothing to be added- except that it was not a vast right wing conspiracy.

7. Republicans are mean spirited and want to throw the poor out on the street- This was a charge leveled by Democrats against Republicans when they proposed time limits for receiving welfare. Polls show that the majority of Americans believe in time restrictions for welfare recipients. Republicans know that to escape poverty it takes education, hard work and discipline. The greatness of this country rests in its freedom and that within one generation a person can rise from poverty to obtain great wealth. Allowing endless dependency on an entitlement program has trapped many in poverty. Why would Democrats want to keep anyone dependent on an entitlement program like welfare?      How many people on welfare vote Republican?  shocked

8. I support the military- It has been well documented that when it comes to voting for military funding- liberals would much rather spend money on social programs. First you must understand their rational. Approximately 10% of the population in the United States is poor, which is about 30 million Americans. There are approximately one million Americans serving in the military. If only 1 in 5 of the poor vote, that equals about six million votes as compared to one million votes from the military. There are two relevant questions here. What percent of the poor vote Republican? How close was the 2000 Presidential Election? This leads directly to the answer of why would liberals rather appropriate money to social programs than to the defense of our country. Please note, the defense of our country is a primary, if not the primary responsibility of our government. If we don’t protect the country, we may not have a country or our freedom.

9. Privatizing social security is risky. Contribute $300 a month to Social Security and you may get $1,800 a month when you retire. Sound like a good deal? There was a story about Dick Gephardt’s mother living on Social Security and having numerous checks she had written returned for insufficient funds. Gephardt politicized the event by stating that this was an example of why Social Security should not be privatized, because if it were not for Social Security his mother would have been much worse off.

Please note that the S & P 500 has returned more than 10% over it’s lifetime. Therefore- if you invested $300 a month in an S & P 500 mutual fund for 40 years at the end of that time (enter these numbers into any compound interest calculator) you would have approximately 2 million dollars (Please note that these are conservative numbers). This means you could withdraw almost $200,000 or 10 percent a year and never exhaust your money. Break that down and it is $20, 000 a month. Social Security does not sound so good any longer.

Please be advised that the key to obtaining wealth is systematically investing for the long term. There is no quick sure fire scheme to getting rich. If Gephardt’s mother had been investing in mutual funds her entire life instead of Social Security- she would have been much better off at the present. Also, please be advised that privatizing Social Security helps the poor the more than anyone. The rich invest money in 401K plans. The poor, the clerk at a convenience store or a customer service representative doesn’t have excess funds to invest and so their only investment vehicle is Social Security.

10. Trickle down economics does not work– Money in the hands of people stimulates the economy, whether they are rich or poor. The problem- how to you put money in the hands of the poor? Transfer of more wealth from the rich to the poor each year? This would only create greater dependency on entitlements and give lessen the incentive to achieve. Give the poor greater tax cuts? You can only cut the taxes for the poor by so much, because they don’t pay much in taxes.

When Tom Daschle said that the result of a proposed Bush tax cut would mean that a rich person would be able to buy a new car, without realizing it, he proved the theory of Trickle Down Economics. The person selling that car would generate income that he would otherwise not have had. Please note that if that person sells enough cars, he will gain wealth. If tax rates in this county were at 75% what would happen to the economy? The answer is that no one would have money to spend on anything except housing and food. The result would be that businesses everywhere would fail, because no one would have money to buy clothes, electronics, entertainment, repairs for their homes or cars, go on vacation….. If they did buy such things, they would have to go in to debt to do so. How would this help the working class or the poor? Please note the average taxpayer, pays roughly 50% of their income in taxes.

liberals are for tax hikes and against tax cuts. The only thing that helps the working class is a strong economy. It gives the average worker more freedom and more bargaining power. When the financial sector was booming from 1987 through 1989, workers were getting bonuses, overtime and stock options. When the financial sector suffered a downturn in 1990, it trickled down. There were no more bonuses, overtime, stock options and there were layoffs.

         emoticon-animal-032.gif Rat        And the biggest Lie  “There is no Death Panel”  

Dr. David Janda explains rationing

Dr. Janda was the keynote speaker at a congressional dinner at the Capitol Building in Washington on Friday, July 17, 2010. As he began his prepared speech, he said, “It should be clear that the same warning notice must be placed on the Obamacare Plan as on a pack of cigarettes: Consuming this product will be hazardous to your health.””The underlying method of cutting costs throughout the plan is based on rationing and denying care.

The plan’s method is the most inhumane and unethical approach to cutting costs I can imagine as a physician.”

The rationing of care is implemented through the National Health Care Board according to this plan. This illustrious board ‘will approve or reject treatment based on the cost per treatment divided by the number of years the patient will benefit from the treatment.’ Translation—if you are over 65 or have been recently diagnosed as having an advanced for of cardiac disease or aggressive cancer, dream on if you think you will get treated. Pick out your coffin. Dr. Janda’s words, not mine.

Oh—you think this could never happen? Sorry…this is the same model they use in Britain

large group we wont take it any moreToday hospitals and health care facilities are required to ask patients if they have a living will or lose government funding! The question is proposed in such a way to create pressure on patients so that they think it is something good, desirable and necessary. “Do you know that you have a right in the state of Minnesota to possess a living will??        smiley-shocked028

Please remember that the living will targets you for euthanasia by denying you medical treatment. Living wills kill: they do not protect you. Instead, I urge you to obtain a copy of “The Protective Medical Decisions Document” (PMDD) from the International Anti-Euthanasia Task Force,   P.O. Box 756, Steubenville, Ohio 43952. Ph: 740-282-3810. Sign it and keep it among your records.

Egyptian Democratic Coalition Responds to Obama

evil face 2

The National Salvation Front, a coalition of pro-democratic and secular parties in Egypt, set out its objections to remarks made by President Barack Obama Thursday on the escalating violence in Egypt.

Led by Ahmed Said of the Free Egyptians Party, the group issued the following letter:

“Like most Egyptians, we listened with attention to your statement on Egypt’s latest developments. As representatives of the non-Islamic political forces in Egypt, we believe in the same fundamental values on which the U.S. was founded. Be we also have 7,000 years of civilization and history that give us a special identity that we are fighting to keep since the Muslim Brotherhood came to power.

“Let us first inform you about who the Muslim brothers are: They’re an unlawful organization operating outside the realm of Egyptian law, receiving foreign funding and laundering money in a flagrant breech of international law. Their aim is to rule the world through a so-called Islamic Caliphate as they believe in their absolute supremacy.

“They pretend they are God’s emissaries and they will not rest until they have forced the whole world into submission. For them, Egypt is the launching pad to achieve their fascist dream. Their international reach spans the globe and they command the hearts and minds of many unsuspecting politicians. They have used deceit, soft speeches, international funds and whenever required, violence, to impose their will.

“The rule of (deposed President Mohammed) Morsi showed how in less than a year they abused the people, reneged on their promises and overturned the rule of law by issuing constitutional diktats monopolizing the judiciary as well as the legislative arms of the state. This was enough to impeach any president in a democratic nation. Unfortunately, Egyptians couldn’t refer to their Supreme Sourt as it was besieged by thugs for over 60 days back in November of 2012.

“So finally, Egyptians took to the streets and this century’s second Egyptian ‘peaceful unarmed’ revolution took place in June 2013 to recall the president and reject the rule of the Brotherhood. Egyptians deposed their president not because he was not inclusive, as you so kindly represented, but because he broke his constitutional oath and became another dictator reminiscent of the previous dictator this same great people of Egypt removed in January 2011. This was the will of the people that the West is now trying to bend pretending they are doing so in the name of democracy with no intention of interfering in Egyptian affairs!

“Now, I would like to address a few points in your address:

“Despite the perception, well-intentioned or ill-intentioned, history will tell of a Western media consistently portraying only one side — the Islamist’s
. We have to let you know some facts and some truth.

“Since July 3, 2013, the day deposed President Morsi was ousted by popular demand of millions of Egyptians, the Western media and prominent emissaries from the U.S. and Europe have consistently described the sit-ins that paralyzed a large part of Cairo as ‘peaceful demonstrations.’ They chose to ignore what was happening across Egypt from torching churches and killing randomly and destroying private and public properties.

“Mr. President, peaceful demonstrators do not have the capacity to kill more than 50 police personnel in just a few hours.

“Peaceful demonstrators do not attack a police station with RPG and kill the police chief and his deputies, strip them of their clothes and drag their naked bodies down the street.

“Peaceful demonstrators do not threaten Christians with genocide as many of the Muslim Brotherhood declared in hate speeches from the sit-in stage. Peaceful demonstrators do not raise the black flags of al-Qaida while marching with pictures of bin Laden and al Zawahri on their chests.

“While the Western media was focusing yesterday on the clearing of the sit-ins, more than 45 attacks were made on Christian installations across Egypt, resulting in the torching of 19 churches and cathedrals, some built in the 6th Century.

“The list goes on, but your intelligence reports will enlighten you, we are sure. The attached video here will also give you an idea.

“Mr. President, it is important that you see reality, especially that the great American people have themselves suffered from the darkness of Islamists and unfortunately thousands of great Americans died from their terror.

“The Muslim Brotherhood and their jihadist allies have never known and will never know peace. It might be useful to remind you that these same people had a three-week sit-in that started on the next dawn after election day and lasted almost two weeks to declare that they will burn Egypt if their candidate is not declared the winner.

“Mr. President, we are on the side of freedom, we are on the side of human rights. We are on the side of justice for all. We also hurt to see mothers mourn their children and children mourn their parents. Have you seen, Mr. President, the video clip of the Muslim Brotherhood supporter throwing 14-year-old children off the roof of a six-floor building? One mother died of sorrow when she saw the video clip of her son thrown off the building. She did not have time to mourn.

“Today Mr. President, you chose to consider one side of the picture and to punish the Egyptians by cancelling Operation Bright Star. Well Mr. President, Operation Bright Star means nothing to most Egyptians, but it is the misunderstanding and misleading of the American people that we care most about. Egyptians have always stood by the American people when attacked by terrorists because we are freedom lovers and individual liberty champions like the American people. The only difference is that we have always been deprived of these great principles and rights.

“Is it too much for Egyptians today to have the support of the American people during our own war on terror? How can the same group be named terrorists in the U.S.A. and peaceful demonstrators in Egypt?

“How can these be the ones the U.S.A. will never negotiate with while the U.S. government demands that Egyptians not only negotiate with them but also partner with them in the building of modern Egypt?

Urgent:

Is Obama Telling the Truth on IRS, Benghazi Scandals?

“Mr. President, the interest of peace in the region is served best by truly peace-loving people and democratic values.

Finally, Mr. President, we hope that this letter will get your attention for, after all, we are now representing the majority. Our present government represents us, the secular, civil and liberal political forces. We hope that you will find it of value to probe more and investigate more and ask more. When you do, we are ready to come to you in a small delegation and discuss and explain more. We are sure that you will realize that, after all, Egyptians are indeed a great people deserving a great future.”

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Ahmed-Said-Obama-Egypt/2013/08/16/id/520880?s=al&promo_code=14907-1#ixzz2cNuCn8eu

 

 

 

 

 

This Could Be The Single Largest Election Purchase In Our Lifetimes,And The Largest Redistribution of Wealth In History

When President Obama took office, he instructed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to begin buying up foreclosed homes. According to Stimulus Package Details, Fannie received another $200 billion influx of cash from the Stimulus Package.

According to Reuters, Fannie received an additional $8.5 billion to continue snatching up foreclosures in May of 2010. At the time, Rush predicted that President Obama’s end game was to turn all of the assets owned by Fannie & Freddie into Government Housing.

This past August, Hot Air.com chronicled details of the faltering mortgage giant receiving another $5.1 billion cash infusion from the Obama administration. Furthermore, the Associated Press reported that the Obama administration quietly announced that it was planning to turn the estimated 250,000 foreclosed homes that have been purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into Government Rental Housing.

President Obama could effectively nationalize the housing industry, making the Federal Government the largest landlord in the world, and completing the largest redistribution of wealth in history.

Foreclosing a home and allowing the current owner to rent at below-market rates would create another huge class of people receiving government benefits. or lowering mortgage rates for the poor.

With the expansion in food stamps, Obamacare and so forth the goal of the Left is clearly to get as large a percentage of the American people beholden to the government as possible as a preparatory step to his fundamental change.

So, everyone’s property taxes increase. Or services are forced to be cut. The municipality is forced to request State or Federal help.It is diabolical and I mean that word in its literal sense.

There’s another agenda here. Get Holder’s people from the ghetto to the burbs and then sit back and watch the havoc they create. More chaos to take advantage of.

Jaret Seiberg of the Washington Research Group:” a think tank bunch “To us, the most important takeaway from a recess appointment of Cordray is that the President could use this same maneuver to put a housing advocate in charge of FHFA.” Federal Housing Finance Agency.

“And why is that important? The Federal Housing Finance Agency is the regulator and conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And the FHFA currently has an acting director, Edward DeMarco. If Obama replaces him with a ‘housing advocate’ via the same recess appointment process, here’s what might happen next, according to Seiberg:

Those people that went to the town hall meeting shortly after Obama was elected, inaugurated, saying, “Where’s my car? Where’s my new kitchen?” Obama is gonna say, “Here is your house! I have made it possible for you to stay in and afford your house.”

So it won’t matter who the Republican nominee is. It won’t matter whether our nominee says the government is screwed or not or we’re screwed. None of that stuff will matter. The polling data won’t matter. This will be the single largest election purchase in our lifetimes, and it coincidences with defense department cuts and so forth. So the bottom line is: It’s a political and economic gaining changer in a presidential election year.

It’s an election year and all that’s going to be reported is the intention. The compassionate intention of Obama to help people who have been screwed by predatory lenders to make their mortgages affordable. Whether it ever happens or not will be irrelevant in terms of the impact on the campaign. The way it will be reported is, “Obama cares!”

His intentions. His big-heartedness. “He wants to help.” And, if it doesn’t happen, you go to the old reliable: You blame the Republicans for standing in the way of it.

Obama’s Coup to Overthrow the Constitution * Read His Own Words

Obama creating a societal crisis which opens the door for his socialist revolution.

Obama openly complained that his job would be so much easier if he were President of China, able to issue orders without media scrutiny or challenges from other branches of government.

In July, he once again admitted that he found the idea of bypassing congress and the constitutional separation of powers “tempting”.

Only wannabe dictators find the idea of unilaterally implementing once’s will and whims without accountability “tempting”. Obama never talks about the constitutional limits placed on his power but with disgust, as in, “sorry I haven’t been able to implement the utopian agenda as quickly as I want, but that pesky constitution and the other two branches of government have been getting in my way.”

Obama wasn’t the only one expressing such sentiments. During the debt ceiling debate, several Democrats insisted that Obama should raise the debt limit by Executive fiat, falsely claiming that the 14th Amendemnt gives the Executive branch the power to ignore the debt ceiling imposed by congress.

In September, North Carolina Governor Beverly Perdue floated the idea of suspending the 2012 elections so congress could make whatever decisions they felt necessary without worrying about accountability to the voters.

Obama’s former director of the Office of Management and Budget Peter Orszag echoed the suggestion, saying:

…we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic.

Lee DeCovnick warned at American Thinker:

…this was not a mistake, and the mask was purposefully and deliberately allowed to slip. This is classic Alinsky; the forbidden idea enters the public discussion, the liberal experts and analysts seriously debate the horror as if it were a reasonable, the public becomes increasingly insensitive to the outrageous nature of the idea, more experts add their weight to the idea, and suddenly a horror becomes cutting edge, an acceptable option for the elites to foist on the masses.

Though he had abused Executive orders in the past, Obama began seriously setting the stage for going around congress and imposing his agenda by Executive fiat during the “jobs bill” debate in September.

When the bill failed to pass in October, Obama declared that the American people “won’t take ‘no’ for an answer” and began pushing ahead to implement key portions without congressional authorization.

On the 24th, he announced his plan to abuse Executive orders to bypass congress on mortgage refinancing and student loans, calling congress “dysfunctional” and declaring that “we can’t wait.”

One News Now reported that Bill Wilson, president of Americans for Limited Government, was offering serious warnings about Obama’s behavior:

“The president now has decided that he can operate through executive order, without Congress…It’s particularly disturbing when you look at the fact that now, for three weeks, his key supporters and backers — including elected officials — have been urging him to basically ignore Congress and rule by decree.”

Wilson concludes by saying that as the president begins his “rule-by-decree tour” around the western United States, it will be important for watchdogs in Congress to ensure that he does not overstep his constitutional authority in a “wild attempt to gain votes.”

Columnist John Rossomando urged congress to grow a spine and “check our out-of-control president,” to no avail.

On October 25th, Obama announced:

…we can’t wait for an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to do its job. Where they won’t act, I will. I’ve told my administration to keep looking every single day for actions we can take without Congress…and we’re going to be announcing these executive actions on a regular basis.

He immediately issued several more Executive orders designed to bypass congress.

Unfortunately, House Speaker John Boehner seemed to view Obama’s abuses as a joke, telling radio talk show host Laura Ingraham:

“This idea that you’re just going to go around the Congress is just, it’s almost laughable.”

It wasn’t laughable. It’s DANGEROUS. When Obama couldn’t get “Card Check” through congress, he used the NLRB to advance the Big Labor agenda. When the people’s representatives rejected “Cap and Trade,” he turned the EPA into a channel for imposing the environmentalist agenda via regulatory fiat. When the DREAM Act failed, Obama began implementing it anyway by Executive order.

It’s becoming frighteningly clear how Obama treats the constitution he considers “flawed” when it gets in the way of all the things he believes that government should provide (at the expense of the rule of law and our liberties).

In November, Obama ramped up his “We Can’t Wait” campaign in earnest, testing a usurpation of the Legislative branch’s role of imposing taxes by trying to issue a tax from the Executive branch (which he later retracted).

Two weeks later, he issued another Executive order to spend $1 Billion dollars on expanding the healthcare workforce.

In December, Obama signed a spending bill and then unilaterally discarded whatever parts of it he didn’t like.

As 2012 began, the Associated Press reported:

Obama’s re-election year will focus almost exclusively on executive action.

…Obama will come out with at least two or three directives per week, continuing the “We Can’t Wait” campaign the administration began this fall, and try to define Republicans in Congress as gridlocked and dysfunctional.

Whatever Obama and his media parrots like to claim, the truth is that Congress was and is not “dysfunctional.” It’s working exactly as our founders designed it to. What Obama calls “gridlock” is actually what is known as “constitutional checks and balances.” Our founders designed the separation of powers in our federal government precisely for such a time as this, for such a tyrant as this, if only the Legislative and Judicial branches had the spine to assert their constitutional authority and hold the Executive branch in check.

Unfortunately, the impotent response Obama has received thus far has only emboldened him.

Barely a week into the new year, Obama defied the constitution to make ‘Recess Appointments’ while that Senate was still in session, including three appointments to the NLRB who are tasked with shoring up union support for Obama in 2012 by any means necessary, such as forced unionization to increase membership and dues which can be put towards campaign contributions.

Americans for Prosperity VP Phil Kerpen warns at PJ Media that Obama’s reelection strategy is to bypass congress and trample the Constitution:

…the Obama election strategy for election 2012 is to act as if election 2010 never happened, disregard the Republicans in Congress, and put the full force of the federal executive apparatus to work towards his reelection.

Eric Holder’s Justice Department is already blocking state voter ID laws from going into effect and preventing voter fraud.

Obama is bypassing congress to relax immigration laws so that ACORN will have as many illegal voters to recruit as possible.

There are rumors that Obama is preparing to bribe middle class voters with a massive mortgage refinancing program – by Executive order, of course. The agenda echos historical predecessors who enticed citizens into more dependency on a benevolent dictator.

Obama is deliberately implementing the Cloward-Piven strategy he learned as a “community organizer” for ACORN: hasten the fall of capitalism by recruiting so many people into government entitlement programs that the overloaded welfare state collapses under a flood of impossible demands, thus creating a societal crisis which opens the door for a socialist revolution.

There will continue to be more blatant constitutional violations, power grabs, bribes and illegal appointments as long as congress does nothing.

Steve McCann warns at American Thinker that Obama’s actions are eerily reminiscent of the World War II’s European despots he lived through:

I had to survive a war that was precipitated by those who were initially elected by the people in a democratic fashion. Yet once in power, they began to systematically usurp and overthrow the rule of law. Their lust for power led them to shred any written constitution or traditions as they systematically imposed new regulations, laws, and executive orders geared primarily to centralize authority in the government as individual rights and liberties were extinguished. In due course, they and their cronies became the government, as the people were powerless to stop them.

The people of Germany, the most advanced society in continental Europe, or Italy in the first four years of the 1930s, would have found it incredible to imagine what became of those countries by 1945. They would not think it even remotely possible.

The history of the United States and its traditions of liberty and individual freedom should be a bulwark against the successful emergence of people like Obama and his cronies. Yet why are the media, or the opposition party, or the members of Congress or the judiciary not shouting from the highest hilltop and taking action to stop these power-grabs? Has this country enjoyed peace and prosperity so long that everyone is jaded and preoccupied with him- or herself, or in a self-induced stupor either ignoring what’s happening or saying that these unconstitutional steps are minor? Is it because Obama happens to have black skin and everyone is too intimidated by political correctness to speak? Or is it as it was in Germany, Italy, and Russia among many — a belief that the worst could never happen here?

I have seen and experienced the worst that man can offer, I am not intimidated, and I will say without reservation that Barack Obama and his cronies have the same mindset in their tactical approach, philosophy, and lust for power that was extant in Benito Mussolini and the Fascists in the early days of their regime.

The Marxist organizers of Occupy Wall Street are already training activists in Alinskyite intimidation tactics in preparation for an all-out class war this spring, including European-style street riots. They can provide Obama with not only a media distraction and platform for Leftist talking points, but also an excuse for more Executive power grabs.

This is not merely a president running for re-election. This is a wannabe dictator abusing the powers of the Executive branch to seize more power, fill every federal department and agency with radical minions who will use their offices to advance his agenda, and bully his opponents into submission.

The Executive Branch is officially being “community organized” into a re-election apparatus for permanently installing a radical Socialist regime. If the military were involved, we would be correctly recognizing this as a coup.

If Obama succeeds in 2012, we could very well find ourselves “fundamentally transformed” into a Banana Republic which holds sham elections only to legitimize the ruling party’s grip on power. The constitutional republic our founders gave us will be gone.

There are four reasons to hope. First, the military is not on Obama’s side. Second, Americans are well-armed, outspoken, and are used to these two crucial freedoms (arms and speech) which they will not give up without a fight.

Third, Obama can’t control the flow of ideas and information. Social media, blogs and conservative news outlets are now beating the corrupt “mainstream” media channels which the Left has come to dominate. If we were facing the same propaganda campaign and power grabs prior to the internet age, the outlook would be far more bleak. But in today’s information age, alternative media sources abound. Is it any wonder that Obama tried to control the message via his infamous “fishy list,” the “Attack Watch” snitch site, and his own ‘Ministry of Truth’?

Fourth, the majority of Americans are now awake and actively opposed to Obama’s agenda. The Left could never have anticipated the emergence of the Tea Party, in which everyday Americans – many of which had never been politically active in their lives – rose spontaneously to confront their government over bailouts and other abuses and assaults against our liberties.

In order to beat such overwhelming opposition, Obama is forced to resort to using ACORN activists, union takeovers, illegal immigrants and the suppression of voter ID laws to steal the election.

Americans must actively engage and make sure he doesn’t succeed. Nothing less than the future of our republic is at stake.

http://www.thoughtsfromaconservativemom.com/     .(by thoughts from a conservative mom)

Dictator-in-Chief: Obama’s Mask is Off

Obama’s Tyrannical Abuse of Power

How Team Obama Plans to Steal the Election of 2012

Will We Retire Obama – or the Constitution?

Congress Needs To Fight Back Against Obama’s Unconstitutional Recess Appointments

He did not take Austria by tanks and guns; We elected him by a landslide – 98% of the vote

By Kitty Werthman

I am an eyewitness to history. I can tell you that Hitler did not take Austria by tanks and guns; it would distort history. We elected him by a landslide – 98% of the vote. I’ve never read that in any American publications. Everyone thinks Hitler just rolled in with his tanks and took Austria by force.

In 1938, Austria was in deep Depression. Nearly one-third of our workforce was unemployed. We had 25% inflation and 25% bank loan interest rates. Farmers and business people were declaring bankruptcy daily. Young people were going from house to house begging for food. Not that they didn’t want to work; there simply weren’t any jobs. My mother was a Christian woman and believed in helping people in need. Every day we cooked a big kettle of soup and baked bread to feed those poor, hungry people – about 30 daily.

The Communist Party and the National Socialist Party were fighting each other. Blocks and blocks of cities like Vienna, Linz, and Graz were destroyed. The people became desperate and petitioned the government to let them decide what kind of government they wanted.

We looked to our neighbor on the north, Germany, where Hitler had been in power since 1933. We had been told that they didn’t have unemployment or crime, and they had a high standard of living. Nothing was ever said about persecution of any group – Jewish or otherwise. We were led to believe that everyone was happy. We wanted the same way of life in Austria . We were promised that a vote for Hitler would mean the end of unemployment and help for the family. Hitler also said that businesses would be assisted, and farmers would get their farms back. Ninety-eight percent of the population voted to annex Austria to Germany.

We were overjoyed, and for three days we danced in the streets and had candlelight parades. The new government opened up big field kitchens and everyone was fed.

After the election, German officials were appointed, and like a miracle, we suddenly had law and order. Three or four weeks later, everyone was employed. The government made sure that a lot of work was created through the Public Work Service.

Hitler decided we should have equal rights for women. Before this, it was a custom that married Austrian women did not work outside the home. An able-bodied husband would be looked down on if he couldn’t support his family.

Hitler Targets Education-Eliminates Religious Instruction for Children:

Our education was nationalized. I attended a very good public school. The population was predominantly Catholic, so we had religion in our schools. The day we elected Hitler (March 13, 1938), I walked into my schoolroom to find the crucifix replaced by Hitler’s picture hanging next to a Nazi flag. Our teacher, a very devout woman, stood up and told the class we wouldn’t pray or have religion anymore. Instead, we sang “Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles,” and had physical education.

Sunday became National Youth Day with compulsory attendance. Parents were not pleased about the sudden change in curriculum. They were told that if they did not send us, they would receive a stiff letter of warning the first time. The second time they would be fined the equivalent of $300, and the third time they would be subject to jail. The first two hours consisted of political indoctrination. The rest of the day we had sports. As time went along, we loved it. Oh, we had so much fun and got our sports equipment free. We would go home and gleefully tell our parents about the wonderful time we had.

My mother was very unhappy. When the next term started, she took me out of public school and put me in a convent. I told her she couldn’t do that and she told me that someday when I grew up, I would be grateful.There was a very good curriculum, but hardly any fun – no sports, and no political indoctrination. I hated it at first but felt I could tolerate it. Every once in a while, on holidays, I went home. I would go back to my old friends and ask what was going on and what they were doing. Their loose lifestyle was very alarming to me. They lived without religion. By that time unwed mothers were glorified for having a baby for Hitler. It seemed strange to me that our society changed so suddenly. As time went along, I realized what a great deed my mother did so that I wasn’t exposed to that kind of humanistic philosophy.

Equal Rights Hits Home

In 1939, the war started and a food bank was established. All food was rationed and could only be purchased using food stamps.

At the same time, a full-employment law was passed which meant if you didn’t work, you didn’t get a ration card, and if you didn’t have a card, you starved to death. Women who stayed home to raise their families didn’t have any marketable skills and often had to take jobs more suited for men.

Soon after this, the draft was implemented. It was compulsory for young people, male and female, to give one year to the labor corps. During the day, the girls worked on the farms, and at night they returned to their barracks for military training just like the boys. They were trained to be anti-aircraft gunners and participated in the signal corps. After the labor corps, they were not discharged but were used in the front lines. When I go back to Austria to visit my family and friends, most of these women are emotional cripples because they just were not equipped to handle the horrors of combat. Three months before I turned 18, I was severely injured in an air raid attack. I nearly had a leg amputated, so I was spared having to go into the labor corps and into military service.

Hitler Restructured the Family Through Daycare:

When the mothers had to go out into the work force, the government immediately established child care centers. You could take your children ages 4 weeks to school age and leave them there around-the-clock, 7 days a week, under the total care of the government. The state raised a whole generation of children. There were no motherly women to take care of the children, just people highly trained in child psychology. By this time, no one talked about equal rights. We knew we had been had.

Health Care and Small Business choked by Government Controls:

Before Hitler, we had very good medical care. Many American doctors trained at the University of Vienna …

After Hitler, health care was socialized, free for everyone. Doctors were salaried by the government. The problem was, since it was free, the people were going to the doctors for everything. When the good doctor arrived at his office at 8 a.m., 40 people were already waiting and, at the same time, the hospitals were full. If you needed elective surgery, you had to wait a year or two for your turn. There was no money for research as it was poured into socialized medicine. Research at the medical schools literally stopped, so the best doctors left Austria and emigrated to other countries.

As for healthcare, our tax rates went up to 80% of our income. Newlyweds immediately received a $1,000 loan from the government to establish a household. We had big programs for families. All day care and education were free. High schools were taken over by the government and college tuition was subsidized. Everyone was entitled to free handouts, such as food stamps, clothing, and housing.

We had another agency designed to monitor business. My brother-in-law owned a restaurant that had square tables. Government officials told him he had to replace them with round tables because people might bump themselves on the corners. Then they said he had to have additional bathroom facilities. It was just a small dairy business with a snack bar. He couldn’t meet all the demands. Soon, he went out of business. If the government owned the large businesses and not many small ones existed, it could be in control.

We had consumer protection. We were told how to shop and what to buy. Free enterprise was essentially abolished. We had a planning agency specially designed for farmers. The agents would go to the farms, count the live-stock, and then tell the farmers what to produce, and how to produce it.

“Mercy Killing” Redefined:

In 1944, I was a student teacher in a small village in the Alps . The villagers were surrounded by mountain passes which, in the winter, were closed off with snow, causing people to be isolated. So people intermarried and offspring were sometimes retarded. When I arrived, I was told there were 15 mentally retarded adults, but they were all useful and did good manual work. I knew one, named Vincent, very well. He was a janitor of the school. One day I looked out the window and saw Vincent and others getting into a van. I asked my superior where they were going. She said to an institution where the State Health Department would teach them a trade, and to read and write. The families were required to sign papers with a little clause that they could not visit for 6 months. They were told visits would interfere with the program and might cause homesickness.

As time passed, letters started to dribble back saying these people died a natural, merciful death. The villagers were not fooled. We suspected what was happening. Those people left in excellent physical health and all died within 6 months. We called this euthanasia.

The Final Steps – Gun Laws:

Next came gun registration. People were getting injured by guns. Hitler said that the real way to catch criminals (we still had a few) was by matching serial numbers on guns. Most citizens were law abiding and dutifully marched to the police station to register their firearms. Not long after-wards, the police said that it was best for everyone to turn in their guns. The authorities already knew who had them, so it was futile not to comply voluntarily.

No more freedom of speech. Anyone who said something against the government was taken away.

We knew many people who were arrested, not only Jews, but also priests and ministers who spoke up.

Totalitarianism didn’t come quickly; it took 5 years from 1938 until 1943, to realize full dictatorship in Austria. Had it happened overnight, my countrymen would have fought to the last breath. Instead, we had creeping gradualism. Now, our only weapons were broom handles. The whole idea sounds almost unbelievable that the state, little by little eroded our freedom.

After World War II, Russian troops occupied Austria. Women were raped, preteen to elderly. The press never wrote about this either. When the Soviets left in 1955, they took everything that they could, dismantling whole factories in the process. They sawed down whole orchards of fruit, and what they couldn’t destroy, they burned. We called it “The Burned Earth.” Most of the population barricaded themselves in their houses. Women hid in their cellars for 6 weeks as the troops mobilized. Those who couldn’t; paid the price. There is a monument in Vienna today, dedicated to those women who were massacred by the Russians. This is an eye witness account.

It’s true. Those of us who sailed past the Statue of Liberty came to a country of unbelievable freedom and opportunity. America Truly is the greatest country in the world. Don’t let freedom slip away.

After America, there is no place else to go!