Saturday, January 11, 2014

Movie Review: See Mark Wahlberg's 'Lone Survivor,' If You Can Stomach It

Director Peter Berg opens "Lone Survivor" with actual footage of Navy SEALs training. And with that decision, Berg unwittingly creates a problem, right from the start.
When we're watching a movie based on reality, we usually don't get to do a side-by-side comparison of the reality and the fictional account. The real footage tells us dozens of stories in less than two minutes: the faces of these brave individuals, the fire burning in their eyes, the determination in their brows, the tears streaming down their faces as they teeter on the edge of breaking, only to be held up by their brothers as they form an unbreakable bond till death they do part. The images stay with you for the rest of the movie.
And that's the problem. Very few actors or filmmakers can perfectly capture the humanity or drama of real life. While the opening is effective, for sure, it also somewhat dilutes and confuses the narrative that follows.
Mark Wahlberg Reveals How He Bonds with His Son 

Mark Wahlberg plays Marcus Luttrell, the Navy SEAL who wrote the book on which the movie is based. We learn very little about Luttrell at the beginning of the movie, but we learn a lot about the three men who will fight alongside him in what amounts to the fiercest battle of his life, and theirs. There's Taylor Kitsch's Mike Murphy, Emile Hirsch's Danny Dietz, and Ben Foster's Matt "Axe" Axelson.
While waiting for their next mission, it's clear these men are more than just friends. They're a fraternity, if not a family, discussing their wives and fiancées, racing each other across the base and hazing the newest SEAL. But when it's time for a new mission, they're all business. In this case, it's Operation Red Wings: Luttrell and company will be dropped into Pakistan along the Afghan border, work their way into Afghanistan, and attempt to take out Taliban leader Ahmad Shah.
When they find Shah's base, the SEALs dig themselves in, with the hope of getting a shot at Shah. The mission is compromised when Luttrell himself is discovered by a goatherd, along with his bell-wearing goats and what appears to be the goatherd's family. Luttrell and the others take them prisoner while deciding what to do. Killing the man and his family would violate the rules of engagement, but leaving them tied up to die would be just as bad.

The soldiers decide to let the prisoners go, climb up the mountain and, hopefully, find an area where their communications equipment will work so they can call aerial support to get them out of there. But it doesn't work out. Alerted by the goatherds, Shah and his army quickly find the four SEALs, and a brutal fight ensues.

These four actors are terrific. Wahlberg in particular has really come into his own these past few years, doing the best work of his career. His level of commitment here is second to none. Ben Foster, while he's probably not going to win an Oscar for this role, will win an Oscar one day, because he's just that good.
If you can stomach it, "Lone Survivor" is a movie you should see. Indeed, it's worth seeing what soldiers, particularly these Navy SEALs, have to endure when they're asked to fight on behalf of our country. They're special people.
On the other hand, there are plenty of other movies that show you the same thing, and "Lone Survivor" does little to set itself apart from them. Again, the real footage shown at the film's beginning would've worked better had it been included when the end credits roll - the real following the pretend, rather than the other way around.
Still, Lone Survivor is a well-acted, gut-wrenching tribute to Navy SEALs in general, especially those who fought, and died, in Operation Red Wings.
Four out of five stars.


MMA Fighter May Face Charges After Fighting Off Four Home Invaders, Killing One in the Process

COMMENTARY | Despite his years of training mixed martial arts, Joe Torrez is yet to get his big break inside the cage.
The 27-year-old MMA fighter sports a subpar 1-5 professional record, but while his training has often failed him inside the cage, it saved his life a couple of hours into 2014 when four men evidently forced their way into his home in Las Cruces, New Mexico, with intent to harm Torrez, his fiancée, his two-year old son, and a few other guests.
That was about 15 minutes after one of the suspects allegedly called Torrez' home threatening, "I'll kill you and your family ... I'll go to your house."
According to Torrez' lawyer, C.J. McElhinney, one of the attackers brought a street made shank along for the ride, while another grabbed a knife from the kitchen

Unfortunately for them, their weapons proved to be ineffective against Torrez' MMA training. He quickly dispatched them, killing one of the attackers, severely breaking another's jaw, while the remaining two tucked their tails between their legs and ran for dear life.
Those two were rounded up shortly after by authorities, and all three surviving suspects will face aggravated battery and aggravated robbery charges.
"Rather than let himself be a victim, Joe fought back, and he fought back for his life," McElhinney said during a 30-minute interview with MMALockup. "In the ensuing struggle, regrettably, one of those intruders lost his life, and another suffered what can be described as a severely broken jaw."
"Joe was in great shape, he'd been training for a fight. I think his MMA training -- without a doubt -- was the edge in that fight. Being able to defend yourself and having that confidence is a huge advantage in any kind of fight, and I don't think they were prepared for what came in response." 

However, instead of being commended for his valiant efforts while defending his family, charges might be coming at Torrez depending on the outcome of an investigation being conducted by the Dona Ana County sheriff's office.
For now, Torres remains a free man, and he's wisely decided to move his family away from Las Cruces.
"Joe is holding up remarkable well. After this all happened -- I've known Joe for a long time -- I could tell that Joe had been though a very traumatic experience. I could just tell from his demeanor, his bearing, he was shaken up … I advised him that he needed to leave the area because these people are going to be looking for retribution. He took that advice, so he has left the state. He's at a safe place with his family. Now he's just very nervous, very fearful that he's going to have to defend himself against an unjust charge, an unfounded charge, so that's weighing heavily on his mind." 

Hopefully, reasonable minds prevail, and Torres doesn't end up getting punished for doing what most of us hope we'll have the courage, strength, and ability to do if we ever find ourselves and our loved ones in similar situation.
David is a Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and boxing practitioner who has watched and studied MMA for the past 9 years. Send him your questions @davidkingwriter and check out his blog.

Teen Dies Saving Classmates From Suicide Bomber

Teen Dies Saving Classmates From Suicide Bomber

He was an average student from Hangu, a remote town in North Western Pakistan, but he has become a national hero.
Aitzaz Hasan, 14, stopped a suicide bomber from entering his school Monday and sacrificed his life to protect his fellow students.
"I saw Aitzaz trying to get hold of a guy and then there was a big explosion," said Habib Ali, who is a senior teacher at the school.
The target of the bomber was the morning assembly of approximately 450 students, Ali said.
"He was an average student, but was a bold child," the teacher said.
Today, in a statement Pakstan's Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif recommended him for the highest civil award for bravery. 

"Shaheed Aitizaz's brave act saved the lives of hundreds of students," the prime minister said in a statement.
Thousands of people thronged his home since the incident to praise his valor and to offer condolences to his family.
"He has left his family grieving, but has prevented many others from that fate," said his teacher, a sentiment echoed by his father earlier.
If it wasn't for Hasan's act of valor and quick thinking, the results would have been catastrophic.
Hasan is Pakistan's latest student to become a hero for standing up to terrorists.
Malala Yousafzai was 14 and an outspoken advocate of educating girls when a Taliban gunman boarded her school bus and shot her in the head and neck.
She survived and wrote a book "I Am Malala: The Girl Who Stood Up for Education and Was Shot by the Taliban" and has become a worldwide icon for her defiance. 

Pakistan's schools are regularly targeted by terrorists and school enrolment figures have been dwindling.

Moderate Establishment Republicans Are Killing The GOP… And America

I’m Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty. I’m very clear on what’s killing America. First, it’s Barack Obama and his socialist cabal. Even worse than socialist, most of them are Marxist. Second, it’s the lying politicians of both parties. They lie to cover up their true agenda, and they lie to cover up their incompetence. Third, it’s the lying media, up to their necks in a cover-up to support Obama and his destruction of the middle class and small business. Lastly, it’s the moderate GOP establishment in Washington, D.C. They are fraternizing with the enemy. They don’t care about us. They’re all good buddies in D.C. (BFFs, “best friends forever”), in bed together with a common cause: getting re-elected, guaranteeing their own golden parachute and setting their kids up for life, all at the expense of the rest of us.
Lies are killing America. Everyone in D.C. lies to trick us, distract us and confuse us. Pretty soon, no one even knows what the truth is anymore. The biggest lie comes from Obama, moderate Republicans and the media elite, who are all in bed together, trying to convince us that only “moderation, cooperation and compromise” can save the GOP… and America. This is one of the greatest lies ever told.
First of all, moderation won’t save the GOP. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is the GOP has had a long list of moderate “saviors”:
  • Gerald Ford: loser
  • Bob Dole: loser
  • George H.W. Bush: loser (to Bill Clinton)
  • John McCain: loser
  • Mitt Romney: loser

    So much for “moderation” winning elections for the GOP. The reality is the Republican Party has elected only one true conservative as President. Ever. His name was Ronald Reagan. I was there when my liberal friends at Columbia University called Reagan “loony,” “nutty,” “extreme,” “radical, right-wing nutcase” and “out of touch with average Americans.” Well, that “radical, right-wing nutcase” won in two massive Presidential landslides. And how about the results? This one true conservative President brought America back from the brink of total economic collapse, decline, malaise and misery. Reagan turned the worst economy since 1929 into the greatest economic expansion in world history. Reagan created 20 million jobs in just a few years. Then the 20 uninterrupted years of economic expansion that Reagan started created 40 million jobs and trillions in wealth. The mainstream media is desperate to make us forget all that.
    You know what else the media doesn’t want us to remember? That Reagan wanted massive cuts to spending, but in the end he listened to the media and “compromised.” He agreed to increase spending to get his tax cuts that saved the U.S. economy. Now, Democrats and the media use that “compromise” to destroy Reagan’s legacy by claiming “Reagan raised spending and built huge deficits.” Well then, I guess “compromise” is bad for Republicans, isn’t it?
    You know what else the media don’t want us to remember? Reagan cut income taxes from 70 percent to 28 percent, but then once again he listened to the media and “compromised.” He allowed a few small tax increases in order to get Democrats to agree to future spending cuts. Now, the media accuses Reagan of “raising taxes multiple times.” And, of course, the Democrats lied and never cut any of the spending they agreed to. So I guess “compromise” is bad for Republicans, isn’t it?

    You know what else the media don’t want us to remember? That George H.W. Bush compromised on his promise: “Read my lips, no new taxes.” Once again, in order to get Democrats to rein in spending, Bush compromised. Once again, Democrats lied and cheated. No spending was cut, but Bush got the blame for raising taxes. So I guess “compromise” is bad for Republicans, isn’t it?
    And when George W. Bush “compromised” by letting spending grow unchecked and never vetoing a single spending bill, we got an economic crisis, the banking system almost collapsed, the debt plunged us into a depression and Obama was elected. Gee, “compromise” really works out well for Republicans, doesn’t it?
    But wait, there’s more proof that this idea of “moderation” is a stone-cold failure. The GOP ran nothing but “moderates” for Congress throughout the 50s, 60s, 70s and even the 80s. The result was a permanent Democratic majority in Congress from 1954 through 1994. Moderation resulted in 40 years of unchallenged domination for Democrats.
    The facts are in: When Republicans compromise their principles, allow bigger spending, agree to tax increases, support bigger government, and become nothing more than “Democrat-lite,” they lose.
    Then, of course, there’s the most powerful proof of all: the 2010 election. Led by the energy and passion of the Tea Party, Republicans achieved the most smashing victory in political history. They not only won Congress in the biggest landslide since 1938 — and took a majority of Governorships — but also won the most State Legislature seats since 1928. The media seems to have overlooked or forgotten about this, even though it happened only three short years ago.

    After that record-setting Tea Party victory — with polls showing the Tea Party more popular (by far) than the actual Republican Party itself — politicians of both parties in D.C. panicked. They couldn’t allow the country to be dominated by this idea of smaller government. Everyone in D.C. gets rich off big government. They couldn’t afford to let the gravy train slow down.
    So Obama and his socialist cabal, with an assist from big-government RINO Republicans, set about to destroy the Tea Party. The plan was to slander them, distract them, intimidate them and destroy them. It took a coordinated criminal conspiracy (some might call it “racketeering” or organized crime) by Obama, Democrats, big-government politicians of both parties, the mainstream media and, most importantly, the Internal Revenue Service.
    Democrats called conservative patriots “terrorists,” “arsonists,” “radical,” “extreme” and worse. The media quoted them all day and night, 24/7. And the IRS set out to intimidate, harass and persecute Tea Party groups and conservative critics of the President, until their energy was killed, their passion erased, their views silenced and their fundraising starved.
    Suddenly, with true conservatives distracted, persecuted and on the defensive — and with a wonderful “moderate” like Mitt Romney at the top of the ticket — it was back to mediocrity and the loser’s club for the GOP.
    This is what Democrats and the media (I know, I repeat myself) want to convince us to go back to. Could it be that the media desperately want to convince us that a “moderate” will save the GOP, simply because they know a “moderate” will guarantee a Democratic Party victory?

    But moderation, cooperation and “compromise” don’t just lead to GOP mediocrity and defeat. They also lead to ruination for the United States of America. The proof is in the pudding. We’ve had decades of cooperation and compromise on Capitol Hill. The result? Seventeen trillion dollars in debt. And when you add in unfunded liabilities, well over $115 trillion in debt. All that cooperation and “business as usual” has produced a bankrupt Nation; the death of full-time, good-paying jobs; and the extinction of the middle class. Moderation, cooperation and compromise have killed the greatest Nation and economic juggernaut in world history.
    If all that hasn’t convinced you, how about some eye-opening facts provided by the Congressional Effect Fund. In the past half-century (since 1964), when Congress was in session, the U.S. stock market has been up 1 percent. During that same period, when Congress was on vacation, the stock market was up 17 percent.
    So tell me what the benefit is of moderation and cooperation? The reality is no matter who is sitting in those seats on Capitol Hill, politicians are doing damage to our economy each time they compromise and agree to pass a bill.
    Still not convinced? How about over a 100-year timeline (again courtesy of the Congressional Effect Fund). If you had invested $1 in the stock market starting in 1899, only when the Congress was in session, today you’d have $2. If you had invested the same $1 only when Congress was on vacation, today you’d have $300.
    More proof that moderation, cooperation and compromise are greatly overrated. We don’t need a moderate GOP to save the Republican Party or America. History actually proves that compromise leads to deficit, debt and economic decline.

    The solution? We need to throw all the bums out. Every single one of them. Clean house. Then start over with Tea Party conservatives, with the same limited government principles as our Founding Fathers. They should be “citizen politicians” willing to make government smaller, make themselves less powerful and restore power to the people. They should all agree that government feels our pain only because government causes it. Government can’t run the post office without losing $16 billion per year — and that’s with no competition (by law). Government runs Amtrak; it’s lost $40 billion and counting — and still we lose more than $30 every time a butt sits down on an Amtrak train. Government runs the $16 trillion war on poverty that wasted and lost $16 trillion. Government runs our failing public schools. From now on, if a politician thinks “government knows best” or “government has the answer,” he must be defeated, no matter what party he represents.
    Oh, and one other thing: From this day forward, we must term-limit the politicians. Limit them all to two terms: one term in office and one term in prison. I call it “the Chicago Rule.”
    I’m Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty. See you next week. Same time, same place. God bless America.

Friday, January 10, 2014

Rush Limbaugh Noticed a Key Detail About Chris Christie’s Speech That You Might Find Interesting

If Chris Christie Learned About Bridge Gate Yesterday, Why Has He Lost a Lot of Sleep For the Last Two Nights?
by: Oliver Darcy
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) appeared to issue conflicting statements to the press Thursday, telling reporters that he first learned of emails tying his staff to “bridgegate” yesterday morning, but also claiming he had “lost a lot of sleep for the last two nights.”

The conflicting comments, highlighted by conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, came at a lengthy press conference Christie held Thursday.
“I was done with my workout yesterday morning and got a call from my communications director at about 8:50, 8:55 informing me of this story that had just broken on the Bergen Record website,” the governor, who is widely expected to launch a 2016 bid for president, said. “That was the first time I knew about this, that was the first time I had seen any of the documents that were revealed yesterday.”
“If people find that hard to believe, I don’t know that else to say except to tell them that I had no knowledge this, the planning, the execution or anything about it,” he added. “And that I first found out about it after it was over.”
However, in a response to a question from CNN’s John King, Christie suggested he had been aware of the scandal for a bit longer.
“I haven’t had a lot of sleep for the past two nights and I’ve been doing a lot of soul searching,” he said. “I’m sick over this. I have worked for the last 12 years in public life developing a reputation for honesty and directness and blunt talk, one that I think is well deserved.”
These seemingly conflicting statements now have people questioning when exactly the governor first knew of the scandal.  

“Why can’t he sleep two nights ago if he only learned about this one day ago?” Limbaugh asked on his radio show Thursday.
The Raw Story touched on the issue in a story titled, “If Chris Christie only learned about emails yesterday, why ‘two’ sleepless nights?”

Judge Rules: Obama Social Security Card Fraud May Finally Get Answers

The Minuteman
It took years for Watergate to unravel fully. The controversy over Barack Hussein Obama and his past, along with fraudulent documents continues to make headlines. Yet, the items needed to actually verify who Obama is continue to be kept from the public eye. Well, that all may be about to change. Attorney Orly Taitz may have just found a chink in the federal government’s armor in protecting Barack Obama from scrutiny, following a judge’s ruling over her Freedom of Information Act request from the Social Security Administration.
Taitz has claimed that Obama uses the Social Security number of Harry Bounel and has submitted several Freedom of Information Act requests for the information from the Social Security Administration. Each time, she has been met with stonewalling by the Social Security Administration.
However, Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander has ruled to give Taitz “an opportunity to file a second amended complaint and add allegations of SSA not doing a proper search and withholding records.”

From Taitz’s Press Release:
Judge Hollander in Maryland gives Attorney Orly Taitz 21 days to file a second amended complaint and add allegations in regards to an improper withholding by the Social Security Administration of records of Harry Bounel, whose Social security number is being illegally used by Barack Obama. When Taitz filed the complaint, SSA did not respond at all. After the law suit was filed, SSA responded by fraudulently claiming that the records were not found. Taitz responded that this is a fraudulent assertion, since the records were found before and denied to another petitioner due to privacy concerns, however Social Security has no right to claim privacy as according to their own 120 year rule they have a duty to release the records. The judge stated that the plaintiff Taitz might be correct, however at this time she cannot rule in her favor as her original complaint was filed before SSA responded, so the judge gave Taitz an opportunity to refile a second amended complaint and add new allegations, stating the SSA responded but improperly hidden the records . This is a great development. This all but assures that the judge will order the SSA to release the SS-5, Social Security application of resident of CT, Harrison (Harry) Bounel, whose CT SSN 042-68-4425 was stolen by Obama and used in Obama’s 2009 tax returns, which initially were posted on without proper redaction, without flattening of the file. Taitz will be very careful not to be Breitbarted or Fuddied in the next 21 days.

Additionally, there is an increased tampering with the web site of Orly Taitz and with her ability to send mass -emails. It seems her private server is somehow affected and Taitz is unable to send mass e-mails on two different programs.
It’s interesting that Taitz points out that she will be “careful not to be Breitbarted or Fuddied,” indicating that she believes that both Andrew Breitbart and Andrew Breitbart and Loretta Fuddy were targeted by Obama for assassination.” Breitbart died on the very day that he said he would begin vetting Obama for the 2012 elections, which raised suspicions. Fuddy, best remembered as being instrumental in issuing the Hawaii long-form birth certificate, was the only person to die aboard a small plane that crashed off the coast of Hawaii last week. Already, there are questions surrounding the narrative of her death.
Taitz alleged that Mr. Bounel was born in 1890, and therefore, under the “’120 Year Rule’ implemented by the SSA in 2010,” pertaining to “‘extremely aged individuals,’” Bounel’s “Social Security applications have to be released under FOIA without proof of [his] death . . . .”
The reason for the judge’s amendment seems to be a procedural one. Taitz filed suit with the court prior to receiving word back from her Freedom of Information Act request, which she did receive on July 29, 2013 from Dawn S. Wiggins, a Fredom of Information Officer. Wiggins replied to Taitz:

I have enclosed a copy of the SS-5s for Mr. Tsarnaev and Ms. Dunham. . . .
We were unable to find any information for Mr. Bounel based on the information you provided to us. Mr. Bounel may not have applied for a Social Security number (SSN) or may have given different information on the application for a number.
It appears that once the amendment is submitted, this may force the Social Security Administration to explain exactly what is going on with Barack Obama’s Social Security number.
We should know something about the case by the second week in January 2014.
Click for article source.

Ray Stevens: Mr President~Mr President

Old Ray is still on his game...takes Barry Barack Obama to the court and out shoots the Poser POTUS !

Mr. President,
We got record foreclosures, folks are losing their homes,
the banks got money but they won’t make loans,
the taxes are bringing small business to their knees,
and we owe our soul to the Red Chinese.

Mr. President, Mr. President, what are you going to do?
Well, I’m going to take off my coat and roll up my sleeves,
turn on the teleprompter and give another speech,
act real cool and talk real soft,
then go out and play another round of golf.
Throw a party at the White House and give a big show,
board Air Force One and away I go,
up to New York, take Michelle to a play,
shoot a few hoops and call it a day.
But Mr. President!
We got illegal aliens crossing our borders,
and drug lords committing mayhem and disorder,
states are going broke trying to pay their benefits,
bond markets in the toilet, job markets in the pits,

Mr. President, Mr. President, what are you going to do?
Now listen real close, hear what I say,
never let a good crisis slip away,
you got to look at things out of my window,
what’s bad for America is good for my agenda!

Mr. President, what are you going to do?
I’m going to take off my coat and roll up my sleeves,
turn on the teleprompter and give another speech,
act real cool and talk real soft,
then go out and play another round of golf.
Throw a party at the White House and give a big show,
board Air Force One and away I go,
to blame George Bush and his capitalist ways,
shoot a few hoops and call it a day.

The Last Honest Man Leaves D.C.


Robert Gates’ tenure as Secretary of Defense looked something like a scene from Groundhog Day, the movie in which Bill Murray is condemned to live the same day over and over.
But instead of living the same day over again, Gates just told the same repetitive lies.
Yet now that he’s left D.C., he’s finally telling the truth; and it’s left Capitol Hill with mixed emotions.
You see, Robert Gates was the consummate political insider. He could play both sides of the political street.
He also epitomized the typical inveterate liar who now populates Capitol Hill, even as Americans yearn for leaders who will actually stand up and say what they think.
And true to form, he’s only shown the courage to speak once he’s fled our modern American Rome.

A Tell-All Bombshell
Gates held many of the most important jobs in government over the course of his career.
He worked for six presidents, including both Republicans and Democrats. He worked in top jobs at the CIA and the National Security Council. And by many accounts, he was one of the most competent war-time leaders in the Pentagon.
And, of course, he became one of the preeminent D.C. insiders along the way.
Now, the unwritten rule of the insiders club is that you don’t share your feelings honestly.
As a member of the club, you’re given daily talking points – some call it the spin sheet. If you want to get ahead in D.C., you repeat these talking points (often lies) to any camera, journalist, or pundit who will listen.
So for years, Gates followed his team’s instructions… until now, that is. With the publication of his book, Gates has unleashed a torrent of truth, something rarely seen in the Capital City. Here are some of his juicier talking points:

On Obama: Gates concludes that Obama is a terrible leader. Writing about the president’s Afghanistan War strategy, Gates says he “doesn’t believe in his own strategy, and doesn’t consider the war to be his. For him, it’s all about getting out.”
On Vice President Joe Biden: Gates writes, “I think he has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.”
On Hillary Clinton: According to Gates, “Hillary told the president that her opposition to the [2007] surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary. . .  The president conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political. To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying.”
On Congress: Gates unleashes some of his best invective when speaking about Congress. “I saw most of Congress as uncivil, incompetent at fulfilling their basic constitutional responsibilities (such as timely appropriations), micromanagerial, parochial, hypocritical, egotistical, thin-skinned and prone to put self (and re-election) before country.”

So what does all of this mean?
Well, I think that most Americans already think Obama is a terrible leader, especially since the launch of Obamacare. So Gates’ comments about Obama won’t amount to a hill of beans.
The comments that could have real impact are from Hillary Clinton, whose fundamental dishonesty about a policy as important as the Iraq surge in 2007 is disturbing to say the least.
Clinton opposed the surge just to gain political points, meaning she was okay with sacrificing America’s success and soldiers’ lives to enhance her political position during an election.
For a leader on the verge of a Presidential run, this is a ruinous accusation.
Meanwhile, for the rest of us, we’ve been given a momentary glimpse beyond the daily talking points and the tired rhetoric. Robert Gates has given us a view of the real Washington, D.C., and it reaffirms just how sick and self-centered the governing elite of both parties has become.

This commentary originally appeared at and is reprinted here with permission.

Christie Staffers Reveal The Sociopathy Of The Political Elite

Christie Staffers Reveal The Sociopathy Of The Political Elite
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, a darling of the Republican establishment, is in full damage control mode over a scandal that threatens to derail his Presidential aspirations before the campaign even begins.
Emails and texts from Christie’s top staffers revealed they had ordered the closure of two lanes of traffic on the George Washington Bridge as a means of punishing a local mayor. The lane closures disrupted traffic and turned the borough of Fort Lee, N.J., into a veritable parking lot for four days. In some of the emails, staffers even mocked the drivers and schoolchildren stuck on school buses for hours in the traffic.
Christie moved quickly by firing two top staffers involved; and in a long news conference yesterday, he distanced himself from the scandal. He claimed repeatedly he had been lied to by staff, but he had previously denied anyone on his staff was involved at all. The four-day traffic jam had originally been blamed on a traffic study.

Whether Christie knew about his staffers’ involvement or not, this is yet another example of the type of people who are attracted to the political system. While they claim to hold to heart the best interests of “the people,” most politicians and bureaucrats will stop at nothing to achieve their aims.
Just like the Barack Obama Administration made the sequester cuts painful to Americans by closing White House tours and made the government shutdown Obama caused painful to Americans by closing monuments and through other purely symbolic gestures, Christie staffers (at least) caused all manner of inconvenience to the constituents they claimed to care about — and apparently did so gleefully.
As I have told you before, all governments by nature attract greedy and parasitic people. In short, these are people who have the born mentality to live off of other people.
Politics and government are perfectly made for them. While there are a few exceptions, the rule is that these (shall I call them humanoids?) have unusual qualities and attributes of personality that present them as benevolent, caring and concerned people with absolutely no hint that they wear masks that hide them as charlatans and greedy monsters. Greed and aggrandizement are their silent forte.
We will call these people humanoids because they are deviants and devious. They have no conscience and no moral scruples. They are no respecter of persons except a feigned glow to extract something.

Their every thought is how to make the world flow to themselves. They would steal from their own parents or their mate without a second thought. “Selfish” is a kind word we can use to describe them. What shall we call those people besides humanoids? By definition, they are psychopaths. A more gentle term is sociopaths.
Sociopathic politicians and bureaucrats are usually intelligent and articulate. They know how to articulate and to harness the power of speech. They quickly learn control words as expressed here, and they repeat the themes of the elite and the party line. They are cold and calculating, and their every intent is to stay in office and stay in government.
Political sociopaths collectively cannot imagine themselves suffering the same punishment, misery and impoverishment that they have vented upon the American people. They have no conscience, and they cannot discern that they are destroyers of law and order and that indeed they are destroying the system.
So you will know how to spot the sociopath, here is the profile:

  • He has glibness and superficial charm.
  • He is manipulative and cunning. Under his feigned charm, he is covertly hostile and domineering.
  • He has a grandiose sense of self.
  • He is a pathological liar.
  • He has no remorse, shame or guilt.
  • He has shallow emotions.
  • He has incapacity for love.
  • He is not concerned about how many lives he wrecks.
  • He usually has promiscuous sexual behavior.
  • He has a poor work ethic but is a master of exploiting others.
  • He has versatility and will change his image quickly to avoid prosecution.
  • He is contemptuous of anyone who understands and exposes him, like this writer.
  • He thinks only of his own immediate gratification.
Politicians in America are employees of the state. Therefore, you must watch their actions rather than listen to their words. This must be understood! Until this is understood, we have no hope.

“The Walking Dead” Constitution

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

With the media’s obligatory mention of Justice Sotomayer’s New Year’s Eve epic decision to impose a temporary injunction against the so-called HHS contraception mandate, I am now thoroughly convinced that all four branches of our government (executive, legislative, judicial and the media) have been bitten by zombies.
This infected regime seems to be attempting to add a sly new layer of tyranny against the masses by matter-of-factly informing us of this one judicial-zombie’s independent decision to supposedly protect the rights of a small group of Catholic nuns from enforcement of contraceptive coverage requirements imposed by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. But why would a dedicated leftist zombie justice, whose guarded opinions on abortion weigh heavily in favor of a woman’s right to choose rather than an unborn child’s right to live, all of a sudden care about Catholic nuns or their religious convictions? It doesn’t make sense. It is almost scary. And they just keep coming at us.
We once battled mightily when the left claimed that the Constitution was a living, breathing document rather than what we knew it to be: a concrete, concise, understandable set of laws. But what should we do now that we have something akin to a “Walking Dead” Constitution, where ruthless executive, legislative, judicial, and media zombies continue to trample our fields and our fences in an attempt to gorge themselves upon our constitutional freedoms (if not our very lives)?

While we watch the next episode on television, our badly bitten President changes the laws that he himself imposed upon us with a smile on his zombie face and a stroke of a pen; and the majority of Americans seem only to whimper and whine, hoping that they too don’t get bit. Being as we seem so weak at this point in our Walking Dead constitutional history, why wouldn’t they test the will of the people against the will of a zombie judiciary of one? This certainly isn’t the first time the judicial zombies have broken our constitutional fortress.
It still sends chills down my spine to think that Justice Anthony Kennedy’s one single deciding vote kept our Second Amendment Right to keep and bear arms intact in the June 2008 District of Columbia vs. Heller case.

At the time, many of us held on to the hope that Justices Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito would vote for real freedom for real people, while we already knew that Justices Stevens, Breyer, Souter and Ginsburg would vote for zombie tyranny; but no one quite knew how Justice Kennedy would vote. So when his vote came in seemingly uninfected, there was a collective sigh of relief heard among frightened individualists across this country. But they still keep coming at us.
How can we ever forget the most recent judicial tyranny-of-one imposed by newly bitten Justice-turned-zombie Roberts in his fickle ruling on the constitutionality of the individual mandate feature of ObamaScare?
Why do we let this continue to happen? And what is to come of our representative republic when a dreaded judicial zombie rewrites our very tax laws that are much too complex and complicated to understand in the first place? Where do we hide? What is to become of our children burdened to live under zombie tyranny? Our only options seem to be to fight or to become one of them, but neither option is especially palatable. Where is Sheriff Grimes when we need him?
Photo credit: terrellaftermath

Ex-CIA Operative: Military Thwarted Obama’s Plans To Nuke/EMP America

Three brave Americans stood up to Tyranny a few weeks ago and told Barack Hussein Obama, literally, to take a flying leap as they refused orders to illegally divert control of several nuclear weapons to agents of Barack Hussein Obama.
Nobel Peace Prize nominee and former CIA spy Dr. Jim Garrow explains how the actions of these men - a Army General, an Air Force General, and a Navy Admiral - who were in charge of safeguarding the nation's nuclear stockpile, saved the lives of 300 million Americans from the devastating effects of a planned EMP attack on the United States: A "false flag" EMP attack perpetrated by the Obama administration using our own nuclear weapons.
As reported by Anthony Gucciardi and Infowars, a secret transfer of nuclear weapons from Dyess Air Force Base was ordered by the Obama administration; but according to Dr. Garrow this transfer broke every established protocol concerning the storage and movement of weapons in the nation's nuclear stockpile and the officers in charge refused to carry them out.
According to seismographic records, on October 8th a magnitude 4.5 earthquake occurred off the coast of South Carolina, giving credence to Dr. Garrow's claim that one of the weapons was actually detonated at sea to keep it out of the hands of traitors who would destroy the United States; the others, according to Dr. Garrow, are still missing.

Why John Roberts (Likely) Is Protecting Obamacare…

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

On Monday, without comment (because he could not make a coherent one),  Chief Justice John Roberts denied a request by the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons and the Alliance for Natural Health USA for a stay in the implementation of Obamacare. The groups had made their application last Friday, arguing that since the bill had been declared a tax by the Supreme Court (with Justice Roberts himself the deciding vote), and it had originated in the Senate (the Constitution says revenue bills may not originate), the law was therefore unconstitutional; and implementation of Obamacare  should at least be stayed pending further examination.
While there are other minor issues attached to the application that were also not addressed, the truth of the matter is clear: John Roberts will never do anything to derail Obamacare, no matter what arguments against it are brought before him.

There is very good reason to believe that regardless of the media’s skillful smothering of the story, John Roberts is being blackmailed to make certain Obamacare never falls in a Supreme Court case. The basis of this charge surrounds the fact that a series of strange (and probably felonious) acts are attached to the adoption of his two children.  

In 2005, when they thought they were doing the Democrats’ bidding, the New York Times dug into apparently easily accessible records and found that the children Roberts and his wife adopted in “South America” started life as Irish citizens. This is a red flag. The laws of Ireland regarding adoptions are very clear: adoptions by non-citizens are prohibited, as are private adoptions.
Apparently, when the Democrats realized they could control a Supreme Court Justice’s vote through blackmail over his having committed a number of international crimes, the Times pulled back and dropped its investigation. The Democrat paper of record pulled back because it didn’t want to “ break the seal of an adoption case” – as if violating laws ever means anything to Democrats in their quest for power. Keep in mind Barack Obama’s violation of his opponents’ “sealed” divorce records propelled him to a US Senate seat.
What does the Roberts problem mean for the average American who looks to Washington for relief from Democrat oppression? It means we won’t be getting any relief from the Roberts Court, period.
Photo credit: terrellaftermath

Thursday, January 9, 2014

What Washington DC lacks....Men like old Jim Bridger

Jim Bridger, mountain man extraordinaire, was born in 1804 in Richmond, Virginia. In 1812, Bridger's father moved the family to a farm near St. Louis, Missouri. Ten years later, at the age of 22, young Bridger began his life as a trapper by joining the expedition led by William Ashley and Andrew Henry up the Missouri River as a beaver trapper. Along with Bridger on the expedition went three other future giants of the frontier -- Jedediah Smith, Thomas Fitzpatrick and Hugh Glass. Jedediah Smith, who was known for reading his Bible around the campfire, gave Bridger a nickname which would stick for life. He called him 'Old Gabe' because Bridger, with his self assured manner, reminded him of the angel Gabriel spreading the word of God. The party travelled in keelboats some 1,800 miles up the mouth of the Yellowstone River. Jim's education grew by leaps and bounds as he found out how to survive on the land. He came to know the uncharted lands like the back of his hand.

Jim Bridger had undoubtedly found his niche. He would spend much of the next 60 years at the head of groups of trappers and fur hunters for the Rocky Mountain Fur Company, of which he was a founder, and the American Fur Company. In 1842, however Bridger and fellow trapper Pierre Luis Vasquez set about building a settlement on Black's Fork of the Green River in what is now Wyoming. The settlement, known as Fort Bridger, would become a vital stopping off point for wary travellers on the overland trail west. The travellers found in Jim Bridger an excellent host. One diary reported the following about the man behind Fort Bridger: " He was excessively kind and patient with me in laying down the route to Salt Lake, taking the trouble of drawing a chart with charcoal on the door, pointing out a new line that had never been attempted, which would be a short cut of thirty miles."

That account underscores Bridger's vast knowledge of the west. According to Captain John W. Gunnison in an 1834 report, " With a buffalo skin and a piece of charcoal he will map out any portion of this vast region with wonderful accuracy. His renown in the area of plotting and charting maps grew. In 1851, he was assigned by the United States Government to draw the official maps that established the tribal boundaries according to the Fort Laramie Peace Treaty.

By his mid thirties Jim Bridger had grown into a fine specimen of a man. He stood at just over six feet, had a lean, muscular physique and sharp facial features. According to an 1837 copy of the Cincinnati Atlas, "His cheekbones were high, his nose hooked or acquiline, the expression of his eyes mild and thoughtful, that of his face grave almost to solemnity."

The highlight of the trapper's year was the annual rendezvous. Bridger richly enjoyed such get togethers. He was a natural fireside entertainer. He would amaze his listeners with stories about his adventures and the sights he had seen. Bridger had the ability to mesmerize Indians as well as white men with his tales. On one occasion a Captain Howard Stansbury was amazed to see him keep a circle of Sioux and Cheyenne intrigued for over an hour with a tall tale that was told completely in sign language.

Bridger kept himself busy trapping and scouting after Fort Bridger was established. He laid out a stage route west from Denver for the Central Overland and Pike's Peak Express Company. He also guided 300 prospectors to Montana goldfields. He also spent some time as a guide for the U.S. Army in their quest for hostile Indians.

One day while scouting ahead of an army column near Tongue River in Wyoming Territory in 1865, Bridger pointed out some smoke rising at a distant point. The Captain, however, saw nothing, even with the aid of field glasses. As they advanced other scouts began reporting an Indian village with campfires up ahead.

Just two years later, however, failing eyesight caused Bridger to retire from his position as an army scout. He purchased a farm in Kansas City, Missouri and settled into the life of a farmer. He died there in 1881. He was 77 years of age.

Just about sums up Obama's Poverty Pivot/Income Inequality...!

Chris Christie and Barack Obama...something in common...Sgt Schultz..!

Need I say more?...Like we the people don't get it! Lying for politicians is second nature!


Obama’s Poverty Pivot Invites More Poverty

Obama’s Poverty Pivot Invites More Poverty
As President Barack Obama attempts to stave off an election-year repeat of the public relations disaster he saddled his own party with in 2013, he’s kicking his policy rhetoric into community-organizing mode.
Launching an income inequality initiative is Obama’s way of bailing incumbent Congressional Democrats out of the Obamacare debacle they created, as they enter the 2014 campaign season. But it obviously won’t cause Obamacare to swerve from its predictable course, and it arms GOP challengers — if they’re smart enough to seize on it — with rich political fodder.
That’s because it’s illogical and factually nonsensical for the Obama Administration, in particular, to promote “income equality” policies that, in fact, demonstrably swell the ranks of the “impoverished” in America. And if precedent offers any indication of how the future will look, “poverty” under Obama is only going to increase.

In the United States, “poverty” in its classical sense is an almost meaningless word, especially among the elected class. Poverty does hold significant value as a political tool, though — and that’s what Obama is banking on in an election season that features a lot of embattled Congressional Democrats.
Democrats need a strong voter turnout to retain their Senate majority, but midterm elections are typically low-turnout affairs that tend to draw a disproportionate number of disgruntled voters to the polls. Given the year Obama had in 2013, the disgruntled voter demographic favors the GOP this year — so Democrats need a tent-pole issue to get their own political base disgruntled about.
That’s where “income inequality” comes in. But there’s a problem: The Obama Administration and its subservient, partisan Senate minions are more open than any other elected incumbents to criticism when it comes to poverty policy.
“Although the President often rails against income inequality in America, his policies have had little impact overall on poverty,” The Washington Times observed Tuesday. “A record 47 million Americans receive food stamps, about 13 million more than when he took office.”
The piece continues:

"The poverty rate has stood at 15 percent for three consecutive years, the first time that has happened since the mid-1960s. The poverty rate in 1965 was 17.3 percent; it was 12.5 percent in 2007, before the Great Recession.
About 50 million Americans live below the poverty line, which the federal government defined in 2012 as an annual income of $23,492 for a family of four.
President Obama’s anti-poverty efforts “are basically to give more people more free stuff,” said Robert Rector, a specialist on welfare and poverty at the conservative Heritage Foundation.
“That’s exactly the opposite of what Johnson said,” Mr. Rector said. “Johnson’s goal was to make people prosperous and self-sufficient.”

But an America stocked with prosperous and self-sufficient citizens would obviate the far-left progressive leadership that has come to dominate the Democratic Party, because there’d be precious few people left in this country enthralled by the false promise of receiving something for nothing.

EPA Takes Land From State In Violation Of Century-Old Congressional Act

EPA Takes Land From State In Violation Of Century-Old Congressional Act
Republican Wyoming Governor Matt Mead issued a statement Monday blasting the Environmental Protection Agency for unilaterally ignoring Congressionally established law in order to take roughly 1 million acres of property out of State jurisdiction and hand it over to two Indian tribes.
The EPA ruled in December that a 1905 law that allowed non-Indians to establish homesteads inside the disputed territory did not end the territory’s reservation status. But Congress had made no such distinction at the time it passed the law.
The Northern Arapaho and Eastern Shoshone tribes, each of which occupies the Wind River Indian Reservation (located in the west-central portion of the State), had approached the EPA with a “Treatment as a State” request in order to acquire jurisdictional control over the territory under the Clean Air Act.

The EPA ruling’s overt implication is that the tribes now have the legal prerogative to be notified of any air quality permit filed within 50 miles of the reservation’s boundary.
But the ruling has other implications that concern municipal and State officials — especially “that land that the state, Fremont County and the city of Riverton consider to be under local jurisdiction is, in fact, Indian Country,” according to the WyoFile nonprofit news blog. “And,” WyoFile observes, “as part of the Wind River Indian Reservation, the city and surrounding area could be subject to federal policing, among other laws.”
Mead has responded to the ruling by pledging to ignore it, and to wage a court battle to have the EPA’s decision overturned.
“I understand that the Northern Arapaho and Eastern Shoshone Tribes have a different opinion about the Wind River Reservation Boundary,” his statement reads. “My deep concern is about an administrative agency of the federal government altering a state’s boundary and going against over 100 years of history and law. This should be a concern to all citizens because, if the EPA can unilaterally take land away from a state, where will it stop? …The federal government clearly had a predetermined outcome it sought to uphold.”

Poll Spells Bad News For Political Establishment, Possibly Good For Tea Party

Poll Spells Bad News For Political Establishment, Possibly Good For Tea Party
The results of a new poll indicate that a record number of Americans identify themselves as political independents. And while the number of Americans who call themselves Democrats remains unchanged from the past four years, Republican identification is at its lowest point in 25 years.
Gallup reports that 42 percent of Americans identified as independents in 2013, compared to 31 percent who said they are Democrats and 21 percent who identified themselves as Republicans. For the past three years, the polling agency has recorded independents making up at least 40 percent of the voting population.
The polling agency notes:

"Americans’ increasing shift to independent status has come more at the expense of the Republican Party than the Democratic Party. Republican identification peaked at 34% in 2004, the year George W. Bush won a second term in office. Since then, it has fallen nine percentage points, with most of that decline coming during Bush’s troubled second term. When he left office, Republican identification was down to 28%. It has declined or stagnated since then, improving only slightly to 29% in 2010, the year Republicans “shellacked” Democrats in the midterm elections.
Not since 1983, when Gallup was still conducting interviews face to face, has a lower percentage of Americans, 24%, identified as Republicans than is the case now. That year, President Ronald Reagan remained unpopular as the economy struggled to emerge from recession. By the following year, amid an improving economy and re-election for the increasingly popular incumbent president, Republican identification jumped to 30%, a level generally maintained until 2007."

In this year’s elections, establishment Republicans are expected to try to marginalize Tea Party GOP outsiders who mount primary challenges to rank-and-file candidates. Decreases in voter identification with the GOP could have major implications for the Party establishment.
Gallup recorded a surge in the number of Americans calling themselves independents during the fourth quarter of 2013. During that period, frustrations over the National Security Agency spying scandal were fresh, the initial disasters of the Obamacare rollout were occurring and headlines screamed of government shutdown drama.
The polling agency acknowledges that Democrats hold a 6-point lead in party identification when independents’ “partisan leanings” are taken into account; however, distrust of government could push those teetering independents into the arms of nontraditional Republican candidates with small-government positions and little interest in legislating morality.
“The rise in political independence is likely an outgrowth of Americans’ record or near-record negative views of the two major U.S. parties, of Congress, and their low level of trust in government more generally,” Gallup reports.

Wednesday, January 8, 2014


Just a fact Jack:
Recently, arguments were made before the Supreme Court both for and against the constitutionality of what is known as "ObamaCare."

You probably heard much of the screeching and shouting about this topic in the news. But I would like you to think about something that you probably didn't hear -- and maybe haven't thought about -- concerning this issue and other issues that come before the Supreme Court:

No matter what opinion the Supreme Court issues in this case, or in any case before them, that decision does NOT have the force of law.

Though a Supreme Court ruling is not unimportant, it is legally binding and enforceable only with respect to the parties in this particular case!

Obama to Soldiers...Pay up...!

Obama didn't believe his own war strategy: Gates

US President Barack Obama presents the Medal of Freedom to outgoing defense secretary Robert Gates, June 30, 2011, at the Pentagon in Washington, DC

Washington (AFP) - Former defense secretary Robert Gates has delivered a scathing critique of President Barack Obama's handling of the war in Afghanistan in a revealing new memoir, US media reported.
In "Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary of War," Gates recounts how Obama appeared to lack faith in a war strategy he had approved and in the commander he named to lead it, according to The New York Times and The Washington Post. He said the president also did not like Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
"As I sat there, I thought: the president doesn't trust his commander, can't stand Karzai, doesn't believe in his own strategy and doesn't consider the war to be his," Gates writes of a March 2011 meeting in the White House. 
 "For him, it's all about getting out." 

Having approved deploying more than 30,000 forces after an acrimonious White House debate, the US president seemed plagued by doubts and surrounded by civilian aides who sowed distrust with the military, Gates writes.
Obama was "skeptical if not outright convinced it would fail," Gates writes in the memoir, which is due to be released on January 14.
In contrast to his subdued, even-keeled public demeanor as Pentagon chief, Gates strikes a sometimes bitter tone in his memoir.
The former CIA director whose career dates back to the Nixon administration voices frustration at the "controlling nature" of Obama's White House, which he says constantly interfered in Pentagon affairs, even though civilian aides lacked an understanding of military operations.
The White House national security staff "took micromanagement and operational meddling to a new level," he writes, comparing the approach to the 1970s Nixon era. 

"All too early in the administration," Gates writes, "suspicion and distrust of senior military officers by senior White House officials -- including the president and vice president -- became a big problem for me as I tried to manage the relationship between the commander-in-chief and his military leaders."
After a tense meeting on Afghanistan in September 2009, Gates says he came close to resigning because he was "deeply uneasy with the Obama White House's lack of appreciation -- from the top down -- of the uncertainties and unpredictability of war."

A statement from National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden later defended Obama's record on Afghanistan.
"It is well known that the president has been committed to achieving the mission of disrupting, dismantling and defeating Al-Qaeda, while also ensuring that we have a clear plan for winding down the war," she said.
Hayden also hit back at Gates's assertion that Vice President Joe Biden had been "wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades." 

"The president disagrees with secretary Gates's assessment... Joe Biden has been one of the leading statesmen of his time and has helped advance America's leadership in the world," she said.
"All too early in the administration," Gates writes, "suspicion and distrust of senior military officers by senior White House officials -- including the president and vice president -- became a big problem for me as I tried to manage the relationship between the commander-in-chief and his military leaders."
After a tense meeting on Afghanistan in September 2009, Gates says he came close to resigning because he was "deeply uneasy with the Obama White House's lack of appreciation -- from the top down -- of the uncertainties and unpredictability of war."

"It's well known that as a matter of principle and sound policy, President Obama opposed going to war in the first place, opposed the surge of forces and then ended the war in Iraq as president. Any suggestion to the contrary is simply wrong," the official said.
On Afghanistan, the official said Obama "has always been firmly committed to the strategy that secretary Gates helped designed and that our troops have so ably carried out in Afghanistan, while also insisting that we have a clear plan to wind down the war."
Gates, however, gives credit to Obama for approving the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan, which he himself initially opposed.
It was "one of the most courageous decisions I had ever witnessed in the White House," the former Pentagon chief writes. 

Although Gates heaps praise on former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, he is stunned by an exchange between Obama and Clinton in which the two openly admitted they opposed a troop surge in Iraq in 2007 for purely political reasons.
"To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying," he says.
Gates helped oversee the deployment of additional troops to Iraq during the Bush administration.
A Republican, Gates served under ex-president George W. Bush and was asked to stay on at the Pentagon for two years after Obama entered office.

Is Barack Obama A Noble King Or A Traitorous Pawn?

Most gods throw dice, but Fate plays chess, and you don’t find out til too late that he’s been playing with two queens all along.” – Terry Pratchett
There has not been a more enigmatic U.S. President than Barack Obama since Abraham Lincoln. We know so little about Obama. It is certainly true that he has divided the Nation further than any President since Lincoln. But the questions I cannot shake as we enter into our sixth year of his Presidency are: What are his ultimate goals, and how in the world did this African-American junior Senator and former community leader become the most powerful man in the free world?
It is easy to jump to the conclusion that Obama could be a Muslim and a Marxist bent on remaking America into a socialist state much like so many European countries. That Obama has driven an even wider divide between America, between left and right, is beyond debate. That Obama has added nearly $7 trillion to America’s Federal debt is a black-and-white fact.
That is a far cry from 2008 when candidate Obama promised to be a breakaway leader for the American people. Instead, President Obama has proven himself to be a President for Wall Street interests, billionaire bankers and the military-industrial establishment. That during his Presidency, Obama has fulfilled none of the promises to the middle class or to the millions of black Americans who saw him as a ray of hope for a better future is certain. That Obama has helped make the world a more divided and dangerous place for all is undoubtable.

The Tale Of Two Obamas

Charles Dickens wrote A Tale of Two Cities 150 years ago about the French Revolution: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness…”
So it has been these past several years with Obama the candidate and as the President.
Beginning in the summer of 2008, it seemed that America could be on the verge of anarchy. It seemed possible that there could be an economic collapse as well as a collapse in confidence in the Federal government and many of the Nation’s institutions. That would lead to a collapse in the New World Order, which the United States underpins. Those forces built up over decades needed somebody transformative, somebody to pull the wool over the eyes of the world. From the shadows stepped Obama, anointed by some as the chosen one and appealing to tens of millions of people at home and hundreds of millions of people abroad.
The real question is by whom was Obama chosen? He had no experience as a leader or a thinker and certainly not as a doer. His past was so checkered it called into question not only his birthplace but his college background, economic beliefs and even his religion. Yet within a year he had become an international sensation, a Nobel Peace Prize winner. That erstwhile kid from Hawaii was a pop star 10 times bigger than Justin Bieber and half as smart.
But rather than change, Obama has doubled down on all the corruption and dysfunction that our Federal government has planted over the past three decades. It was Obama the candidate who attacked George W. Bush’s abuse of executive powers, only to spy upon the Nation with impunity as President. It was Obama the candidate who criticized Bush and the Republicans for the bailouts of big investment banks but then as President provided a no-strings-attached policy after his Administration’s $800 billion bailout, which allowed for record bonuses to top Wall Street executives who scant months before he had vilified.

A Probable Pawn For The NWO

The most startling discrepancy between candidate Obama and President Obama is when it comes to foreign policy. As President, Obama has wielded foreign policy with a broadsword against real or perceived enemies in ways that Dick Cheney must watch with green envy. Consider Obama’s air attacks on Libya.
In December 2007, candidate Obama was asked if a President could bomb Iran without Congressional authorization. Obama’s answer: “The President does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
Yet as commander in chief, Obama did not have a problem breaking such a promise and quickly used massive American airpower and sea power against Libya. In 2011, Obama went so far as to go against his legal advisers, insisting he did not need Congressional approval under the War Powers Resolution to continue attacks against Libya beyond the 60-day limit dictated by the resolution. Obama sounded like Bill Clinton when he said that what he had done was dependent on the definition of “sex.” Obama claimed that U.S. attacks were outside the legal definition of “hostilities.”
Even a military hawk like Speaker of the House John Boehner was outraged, saying, “The White House’s suggestion that there are no ‘hostilities’ taking place in Libya defies rational thought.”
So what is rational when it comes to Obama, both the candidate and the President? The two are very separate men. The first, who offered to change things for the better, no longer exists (if he ever did). The President is the ever faithful company man to the financial and military establishments. Obama has made his mark as the first African-American President. Despite his myriad failures in office and his multitude of lies, I believe his Presidency will be celebrated. Those who determined his election know how to pay off a loyal servant. But thankfully for some, Obama will be remembered as a pawn and not a king. How many feel that way depends on us understanding the truth, fighting for our liberties and protecting the Constitution.