BBC Blog Network

User Profile

jcputn5349

Listed below are comments made by jcputn5349 between Saturday, 1st November 2008 and Monday, 3rd November 2008.

«Newer
Older»

Soft imperalism 6:01pm on 03 Nov 2008 202. Look, honestly, I don't care who is president if the federal government would just leave us alone. They keep trying to part us from our earnings, which means I have to keep thinking about them. The Dems could put Ringo Starr in as President, and I would not care as long as they leave us alone. I am praying that I'm wrong about Obama, but the voices of too many business people and economists say that I'm right. The saying is Dems tax and spend, Reps borrow and spend. We're going to have to starve them out, which means NO NEW SOCIAL PROGRAMS; NO NEW SPENDING; CUT SPENDING AND TAXES. We can't afford it. Hate to bust your bubble; but O's tax plan will not work especially since the ones who are supposed to pay for it, won't; they will close their businesses or shrink even if they are sent to re-education camps. I'll hide them in my basement so they can write diaries until it is safe to come out.
Soft imperalism 5:43pm on 03 Nov 2008 202. You're pinning on US Christians the history of Europe, now? It's America's fault for that, too? hahahahahaaa We left for a reason. Unless you don't recall or never learned, Christians founded America because they ran away from European state-sanctioned persecutions against Christians--you know, the kind where elites establish Absolute Power over their lower bred countrymen through abuse of state power and build mercantile (not capitalist) empires off the backs of tiny colonies until tiny Christian colonists tell Europeans to go screw themselves? Nothing has changed.
Soft imperalism 3:38pm on 03 Nov 2008 I don't care if people laugh at me. I'm used to it because I'm a Christian, the only group that it is politically ok to discriminate against. I have nothing to lose.

As for calling "redistribution of wealth" Marxism and those who promote "redistribution of wealth" Marxists, it is and they are. I didn't make it so. There is a huge difference between supporting social programs and turning the IRS into distribution center from where we receive our living. The first one is simply a "well-meaning liberal" and the second intends for "redistributive change," Obama's phrase. "Redistribution of wealth" is radical and the polar opposite the Revolutionary War, Jefferson, Lincoln, Kennedy....Obama is a disaster because Marxism is a disaster. I would rather not have to tell you later "I told you so," but I already know that if O wins and you voted for him, that is exactly what you will hear and will be accountable for.
Soft imperalism 3:26pm on 03 Nov 2008 Not everyone agrees with Justin Webb on what is worthy of commentary in this election:

Barack Obama victory will hurt US firms -- and world economy
By Janet Daley
[...] it is tax policy that is Obama's most dangerous ground. It must be surprising to British observers that his proposal to cut taxes for the 95 per cent of people who earn less than $200,000 a year (down, incidentally, from his initial figure of $250,000)* has not straightforwardly won the day in the American national debate.

* [actually it was $300 k to 250 k to 200 k, now rests at $120 k]

In Britain, such a promise (if believed) would be an electoral free pass to Downing Street. But in the US, voters are aware that the largest category of people who would be hit by Obama's higher tax would be those who own small businesses, as Joe the Plumber famously aspired to do and as many, many of his countrymen already do [US figure: 97% of businesses are "small" in the USA and provide 45% of US jobs.] Ordinary working-class people in America do not automatically expect to be low earners, or even employees, all of their lives: they believe that through hard work and resourcefulness, they are as likely as anyone to rise in the world. [That's right.] And so they do not necessarily take kindly to someone who wants to penalise them as soon as they break through an income ceiling in order, as Obama fatally put it, to "spread the wealth around". [This lady gets it; if O wins there go my dreams; I'll have to buy gold and stuff my mattress with cash.]

But there is another facet of Obama taxation with even more serious consequences for the US. In order to pay for his tax cut for 95 per cent of the population (half of whom do not pay income tax and whose "cut" would be in the form of a cash rebate), President Obama and his Democratic Congress would raise the US rate of corporation tax -- already the second highest in the world -- from 15 to 20 per cent. They also plan to punish through taxation companies that employ people overseas rather than "creating American jobs". These measures would have the almost immediate effect of driving companies and capital out of the US.

In the same "help the little guy" spirit, Obama proposes to raise capital gains tax, thus penalising those whose investment is desperately needed for market recovery. As my economist friends always tell me when I advocate tax cuts for the low-paid: it may seem a morally and politically attractive policy but it doesn't do a damn thing for economic growth. The tiny amounts that the lower-paid receive in such wide-ranging cuts make little difference as a stimulus and if they are balanced by penalties on business and on the investing classes, they are worse than useless.

So what will happen? For what it is worth, I think it ...Whoever gets the White House, America will eventually return to being what it must be: the economic engine of the world and the greatest testimony to the power of human initiative in history. On both of those counts, it will once again be resented. But it will take a while longer to reach that point under Barack Obama.

-----------------------------------

She has hope that socialism will die in the USA.

I haven't seen a single opinion piece at Justin's blog on the detrimental effects of Obama's tax plan on small business so far or the unemployment that is coming, and we already see manifesting because of the O campaigns anti-business threats. If he did, I missed it.

Small business is preparing to lay people off and has already started to cut down their size. "Unfavored" industries are not safe either. The coal industry will enjoy 100% unemployment after Obama bankrupts them, as he promised in another interview where he accidentally let the truth slip.

The Munchkins of small business won't come out of hiding until they know socialism is dead. Everyone will simply stop producing and creating new wealth from which the government sucks.

If any of you are under-30 years old O-voters, that means you'll have to pay for your own car insurance next month, and when your parents are older, they will move in with you.
Soft imperalism 2:11pm on 03 Nov 2008 cont'd from previous post...

At the beginning of the video, Geller mentions that the BBC reported there were phone banks in Gaza for Obama. Nadler replies: "Oh that's nonsense. ... You can invent facts, or read some stupid blog that invents a fact. ... I have never heard until this moment the allegation that someone's got phone banks in Gaza. If that were the case there would have been headlines all over the place. ... It would have been all over Fox News, and then everybody would have been answering it. ... It would have been a major campaign issue." -- Weekly Standard

Thanks to BBC for reporting the story of the Gaza phone banks that the American MSM ignores and a US Congress member does not know or care about. There's a u-tube video showing the interviews at one operation.

American MSM missed something else--on purpose. The Times Online Uk investigated Obama's background that includes family relations. The Times tell the story of Obama's aunt living in government housing in Boston. She is an illegal immigrant ordered to leave the US four years ago, yet she stays (because living in "imperial, racist America" ain't bad after all.) O now says he barely knew her, yet he used her as an example of his strong sense of family ties in one of two autobiographies, Dreams of My Fathers, and he accepted $250 from her for the campaign. It is against the law for non-citizens to contribute to campaigns. (She is one of many who have donated illegally.) Axelrod demands an investigation into the "leak" that exposes her location and proves O's failure to live up to his own plastic rhetoric of "compassion." Apparently, genuine journalism is a "leak," a criminal act in the O'World, and will be soon in our world if O is selected king.

This should tell Justin Webb to stop relying on American anti-journalism for his op-ed or else do his own investigations on the streets outside of Washington. You can count on one hand the national journalists in the US who did not sell out, but overall the vast majority of MSM members--registered Democrats, supporters of the elite class, and anti-Jefferson--sought to influence the outcome of the election with bias and suppressed information. They have been the propaganda arm of the Obama campaign. Those who did not sell out (some of them Dems, Independents, and Liberals) are paying a temporary and painful price for integrity. They will win in the end for holding to principles of their profession. The "bad" journalists have lost our respect and sullied the profession to the point that journalists are as distrusted as the politicians in Washington are. When famous MSM journalists appear in public, they are "boooooed." They will surely go down if O wins the election even with his blatant favoritism for them. They will have a chance with the American people for redemption if Mc wins because the damage O will do will not be laid at their feet. Already, honest college professors (liberal ones, even) use them as examples of bias in journalism and warn students to search for news beyond the big American media. Good news for the BBC, Times UK, and small town journalists in the USA.

I have a strong suspicion that only McCain can save the Democratic Party from itself. All the suppressed info? It will come crashing down on the Dems. Their only hope of surviving as a legitimate party will be if they return to their roots in Jefferson, which means they will need to embrace meritology and let go of Marx.

Let Americans have a real-life experience of Marxism with their jobs, paychecks, and small businesses. Republican ranks will swell when a-political Americans suddenly realize what "spread the wealth" means; a good portion do not understand failed Marxist theory and must need a real-life primer. Interestingly, legal immigrants from socialist homelands are the most anti-Obama in our land.

The 2001 Obama radio interview will haunt the Dem Party until they, like so many of their wise fellow Americans, run away from spooky sounding Marxist politicians: "But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf and that hasn't shifted." Obama 2001

Oh, Please US Federal Government, don't do anything more to "help us!" Anybody remember Ronald Reagan? He said, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
How about government get out of our way so we can solve our own problems? We don't need government to direct our actions, and we don't need permission from government to act in our own self-interest. In fact, the only way to solve the problems, that government created for us with interference, is if government removes itself from the field. Sounds like a "game changer" to me.

One other person's response at M. Drudge: "I find it interesting that Obama doesn't seem to recognize the limits on Congress that are expressed in Article I Section VIII of the Constitution. Obama also seems to believe that the only things that the government CAN'T do is what is in the Bill of Rights. This is completely against what the Founders believed in. In fact many people who opposed the Constitution such as the great Patrick Henry believed that others would come who would interpret the Constitution to mean that the rights penned are the only ones you have and can be repealed by government... just like Obama indicates in this interview."

Another Ronald Reagan quote: "How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."

A lot of us understand, and many more will learn if O wins the election.

USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA!
Soft imperalism 11:30am on 03 Nov 2008 Dem Foreign Policy:

Dem. Congressman: "Let [Russia] Invade Georgia. It's Right Next to Them."

At an event at a Boca Raton synagogue, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) said that the United States should let Russia invade Georgia. Beginning at the 3:50 mark [in a] YouTube video, which was recorded by Pamela Geller of the blog Atlas Shrugs, Nadler says:

We have not been willing to put our priorities properly. We have not been willing to say ... "Hey Russia, we won't expand NATO into the Ukraine and Georgia, right next to your borders, if you cooperate with us on Iran."...

"I think Iran and Israel are a hell of a lot more important than expanding NATO to Russia's borders. Why should we? What do we need it for?"

Someone in the crowd says: "Because they invaded Georgia."

Nadler retorts: "So let 'em invade Georgia. It's right next to them. Would we tolerate a foreign--a Russian army in Mexico? Which is more important to us Georgia or Israel, frankly?"

Another voice in the crowd asks Nadler: "What is more important to us Czechoslovakia or Austria?"

"That's a completely separate kind of question," Nadler replies.
Obama in enemy territory 3:44pm on 01 Nov 2008 R.J. Godlewski
As once stated, I am not a racist. I hate everyone equally. ;o) However, I have found many people questioning this simply because I refuse to vote for Barack Obama. This is completely asinine. It is not my fault that he is black -- a person's race must never be considered for anything -- but it IS his fault that I do not like him. His actions speak far louder -- and more truthful -- than his mere words. His methodical calls for "change" do not suggest an improvement for the future, the inspiration of Americanization, or even the jumpstarting of capitalism. No, his intention is for change:

Change (chaynj) v. 1. To alter; make or become different; vary. 2. To substitute. 3. To exchange.

However, the question must be asked, do you really want to alter, differentiate, substitute, or exchange America, as we know it? I doubt very much that you do. If anything, you have been preached to that the last eight years of the infamous Bush Administration is behind your need for "change" even though many other administrations in U.S. history presented their citizens with actions no less intolerable than our current example. Yet, none of our ancestors preached change as much as Senator Obama does. What could he be hiding within his platform? Why is his vision for a "better" America so secretive? Most importantly, the question needs to be addressed, if his "hope" for a better and brighter future is so damn good then why must he resort to intimidation, deceit, fraud, and the silencing of his opponents in order to achieve it?

I bolted from membership in the Democratic Party when Bill Clinton became the favorite but, damn, even Slick Willy never resorted to what this character has been guilty of. Furthermore, Bill Clinton served as governor for a number of years and, hence, there goes that fundamental rule again, held executive experience. [...] And what, might you ask, has [Obama] done (or will do) that deserves such an uncivilized characterization? Glad that you asked.

There is a red glow upon our horizon; a fire line that bodes of destruction and chaos. It is a Red Holocaust unlike anything the world has seen or will ever see again but in true Biblical fashion, many of us may not even know of its existence or its arrival until it is far too late. Some of the characteristic signs that I, and many others like me, see are:

Pro-Abortion
Barack Obama is perhaps the most abortion-friendly candidate to run for President of the United States. His desire to see little babies suffocate to death just because an act to save their lives may have had questionable political attachments is absurd. None of us would pass a stricken soul on the street just because they did not have insurance or any other legislated document so why would Obama come up with an excuse to ignore any child born alive?

Anti-Military
The would-be commander-in-chief of our nation's military has never, ever worn a uniform, voted to deny our forces in combat their hard-earned pay, funds for their resources, and desires for them to return home in defeat. That's not being a commander. That's not being a chief. That's merely being "in" with the liberal left who wish to see America denigrated in full view of the world. There's a word for that in the dictionary:

Treason (tree-z'n) n. 1. Sedition. 2. Treachery; betrayal.

Pro-Iranian
I don't even know where to begin with this one. For the past couple of months my class project (yep, I've returned to serious study after twenty-seven years!) has been an in-depth study of the Iran-Israel conflict and the six-inch thick (I've measured it) stack of documents next to me presents a dire view of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the ruling clerics in Tehran. Who, in their right mind, may I ask, would like to sit down across the table from Ahmadinejad and discuss anything? Barack Obama, that's who. Senator Obama wants to sit down all nice and cozy with one of the world's foremost lunatics and make play. Ahmadinejad does not want Twinkies; he wants nukes!

Anti-Israel

[...]

The point is that I know enough about my friends to care about who they are. I care about their heritage, their families, their livelihoods and, yes, by all means, their safety. This has nothing to do with Middle East politics, it's all about knowing that some maniacal monster in Iran desires to vaporize seven million people in a single flash. That's one million more than the Holocaust. I doubt very much that I'll ever be invited to Iran (unless there is a profound political change over there) but I have been invited in the past to visit Israel, even purchase some real estate there. I'd like that. I like the historical and cultural significance of the land. I just would not want to come back to my beloved United States glowing like a damn bug lamp.

Anti-Gun
Barack Obama's rating from the National Rifle Association ranks in the cellar. The sewer beneath the cellar, to be more precise. That's regarding a fundamental right of all Americans that ranks second only to free speech within the Bill of Rights. He is against handgun ownership (recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court as America's protection of choice), against hunting, and desires to prosecute Americans who defend their own lives. His supporters quip that he can't change such Constitutional protections -- but with a mandate in Congress, he can do as he pleases.

Anti-Religion
Let's face it, we're "One Nation under God." We have always been. There is no need to debate that fact; one only needs to tour our national monuments to discover this reality. Perhaps a tour of Arlington National Cemetery would defeat any naysayers. Regardless, Barack Obama does not profess to any religion of truth, faith, and justice. For twenty years, a hateful, anti-American preacher has indoctrinated him. That's during his adulthood. During his childhood, he had been dragged around one Muslim country after another. Any person, in my opinion, who does not believe in God should not run the "One Nation" under that deity. But that's just my opinion.

Untrustworthiness
I would like to hear from any federal employee with a Top Secret government clearance who has as tarnished a background as does the junior senator from Illinois. For the rest of you, I will "enlighten" you to the process. First, you, Joe the Fed, have to fill out documents relating to all of your acquaintances, travels, jobs, periods of unemployment, and residences (but only back to your eighteenth birthday). Then you have to go through a polygraph examination, a psychological examination, and, I did, a medical examination where they poke, prod, and pinch every square inch of your body. Next, comes the challenging part. The background investigators (in my experience, from the Department of Defense) then canvas your neighborhood, your places of employment and education and talk to everyone who knows of you. If you are a typical "new hire" this may take upwards of 12-18 months to complete. When they receive all of the data back from the people that knew you (or thought that they knew you and you them), then they bring you down into the local federal office and grill you over any discrepancies they may have found. If you have had any kind of "colorful" life, you may find yourself defending your thoughts and actions against a stack of sworn (but perhaps not honest) testimony a foot and a half thick. Now, I ask you in complete honesty, how the hell could someone with Barack Obama's tainted background gain the kind of security clearance needed by the President of the United States? Remember the movie Tora! Tora! Tora! when the character played by E.G. Marshall lamented over the removal of FDR from the "cleared" list just before Pearl Harbor was attacked simply because someone in the President's office left classified documents in the trash? What if our very president was the security breech?

Joe the Autoworker
I don't want to talk about Joe the Plumber. I want to talk about Joe the Autoworker, my late father. For decades, my dad worked his way through horribly brutal factories (not the air-conditioned "laboratory" manifestations of today). As a child, I toured these factories during the local family get-togethers and, let me tell you, an old foundry is filthy, loud, and very hot. The most that my dad ever made -- when he retired -- was 9 dollars an hour. When I was born, he was involved in a Hi-Lo (forklift) accident that tore off his heel. It happened because at the time, his workplace was horribly unkempt and dangerous. You would think that after a lifetime of paying union dues, working for the likes of Jimmy Hoffa (who once personally bailed my father out of jail when he was wrongfully arrested for what they considered to be an "illegal" strike), and voting both pro-union and pro-Democratic, they would have done more to help him. No, they didn't. The people today employed in what would be considered the closest semblance to his old position -- the unions drove most of the old factories out of business -- now make about fifty dollars an hour. My dad switched to voting for Republicans when Clinton got the nod, but still today, they swamp my mother daily with pro-Obama/anti-McCain literature paid for, in part, by his dues. Is this how unions work? "You pay us so that we can tell you how to vote"? Now they want open ballots. Puh-leaze.

The Media
Free speech has gone out through the window in this nation. While Princess Obama pays for a twenty-four-hour DISH Network channel and shells out Six Million to buy air time on the major networks, his cronies attack dissenters through the Internet and in person. They yank anti-Obama opinions off the Web, manhandle the press into supporting him unchallenged, and should I, for example, say anything hostile towards their candidate, one of their staffers will digitally manifest into several "different" opponents and hound me as if I were the Antichrist. What they don't know is that everything through the Internet can be traced, contrary to Hollywood movies and television shows. The actions of Barack Obama and his "campaign" people bring to mind only two words: [A famous mean Socialist]. If you have proof that everything that [this Evil Leader] stood for isn't being repeated in some manner by Senator Obama. I'm all ears. Don't wait for the translation, tell me now!

Yes, we face a looming disaster ahead. The world is awash in chaos and the nuclear club is rapidly growing. A mere "charitable organizer" will not be able to stop it. Neither will his buffoonish sidekick. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, its former Muslim nations found themselves possessing 2,730 nuclear weapons of which about 1,330 represented the tactical variety. Not all of them have been accounted for. In the old Soviet system, there were grave consequences for failure in production, so many institutions simply falsified their uranium, plutonium, and weapon devices production records. We have no way of knowing...

Add to this North Korea, Iran's ambitions, the once-destroyed-now-apparently-rebuilt Syrian nuclear facility and what we are left with is a powder keg ready to be touched off. Enter a kid with no practical experience. Perhaps this is what Joe Biden warned everyone about. In case you have not noticed, we are engaged in a culture-shattering war with radical Islamists who have attacked the United States non-stop since 1979. Twice they attacked us in New York (1993 and 2001). They will not stop and if Barack Obama believes that he can sit down and have a chat with them, well, let's just say that you can't have tea and crumpets with people who behead their adversaries for entertainment. The Red Holocaust rising upon the horizon will affect us all. Now is most definitely not the time to treat the untested as some noble knight riding in on an immaculate stallion. This Crusade is being played for keeps.
Obama in enemy territory 3:07pm on 01 Nov 2008 America's future is in our own hands

Hal Lindsey

As a "Watchman on the Wall," I believe Election 2008 will permanently determine the future path America will take. I fear that most Americans do not understand the true issues they are voting on.

Among other things, this election may determine whether the government will be empowered to forcefully take money earned by some Americans and redistribute it as it chooses to others.

As I have taught before for 50 years, there are certain divine institutions God set forth in the Bible. They are intended for the good and welfare of all mankind. To whatever degree a people honors these institutions, they will be blessed, preserved and prospered.

First, the institutions of freedom to choose one's own destiny and the "sanctity of life"-- these were enshrined in the U.S. Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

We are given by God, not our government, the freedom to choose our own destiny and to pursue a career that brings prosperity and happiness. Our forefathers knew only too well that a government that is powerful enough to confiscate and redistribute wealth is also strong enough to take away your freedom to choose and pursue happiness.

Thomas Jefferson clearly warned us about this: "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have."

In this election, we are making a choice -- either continue to pursue our own destiny and well-being, or give the government the power to establish a "welfare state" in which it slowly takes over our basic freedoms.

James Madison, considered the father of our Constitution, wrote, "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

Samuel Adams also spoke along these lines, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. ... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

As you prepare to vote, remember what made this country great and what has kept God's protection over her.

[...]

Some [Obama in a radio address in 2001] call ours a "negative constitution" since its authors devoted more effort to "limiting government" than they did to "empowering" it. The Bible does not teach that governments should have the authority to seize the fruits of one's labor and give it to others. It encourages us in every way to voluntarily give to the poor and give them a hand up, not a hand out.

The great patriot Patrick Henry warned of this when he said, "Now what liberty can there be where property is taken away without consent?"

[...]

You owe it to God and our forefathers who sacrificed to give us this freedom to VOTE. God can only use your vote if you cast your vote. Take the time to study a sample ballot and weigh the issues against biblical principles [before you go to the poll.] Weigh the character of the candidates. Heed the exhortations of the godly Founding Fathers of our great country.

Patrick Henry wisely said. "Bad men cannot make good citizens. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience are incompatible with freedom." Godly morality is important.

Thomas Jefferson also advised, "A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of the laborer the bread he has earned. This is the sum of good government. ..."

Government must not be put in the place of God. At best, it is created to enable each citizen to pursue his or her own destiny. By all means, pray for God's guidance and vote your conscience.

[...]

May God bless America.
Obama in enemy territory 2:30pm on 01 Nov 2008 To the Democrats at this thread:

You need to join with others in the Dem Party who are trying to take your Party back. Those on the outer fringe kook left have taken over your party completely and no longer represent those who admire John Kennedy, who has more in common with McCain. McCain is a 1960s Democrat.

Kennedy lowered capital gains taxes. He lowered a lot of taxes. He was like Ronald Reagan, too. Go study Kennedy at Heritage dot org. Kennedy and Obama are on opposite sides of the ideological fence; and Kennedy is on my side...I have never in my life voted to increase any one's taxes, rich or poor, because I love my neighbor.

Ideological fence:

on the far right are Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin...they believe in limitations set on government with a Constitutional Republic. On the far left is totalitarianism (dictators, communism, democracy...). Where you are on the line depends on how much state power over your life that you will tolerate. Most Americans are center Right, exactly where McCain and Kennedy are.

Realize that a secondary event has happened in the USA. The elites have already aligned with the "New United Socialist States of America." They have abandoned us, the little guys, because in a totalitarian regime, big business and the wealthy will always survive in any regime. It is us--small business owners, working people--who will suffer. To get a clue what they think of working people, look what they did to Joe the Plumber; he is a private citizen and the Obama camp used government computers and abused Obama's senatorial power to destroy him for merely asking a question that exposed Obama's socialism. Joe is a private citizen not running for anything--he can't raise taxes, can't send out the national guard.... Look what happens to journalists who do not parrot the uniformity of thought: Three newspapers kicked off the O plane and two local news stations blackballed (for merely asking journalistic q's). American presidents who uphold the Constitution do not do such things. They TAKE criticism and uphold the Bill of Rights (Free speech, Free press...) The press has a right to ask questions because the people have a right to ask questions. Come to your senses...this is beyond party...this is country...our loyalty is to each other when we say loyalty to country--and our loyalty is not for centralized, concentrated power invested in the federal government in Washington. It's to the guy who runs a vacuum cleaning shop in town, etc...You owe We the People your loyalty...and you will owe us and be accountable if you sell out our freedom.

You will also be responsible for maintaining ZERO American civilians killed since 9/11, which our enemies and allies all know Obama will blunder.

The American people will always do the right thing IF they have the information. Hopefully, they heard these "slip ups" from O that reveal his true intention; these are little cracks when, for a moment, he tells the truth, and it is chilling. He doesn't speak freedom; he speaks totalitarian. The MSM has been complicit in keeping you uninformed. You have to take your fellow citizens word for it when they plead with you, as I am, to use your compass in your spirit to discern truth and act on it.

You know the truth. You know freedom from totalitarian rhetoric and actions.

Presidents do not complain on radio shows about the limitations on the US courts for "redistributive change." They don't stifle debate and information. They don't call for Civilian National Security Forces. They don't attend racist liberation theology churches for twenty years. They don't remove the US flag from their planes. They don't sit on boards with unrepentant terrorists. They don't call for the "transformation of fundamentals" in the USA because the fundamentals are the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They don't build platforms in imitation of Greek temples. They don't call taxpayers "selfish," or paying taxes "patriotic." They don't require journalists to repeat only The Party narrative. They don't destroy the reputations of private citizens like Joe, who can't hurt anybody---Joe will forever be an emblem for all future private citizens who suffer under totalitarianism IF O is elected.

Come to your senses. Remember who you are. A great cloud of witnesses including our Founders are watching from Heaven. They are not going to return and fight for your freedom again. It is your job to maintain what they gave you. It is your turn to die to self for the sake of future generations. You do not want to be the generation that overthrows the Revolutionary War, (which is what this election is really about), and you do not want to have the Revolutionary patriots's characteristics contrasted against yours as the reasons you sold out on the Bill of Rights:

Dependent vs Independent; Government-made vs Self-Made; Lazy vs Hardworking; Ungodly vs godly; Selfish vs Sacrificial; Coward vs Bold; Immature vs Mature; Uniform vs Individual; Sheep vs Leader; Government-controlled vs Self-controlled; Blind vs Visionary; Prideful vs Humble; Willfully ignorant vs Informed; Trust Government vs Distrustful of Government; Irresponsible vs Dutiful;

Do your job.
Obama in enemy territory 02:22am on 01 Nov 2008 "We cannot continue to rely on just our military. We've got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded." --Barack Hussein Obama

He has also said he intends to increase the size of active military. Dept of Defense budget is 500 billion. He's going to create a civilian national security force with this level of funding. And when he does, TO DO WHAT??!!!

I just heard it at utube. The Media is not reporting everything they know. Go there and hear him in a speech. This is not normal rhetoric coming from candidates anywhere in the history of the United States.

Citizens, do your job.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

jcputn5349