Obama: Anti-Colonial President, Plans for the next term

http://www.amazon.com/Fool-Me-Twice-.../dp/1936488574

Well, the author was just on Fox and Friends.

If I get a chance, I'll read his book. Although he laid out pretty clearly what's in store for us in the second Obama term.

We can NOT let him be re-elected.

Book had four reviews. All are 5 stars thus far.

Book Description

Publication Date: August 7, 2012
This is the game changing book revealing the blueprint for a second term that President Obama and his progressive backers don't want you to know.

Months of painstaking research into thousands of documents have enabled investigative journalists and New York Times bestselling authors Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott to expose the secret template for Obama's next four years -- the one actually created by Obama's own top advisers and strategists.

Just as Obama concealed the true plans for his initial term behind rhetoric of ending partisan differences and cutting the Federal deficit, Obama's re-election theme of creating jobs conceals more than it reveals about his real agenda for a second term.

All the main areas of domestic policy are covered -- jobs, wages, health care, immigration overhaul, electoral "reform," national energy policy. Each of the plans exposed seek to permanently remake America into a government-dominated socialist state.

Here are just a few samples from dozens upon dozens of specific schemes unveiled herein:

• Detailed plans to enact single-payer health care legislation controlled by the Federal government regardless of any Supreme Court decision to overturn Obamacare;
  
  
• The recreation of a 21st century version of FDR's Works Progress Administration (WPA) program within the Department of Labor that would oversee a massive new bureaucracy and millions of new Federal jobs;
  
  
• Further gutting of the U.S. military in shocking ways, while using the "savings" for a new "green" stimulus program and the founding of a Federal "green" bank to fund so-called environmentally friendly projects;
  
  
• The vastly reduced resources of the U.S. Armed Forces will be spread even thinner by using them to combat "global warming," fight global poverty, remedy "injustice," bolster the United Nations and step up use of "peacekeeping" deployments;
  
  
• An expansive new amnesty program for illegal aliens linked with a reduction in the capabilities of the U.S. Border Patrol and plans to bring in untold numbers of new immigrants with the removal of caps on H-1B visas and green cards.

Fool Me Twice is based on exhaustive research into the coming plans and presidential policies as well as the specific second term recommendations of the major "progressive" groups behind Barack Obama and the Democratic leadership - the organizations that help to craft the legislation and set the political and rhetorical agenda for the president and his allies.

While many have general concerns about Obama's second-term ambitions, Fool Me Twice lays bare the devastating details of a second Obama presidency. If he wins re-election in 2012, the America of equal opportunity for all, Constitutionally-limited government, economic freedom and personal liberty will be but a distant memory.

Ok... I hate buying books for full price. But, 9.99 for the Kindle was ok. saved a few bucks. I'll let you know how it comes out.

lol

By the way... of the four reviews, the one was a Left Wing tirade against the right, no review actually.

He scored it 5 stars. LOL

And I of course marked his review helpful, because he was the one that convinced me to buy it.

See? The Left is good for SOMETHING? (Not much besides sending them to Mars).

The country Obama wants to be president of, is not the United States. The fact that liberal loons and guilty white people voted this turd in means we have to live with his stink. If the turd pops up again, it may be time to replace the toilet.

Man, either I'm in an agreeable mood today, or you're just RIGHT.

:)

It's getting really, really close to time to replace the toilet.

Excuse my ignorance, or maybe I'm a little slow today, but could you help me understand the metaphor?

See your pm shortly

Author is on Sean Hannity's radio show now.

Heard him on the way home! lol

In a somewhat related vein, a new movie is out....

http://2016themovie.com/

Watching a handful of clips, the official trailer etc.

Funny how BOTH the author of the book and this guy who did the movie (and two books) are neither one born or living in the USA.

(As far as I have determined. I might be wrong on this).

The movie guy is Indian. The other guy who was on Hannity lives in the Middle East.

I renamed this thread. It should become evident why.

August 4, 2012 12:00 A.M.
What Obama Has in Store for Us
Dinesh D’Souza asks what a 2012 victory would mean. By John Fund


Archive Latest RSS Sendhttp://global.nationalreview.com/ima...row-white3.png http://c6.nrostatic.com/uploaded/tmp...t_080412_C.jpg

Promotional material for Dinesh D’Souza’s 2016: Obama’s America

Print
Text http://global.nationalreview.com/ima..._text-less.jpg http://global.nationalreview.com/ima..._text-more.jpg

Comments 54

http://www.nationalreview.com/sites/...nd2_square.jpg

John Fund http://global.nationalreview.com/ima...ive_16x13C.jpg

The latest line of attack on Mitt Romney by Obama supporters is the most breathtaking yet: Romney, we are told, is a stealth candidate.


Michael Tomasky, who wrote the controversial Newsweek cover story declaring that Romney is a “wimp,” now accuses Romney of a “desire to sneak into the White House all but unexamined by voters.”


Holy Double Standard! Romney certainly could have handled the release of his tax returns better, and it’s likely he is concealing embarrassing details.

But Barack Obama, aided and abetted by a subservient media, spent much of his 2008 campaign trying to conceal his radical roots and evading questions about his past. Stanley Kurtz, the author of the new Spreading the Wealth: How Obama Is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities, has demonstrated convincingly that the Obama campaign lied to reporters (including me) about Obama’s involvement with the socialist New Party and his work for the infamous ACORN operation (which subsequently went bankrupt following a 2009 scandal).


Similarly, scholar Paul Kengor has written a new book on Frank Marshall Davis, Obama’s teenage mentor, entitled “The Communist.” Dave Weigel of Slate acknowledges that “Kengor’s bang-on right: Davis was an avowed Communist, and the media of 2008 didn’t care.” But Weigel thinks “Obama never pretended not to know Davis” and notes that Davis appears as the black-power advocate “Frank” in the president’s 1995 book Dreams from My Father. True enough, but Obama was certainly leery of too much scrutiny of Davis: The audio version of Dreams, read by Obama himself, removes all 24 references to “Frank” that appear in the printed text. Why the difference? Perhaps because the audio version wasn’t recorded until 2005, when newly elected U.S. senator Barack Obama was already contemplating a run for the White House.

Advertisement

Trying to figure out what makes Barack Obama tick, what influenced his thinking, and where he might take the country in a second term is the purpose of Dinesh D’Souza’s new $2.5 million documentary 2016: Obama’s America, which will premiere in hundreds of theaters on August 10.

D’Souza, a bestselling author and the president of King’s College in New York, emigrated from India as a boy, and he says he understands something of how Obama’s exotic upbringing in Hawaii and Indonesia might have shaped his view of America. But D’Souza, a conservative, sees America as a land of tolerance and opportunity. He believes Obama “adopted his [anti-colonialist] father’s position that capitalism and free markets are code words for economic plunder. Obama grew to perceive the rich as an oppressive class, a kind of neocolonial power within America.” That may be stretching things just a bit, but remember, it was the president himself who just told small-business owners they can’t take credit for their own success.

D’Souza travels the world in search of clues to Obama’s thinking, using Dreams from My Father as his Baedeker guide. In a couple of spots his evidence seems forced or incomplete, but much of what he finds is disturbing. An old academic friend of the late Barack Obama Sr. tells D’Souza he believes father and son shared the same anti-colonial, anti-Western outlook.


Interestingly, one of the Kenyans whom D’Souza meets now thinks the British colonialists left too soon. George Obama, one of the president’s cousins, tells D’Souza that if the British had stayed, “they would have developed us. Instead, we were fighting over nothing!”

Where D’Souza hits storytelling gold is in his take on the recent controversy over President Obama’s return of a bust of Winston Churchill that had been in the Oval Office to the British government soon after he took office. Churchill was prime minister in the 1950s, when Kenya’s colonial government crushed the Mau Mau rebellion. His father claimed he was arrested by the British and other members of the family were interned.


When columnist Charles Krauthammer last month repeated the charge that the Churchill statue had been returned, the White House went into bizarre overdrive to deny the story as “100 percent false.” Within days, the source of the confusion was revealed: The bust in question had been returned (as had been widely reported long before Krauthammer’s column), but a diffferent copy of the sculpture remains in the White House collection.


D’Souza’s film is perfectly pitched for conservatives who are skeptical of Obama’s motives but reject the bizarre theories that he wasn’t born in the U.S. (To his credit, D’Souza shoots down that premise early on.)

But the film may also appeal to independents who have more questions about Obama than they did when they voted for him in 2008. Its production values are solid — it was produced by Gerald Molen, who was in charge of bringing Jurassic Park and Schindler’s List to the big screen. Some preview showings in Houston were outgrossed only by the new Ice Age and Spider-Man movies. That augurs well for the film’s ability to succeed based on word of mouth.

Dinesh D’Souza obviously wants his film to be taken seriously, and it deserves to be. In a couple places, however, it falls short in predicting where Obama, the anti-capitalist opponent of colonialism, would take America in his second term. I don’t think Obama’s move to reduce U.S. nuclear stockpiles from 5,000 warheads to 2,500 are quite as serious as D’Souza seems to. But the film scores points by highlighting Obama’s bizarre reluctance to develop North American oil and gas reserves while encouraging developing nations to develop theirs.


No one can really claim they know exactly what makes the president tick. But 2016: Obama’s America leaves enough clues on the table to make us wonder if we would be taking an even bigger risk in reelecting him than we took in 2008. After all, we’ve never observed the actions of a Barack Obama who knows he will never have to face an electorate again.
— John Fund is national-affairs columnist for NRO.

Perhaps I ought to just call this "Vetting the President"....

August 7, 2012 Vetting Conference Exposes More of Obama's Marxist Ties

James Simpson
Now that Democrats are demanding extensive documentation of Mitt Romney's financial history, President Obama's veiled past is definitely in play. And rest assured, the vetting of Barack Obama will happen.
On Thursday, July 19^th, Cliff Kincaid of America's Survival held another one of his National Press Club events. This one was appropriately titled: The Vetting: Obama, Radical Islam and the Soros Connection.
In kicking off this conference, Kincaid announced:

Our July 19 conference fulfills the late Andrew Breitbart's promise to finally 'vet' the president. The diabolical dangers of Marxism and radical Islam must be exposed. It is time for the shocking truth about Obama and his agenda to emerge.

"The Vetting" is a fitting title for this conference, for it explicitly detailed, with a host of new facts and evidence, from extensive, highly credible sources, the dangerously extremist nature of President Obama and the true goals of his virulently anti-American, radical leftist administration.
For example, Paul Kengor, discussing his new book The Communist, Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama's Mentor, reveals that Davis had a working relationship with Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett's father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett, and her biological grandfather, Robert R. Taylor. Davis also had a working relationship with David Canter, a communist and mentor to Obama chief strategist David Axelrod. How interesting, he notes, that these people are now Obama's most important advisors.
Joel Gilbert then makes a compelling case that Davis was, in fact, Obama's real father in his new documentary, "Dreams from My Real Father, a Story of Reds and Deception". There has been speculation about this over the years, but Gilbert has really done his homework. This thesis also makes a lot of sense given the other facts emerging about Obama and his ties to so many connected with Davis's Chicago network.
The Conference further discussed how a huge network of U.S. and foreign communist and hard left organizations connected to this President has colluded with radical Islam for decades to oversee the destruction of their mutual enemy: America.
This working relationship, and how it developed, was explained in depth by a prominent Soviet KGB defector, Konstantin Preobrazhensky, who spoke on his report, Communists and Muslims, the Hidden Hand of the KGB. For example, he describes the work of Karim Hakimov, a Soviet KGB operative who was one of the first of many "Muslims with a communist heart". An expert in Islam, he helped found the modern state of Saudi Arabia and befriended King Saud. He was instrumental in forming an anti-West group which was the precursor to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. As a result, Russia has "Observer" status with the group.
He also cites Alexander Litvinenko, the KGB agent murdered by the Kremlin with Polonium 210, who charged that al Qaeda's current leader, Ayman al Zawahiri, was a trained agent of the KGB. Preobrazhensky further discusses a Taliban leader and close advisor to Osama bin Laden, Juma Namangoniy. Namangoniy was born in Soviet Uzbekistan and was also a KGB-trained communist. He was supposedly killed by coalition forces but his body has not been found.
Overshadowing all is the malevolent Soros network, and the billions he and others like him are devoting to see Soros' "life's work" of destroying America come to pass.
In addition to the aforementioned Preobazhensky, Kengor and Gilbert, speakers included veteran investigative reporter Trevor Loudon, author of Barack Obama and the Enemies Within; Larry Grathwohl, the only FBI informant to successfully penetrate Bill Ayers' Weather Underground; Rebel Pundit blogger Jeremy Segal; and the Clarion Fund's Ryan Mauro, speaking on the Muslim Brotherhood, the War on the New York City Police, and the film, The Third Jihad.
Additional contributions were provided in the form of printed reports from former Romanian intelligence chief, Ion Mihai Pacepa, who exposed Lee Harvey Oswald's KGB assassin training; Walid Shoebat, who revealed Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin's ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Tina Trent who describes the latest radical left agenda supported by George Soros: the prison depopulation movement.
I attended and reported on this event. There was so much ground covered, it is impossible to even summarize it here. My report was broken into two parts. Part I can be read in its entirety at RightSideNews.com. Part II will be out Monday.

Exclusive - The Vetting - Obama Praised Private Equity When He Needed Cash

http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver...Obama-IVCA.png

---

by John Sexton 2 Jul 2012 post a comment
President Barack Obama has attacked Gov. Mitt Romney's record in the private equity industry as CEO of Bain Capital. But ten years ago, as he struggled to raise funds for his long-shot U.S. Senate campaign, then-State Senator Obama decided to embrace the private equity industry and its wealthy Chicago political donors. At one point, Obama even sponsored a resolution in the Illinois Senate calling calling private equity firms like Bain "the best opportunity for long-term economic vitality" and for "the creation of jobs."

Obama's campaign ads dismissively compare Romney's work at Bain to that of a "vampire" draining jobs and money from vulnerable companies and workers. After pushback from a handful of pro-free market Democrats in late May, the President himself publicly defended his campaign's attacks on private equity firms like Bain.
But records from Obama's time as a state senator in Illinois, along with recollections of those who worked with him, present a very different stance. They indicate that Obama worked hard to position himself as a strong supporter of the venture capital industry. Obama attended industry social functions and used his position in the state senate to propose bills consistent with the legislative goals of the venture capital industry in the state.
"The Barack Obama I knew in Springfield was very pro-private equity, private capital, and high technology" Republican State Senator Kirk Dillard, who served with Obama in the Illinois State Senate, said in a telephone interview with Breitbart News about Obama's record last week. "Mr. Obama clearly had many friends in the private equity business when he was a legislator," Dillard added.
Maura O'Hara, the Executive Director of the Illinois Venture Capitalist Association, concurred with Dillard's assessment: "When he was in the State Senate I would describe him as a supporter of our industry." She recalls meeting Obama in 2002 at the IVCA's annual award dinner. That year, the IVCA's lifetime achievement award for "service to the private equity/venture capital community" was given to Jack Levin of Kirkland & Ellis Law Firm. State Senator Obama was asked to deliver the award because both he and Mr. Levin had attended Harvard Law School, albeit several decades apart. A photo from the event shows Obama grinning as he stands with his arm around Mr. Levin. Both men hold the award up between them.

http://www.breitbart.com/mediaserver...pg?h=305&w=226

In 2000, Obama had run as a reformer against incumbent U.S. Representative Bobby Rush (D-IL)--and lost by a wide margin. A few years later, when he began contemplating a run for the U.S. Senate under the tutelage of political consultant David Axelrod, Obama faced a rich primary opponent from the financial world in Blair Hull, and a daunting fundraising task. And so he began to court the wealthy elite himself--a tactical shift that the far-left Obama worried might compromise him. As Obama recalled in his second memoir, The Audacity of Hope:

I worry that there was also another change at work. Increasingly I found myself spending time with people of means--law firm partners and investment bankers, hedge fund managers and venture capitalists...And although my own worldview and theirs corresponded in many ways--I had gone to the same schools, after all, had read the same books, and worried about my kids in many of the same ways--I found myself avoiding certain topics during conversations with them, papering over possible differences, anticipating their expectations. (136-7)

Obama's effort to show support for private equity went beyond socializing. Between 2001 and 2003, State Senator Obama introduced two bills and one resolution designed to boost the private equity business in Illinois. The first bill, introduced by Obama in early 2001, created a tax credit of up to 20 percent for anyone who invested in a "qualified venture capital fund in Illinois." The bill was never adopted by the full Senate.
The following year, Obama introduced a bill titled the "Venture Investment Fund-Repeal." The bill itself is somewhat cryptic, but its purpose was to repeal the "Illinois Venture Investment Fund." (Ironically, this was a public venture capital fund similar to the Department of Energy program under Obama that funded Solyndra, the failed solar panel company which has dogged Obama's campaign for nearly a year.) At the time Obama introduced the bill, the Illinois Venture Capital Association had issued a legislative position paper which made four recommendations. Point one was the elimination of public venture capital managed by bureaucrats rather than professionals. According to the position paper, "The role of Illinois' government is to create a positive investment and entrepreneurial environment, but not to attempt to manage these funds [emphasis added]." The IVCA recommended investing the public money with private equity funds instead (i.e. with its members). Obama's attempt to repeal the public venture funds died in committee, though the fund was eliminated in a consolidation move by the Illinois General Assembly about a year later.
In March 2003, Obama introduced a State Senate Resolution to set up a "Private Equity Task Force." The language of the resolution can fairly be described as offering a glowing assessment of the importance of private equity and is starkly at odds with the Obama campaigns recent attacks on Bain Capital:

WHEREAS, Private equity is a vital aspect of the Illinois economy providing needed private capital to early and late stage companies in various industries, including but not limited to: retail, restaurant, manufacturing, biotechnology, pharmaceutical, medical devices, homeland security, software, wireless communications, transportation, and agriculture; and
WHEREAS, The development of the private equity sector of the Illinois economy offers the best opportunity for long-term economic vitality, for the expansion of jobs, for the improvement of productivity and a quality standard of living, and for providing the greatest number of citizens with genuine opportunity;

Compare the last paragraph with Obama's May defense of attacks on Bain Capital, in which he said: "My view of private equity is that it is set up to maximize profits, and that’s a healthy part of the free market, [but]...that’s not always going to be good for businesses or communities or workers."
Of course, not every investment is going to work out, but Obama's 2002 resolution specifically stated that private equity is "the best opportunity for long-term economic vitality...and for providing the greatest number of citizens with genuine opportunity." In other words, it is the best thing for communities and workers.
The message that Obama's prospective campaign donors received was that Obama was no longer positioning himself as the political reformer who would shake up Chicago and Washington--and that there was little daylight in between his own attitude towards private equity and the likely approach of rival Blair Hull.
It not certain that Obama wrote the task force resolution himself. People familiar with the legislative process in Illinois say that such a resolution would normally by written by a senator or his/her staff. But when asked about the tone of the resolution, those who served with Obama had little doubt it sounded like something he might have said at the time. Retired State Senator Dave Sullivan said, "This Senate resolution is the Barack that I know." Senator Dillard, another co-sponsor of the resolution, was equally firm: "My memory is that Senator Obama was a champion of private equity and his creation of a Senate Resolution to create a task force proves it."
When the Task Force resolution was adopted on May 30, 2003, Obama made a brief speech [pdf, page 161] in which he indicated that he had put it forward on behalf of "various persons in the industry":

This bill forms a Private Equity Task Force. As many of you know, venture capital and private equity is one of the key mechanisms by which we finance new businesses in the State of Illinois. For a variety of reasons, Illinois has been lagging behind some of our competitor states in the formation of venture capital and its deployment in terms of seeding and funding new companies. This is an issue which has peaked [sic] the interest of various persons in the industry and so they have asked that we form this Private Equity Task Force to examine these issues.

Obama's attempt to court private equity in the early 2000s was such that several people who knew him at the time believe he is still, at heart, a fan. "In my mind, he still believes in the industry," Maura O'Hara of the IVCA said. Others who worked for the Obama campaign in 2008, and who did not want to be quoted on the record agreed with her assessment. Republicans who knew him were less circumspect about the reasons for his current campaign rhetoric. "The President has private equity amnesia from his days as a University of Chicago professor, legislator, and he and the First Lady's days working at the prestigious Sidley Austin Law Firm," said Dillard. Former senator Sullivan offered a curt explanation for Obama's switch in tone: "I imagine it polls well."
A story published Saturday by the New York Times notes that "Obama commercials painting [Romney] as a ruthless executive who pursued profits at the expense of jobs are starting to make an impact on some undecided voters." The mainstream media has coordinated its attacks with the Obama campaign, though many of those attacks, including a Washington Post investigation into outsourcing at Bain, have been debunked.
Given Obama's record in Illinois, it is fair to ask when his own effusive admiration for private equity equity flip-flopped into his current disdain for "vampire" capitalism. When did he stop believing that private equity was the best chance for creating economic vitality, jobs, and genuine opportunity? And did he ever, in fact, believe it?

‘He’s Vetting Obama and Doesn’t Realize It!’: Limbaugh Puzzled by Obama Book Writer…and Cites The Blaze’s Will Cain

• Posted on June 20, 2012 at 4:18pm by http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/u....thumbnail.jpg Mytheos Holt
• Print »
• Email »

• Comments (33)

Rush Limbaugh had a few choice words for historian David Maraniss — who Limbaugh gleefully described as “vetting Obama and doesn’t realizing it” — on his show today. Apparently, Maraniss isn‘t happy with the fact that his supposedly positive biographical sketch of President Obama has instead ended up being fodder for everyone who long suspected the President’s two self-penned memoirs of being utter fiction. Which, it turns out, they are.
Inexplicably, Maraniss had complained about being cited for pointing this out in a segment with Soledad O’Brien on CNN, even though the role of a historian is to debunk falsehoods in the historical record. Must be something to do with political tunnel vision. Thankfully, as Limbaugh pointed out, The Blaze‘s Will Cain was there to raise the point on everyone’s mind. Watch the segment below:
As you can see, Will Cain was having none of Maraniss’ hedging. “I think it raises some serious questions about what the role of a memoir is. Is it truth telling, or is it, as you said, some kind of ability to massage and make composite characters?”
This was the question Limbaugh pounced on and hammered home, in his segment quoted below, courtesy of the Daily Rushbo:

Why Are Cable News Networks Giving Free Airtime To Pro-Obama Propaganda Film?

video
by Tommy Christopher | 12:06 pm, March 9th, 2012
» 212 comments http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-...ra-300x195.jpgAs a liberal, this shouldn’t bother me. Yesterday, cable networks devoted whole segments to a film that presents President Barack Obama in a glowing, almost saintly light, even though it has little to no news value. The film focuses on the past, rather than on current events, and doesn’t present any new information (that’s why we call it “news,” knuckleheads), so even for a liberal like me, it’s hard to understand how these cable networks are doing anything other than trying to ensure the President’s reelection.
In addition to its utter lack of news value, the film is one of the most broadly-appealing presentations of Obama that I’ve ever seen. It features President Obama resolutely standing up for what he believes in, which will especially appeal to independents, but it also shows him sticking it to the ivory-towered elites of liberal academia, which will be veritable catnip for conservatives. I’m referring, of course, to the much-hyped film of then-President of the Harvard Law Review Barack Obama introducing Professor Derrick Bell, the first tenured black professor at Harvard Law School, at a 1990 protest of Harvard’s hiring practices.
This piece of fluff has it all: a young, idealistic Barack Obama showing off the oratory that would become his trademark, standing up to the eggheads at Harvard Law School for their failure to hire a tenured black female professor (which they didn’t do until 1998), palling around with the guy who is essentially the Jackie Robinson of Harvard Law. As if that wasn’t enough, a later version of the film even shows President Obama hugging the guy. We get it! All Hail Saint Obama!
This tape was foreshadowed, by the late Andrew Breitbart at this year’s CPAC, as one spoke in a wheel of mind-blowing vetting of President Obama. Buzzfeed’s Ben Smith scooped Breitbart’s integrated Big sites by releasing the tape Wednesday morning, but without that incriminating hug. Editor-in-chief of Breitbart.com Joel Pollak and contributor Ben Shapiro later took to the Hannity show to expose the smoking guns that Smith left out. The Young Turks‘ Cenk Uygur breaks it down:


The whole idea here is to smear Professor Bell as a “racialist radical,” thus smearing Barack Obama by association, and to accuse the media of covering it up. Now, Professor Bell’s views were somewhat controversial, but not as controversial as his style of legal scholarship, which involved the use of parables and narrative storytelling. But he was a “radical” in the same sense that Kevin Bacon‘s character in Footloose was a radical; that is, only if you’re a psychotic, uptight preacher who’s afraid of that Devil’s music.
One of the “smoking guns” to this coverup that Shapiro and Pollak cite is the fact that Prof. Charles Ogletree told students at a lecture, after showing the film, that he had kept it hidden during the 2008 election (which is the part of this whole story that actually is an exclusive).
I hate to break it to these guys, but Professor Ogletree isn’t part of the media, and unless he put some kind of magical forcefield around the PBS website, or Youtube (where it reached a million views within weeks of being uploaded on 10/15/2008), or every TV that received their 2008 broadcast of that footage, he didn’t have the ability to hide anything. The natural question, then, is why did he have the desire to do so, and the self-evident answer is that he wished to spare his (now-deceased) colleague the smearing is is receiving now.
There’s also the question of why the rest of the media didn’t pick up on the tape, which is also fairly self-evident. It wasn’t newsworthy then, it isn’t now. If you don’t want to take liberal Tommy Christopher’s word for it, answer me this: why didn’t the conservative media pick up on it? Where was Newsbusters? You want to talk about digging, the Obama-hating Naked Emperor News tracked down videos so obscure, they wouldn’t make it into a Dennis Miller rant, but she completely missed this million-view YouTube?
All kidding aside, this is not only not newsworthy, it does the exact opposite of what it’s supposed to do. I was working for AOL in 2008, and if I had seen this clip, I probably would have wanted to post it, but I would have struggled to eke out three paragraphs on it, and would have been beset with “IN THE TANK” accusations, because it shows President Obama in such a favorable light. The Bigs say there’s more to come, and if the next “bombshell” is anything like this, bring it on.
The headline of this post, by the way, is an obvious bait-and-switch reference to filmmaker Davis Guggenheim‘s pro-Barack Obama documentary The Road We’ve Traveled, which begs the question “Why are cable networks devoting free airtime to a pro-Obama propaganda film?”
In a nutshell, I have zero problem with news networks airing this, or any other campaign ad, for free as part of their news and commentary shows. In fact, I think it has a great democratizing effect in our politics. Whether you’re a candidate with a huge war chest, or one who’s barely getting by, all you need is a compelling spot and a Youtube account, and you’re in the ballgame. Plus, it allows for discussions (of varying quality) of the issues that appear in these ads. I especially like that creativity is rewarded in this process, which is rare in news and politics.
I do have to give the Bigs props for digging up Cosmic Slop, the 1994 HBO movie that tears the roof off The Twilight Zone by casting the great George Clinton in the Rod Serling role, in an anthology of stories which includes Professor Bell’s 1992 short story The Space Traders. Other than that, though, they ought to heed Clinton’s advice regarding The Funk, and give it up.

The sad part about all of this.... is Obama is getting away with this shit because PEOPLE DON'T CARE!

Fucking Liberals ass bags

Exclusive - The Vetting - Senator Barack Obama Attended Bill Ayers Barbecue, July 4, 2005

http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver...yers-Dohrn.png

---

Print Article Send a Tip


by Joel B. Pollak 4 Jun 2012 post a comment
http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver...00-jpollak.png As a presidential candidate in 2008, Barack Obama disavowed any connection with former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, the Weather Underground radical who was one of Obama's early backers and his colleague on the board of the Woods Fund in Chicago. We now have proof that Obama's association with Ayers continued even after Obama had been elected to represent Illinois in the U.S. Senate--in the form of a now-scrubbed blog post placing Obama at the home of Ayers and his wife, fellow radical Bernardine Dohrn, on July 4, 2005.

Dr. Tom Perrin, Assistant Professor of English at Huntingdon College in Montgomery, Alabama, was a graduate student at the University of Chicago at the time, and maintained a blog called "Rambling Thomas." He lived next door to Ayers and Dohrn in Hyde Park. He wrote at 8:44 a.m. on July 6, 2005:

Guess what? I spent the 4th of July evening with star Democrat Barack Obama! Actually, that's a lie. Obama was at a barbecue at the house next door (given by a law professor who is a former member of the Weather Underground) and we saw him over the fence at our barbecue. Well, the others did. It had started raining and he had gone inside be the time I got there. Nevertheless.

Dohrn is a Clinical Associate Professor of Law at Northwestern University, and Chicago did, in fact, record rainfall on the Fourth of July holiday in 2005.
Breitbart News attempted to contact Dr. Perrin for further comment:

Dear Dr. Perrin,
My name is Joel Pollak, and I am the Editor-in-Chief of Breitbart News.
We came across your blog entry from July 2005 in which you mentioned that then-Senator Obama had been a guest at the Ayers/Dohrn house next door.
http://ramblingthomas.blogspot.com/2...1_archive.html
I was wondering if you could provide more detail.
Many thanks,
Joel Pollak

Dr. Perrin did not respond. He did, however, delete his entire blog from the Internet.
Of course, Breitbart News had saved a screen grab of the blog beforehand:

http://www.breitbart.com/mediaserver...D1DC2D5013.png

Obama's presence--as a U.S. Senator--at the Ayers barbecue has been confirmed by another source, who told Breitbart News: "I too saw Obama at a picnic table in the Ayers/Dohrn backyard, munching away--on the 4th of July."
The fact that Obama socialized with Ayers and Dorn contradicts the statement that Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt gave the New York Times in 2008:

Mr. LaBolt said the men first met in 1995 through the education project, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and have encountered each other occasionally in public life or in the neighborhood. He said they have not spoken by phone or exchanged e-mail messages since Mr. Obama began serving in the United States Senate in January 2005 and last met more than a year ago when they bumped into each other on the street in Hyde Park.

That statement now appears to be "Clintonian" in its dance around the truth. Obama and Ayers may not have emailed or spoken by phone, but they had, we now know, spoken face to face--at least on July 4, 2005, and perhaps at other times as well.
The continued connection between Obama and his radical, domestic terrorist associates until mere months before he launched his presidential campaign is sharply at odds with the way Obama minimized the relationship, as well as the way the media largely sought to portray it as an insignificant part of Obama's past.
Whatever differences may have emerged between Obama and Ayers--and other far-left fellow travelers--since Obama took office and grappled with the realities of governing, Obama's migration towards the mainstream of American politics is very recent, and likely opportunistic. His intellectual and political roots remain extreme.

Yesterday Obama was here in Colorado Springs at Colorado College.

Mark Levin covered something he said that caught me off guard last night.

I can't find the details at the moment, but Obama was talking about the car companies and how he had "helped" the car companies.

In the next breath he said "We want to do that for a lot more of industry"... meaning "Nationalize" them.

Levin covered it better than I can. What is bad is he didn't say this ONE time, he said it in TWO DIFFERENT SPEECHES.

I'll try to find the text if I can.

From Levin's site:

August 9, 2012

http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/sm-share-en.gif

http://images.radcity.net/6540/5071245.jpg

On Thursday's Mark Levin Show: President Obama is now on the campaign trail saying he wants to repeat his auto bailout ‘success’ with every manufacturing industry across America. He essentially wants to nationalize all industries and have them under government control and leave the bill to the taxpayer whether we agree on it or not. The past bailouts have been an absolute disaster and they're still bankrupt when you truly look at the numbers. Also, what once were the backbones behind the Democrat Party - the steel and coal and other industries, are now under direct attack from Obama and his Marxist ways. Can you imagine if Obama gets 4 more years and the disaster that he would cause? Also, Ann Coulter should have realized who Romney was when she first started advocating for him to become the Republican nominee and realize he's not that conservative. Finally, Aaron Klein calls in about his new book, Fool Me Twice.
THIS IS FROM:
Politico
Obama: Let's repeat auto industry success

This is from Politicio WHO CHANGED THE WORDING!

Obama: Let's repeat auto industry success

• Tweet 1.6K
  
• Comments ()

By DONOVAN SLACK | 8/9/12 2:18 PM EDT



PUEBLO, Colo. – President Obama, while villifying Mitt Romney for opposing the auto industry bailout, bragged about the success of his decision to provide government assistance and said he now wants to see every manufacturing industry come roaring back.


“I said, I believe in American workers, I believe in this American industry, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back,” he said. “Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry.


“I don’t want those jobs taking root in places like China, I want those jobs taking root in places like Pueblo,” Obama told a crowd gathered for a campaign rally at the Palace of Agriculture at the Colorado State Fairgrounds here.


(Also on POLITICO: Obama bashes Romney on wind energy in Pueblo)
He made the remarks while pushing for the renewal of a tax credit for wind energy manufacturing – something Romney opposes – and for the creation of credits for companies who bring jobs home from overseas, as well as the elimination of loopholes for offshoring.


“Gov. Romney brags about his private sector experience, but it was mostly invested in companies, some of which were called 'pioneers of outsourcing,'” Obama said. “I don’t want to be a pioneer of outsourcing. I want to insource.”

Clarification: This post was updated to reflect the president's intent to express his support for manufacturing success. An earlier version was unclear about his intent.

This was at Pueblo on Wednesday.

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
August 09, 2012

Remarks by the President at a Campaign Event -- Pueblo, Colorado

Colorado State Fairgrounds
Pueblo, Colorado
10:35 A.M. MDT
THE PRESIDENT: Hello, Pueblo! (Applause.) Hello, Colorado! (Applause.) It's good to be back! (Applause.) It is good to be back. And thank you so much for being here. This is a good-looking crowd.

Can everybody please give Crystal a big round of applause for that great introduction. (Applause.) There are a couple other people I want to acknowledge. First of all, one of our campaign co-chairs, former Secretary of Transportation, former Secretary of Energy, former mayor, good friend -- please give a big round of applause to Federico Peña. (Applause.) And we've got one of the finest senators that the state of Colorado ever had, who is now doing a great job looking after the natural resources of this beautiful country of ours -- your own, Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar. (Applause.)

It is great to be with all of you. We spent the night here last night, and everybody has been so hospitable. And then, this morning, before we came here we stopped by Romero's for some green chili. (Applause.) I got to admit that we're saving some to take back to the White House. (Laughter and applause.) So I'm going to work with the White House chefs to see if we can figure out some of the secrets here. (Laughter.)

But, listen, unless you've been able to hide from your TV set or your cable is broke, you're probably aware right now that we've got a pretty intense campaign going on. (Applause.) And the reason it's so intense is because the choice that we face this November could not be bigger. It's not just a choice between two candidates. It’s not just a choice between two parties. More than any election in recent memory, this is a choice between two fundamentally different paths for our country -- two fundamentally different visions of where this country needs to go.

And the direction that we choose -- the direction that you choose when you walk into that voting booth in November, it won't make a difference just in our lives; it will make a difference in our kids' lives and our grandkids' lives for decades to come. (Applause.)

Now remember that four years ago we came together as Democrats, but also independents and Republicans, to restore the basic bargain that built the greatest middle class and the most prosperous economy the world has ever known. And it's a bargain that says -- it's very simple -- it says, if you work hard, hard work should be rewarded. (Applause.) It's an idea that says if you put in the effort, if you take responsibility for yourself and your community, you should be able to find a job that pays the bills. (Applause.) You should be able to afford a home that you can call your own. You should be able to count on health care if you get sick. You should be able to retire with dignity and respect. And most importantly, you should be able to give your kids the kinds of education and opportunity that lets them dream even bigger than you dreamed and do even better than you did. (Applause.)

That idea is at the heart of America. That's the American promise. Now, we understood that restoring that promise wouldn't be easy. It would take more than one year or one term or even one President. After all, we had been coming off a decade in which the middle class had been getting hammered, jobs had been getting shipped overseas, wages and incomes were going down, the cost of everything from health care to groceries was going up. And it all culminated in the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes -- a crisis that robbed too many of our friends and neighbors of their jobs and their homes and their savings, and put the American Dream even further out of reach.

So we knew that we had a lot of work to do. And over the last three and a half years, we have focused on righting the ship, making sure that we didn’t slip into a depression, saving an auto industry, creating 4.5 million new jobs, half a million new manufacturing jobs -- (applause) -- getting health care done, helping young people go to college. We have been working to get us moving forward.

And as tough as things have been -- and we know our job is not done yet -- what we've learned over these last three and a half years is that the crisis didn't change who we are. It hasn't changed our character. It hasn't changed what has made us great. It hasn't changed why we came together, what we believe in, why we feel such an urgency to get to work. Because we understand that we need to build an economy where hard work pays off, so that no matter who you are, what you look like, where you come from, what your last name is -- here in America, you can make it if you try. (Applause.) That's what this campaign is about, Colorado. That's why I'm running for a second term as President of the United States of America. (Applause.)

Now, look, there are no quick fixes. There are no easy solutions to the challenges we face. But I know in my bones that we have the capacity to meet those challenges. Think about what we've got going for us. We've still got the best workers in the world. (Applause.) We've got the best business people in the world. We've got the best scientists, the best researchers, the best colleges, the best universities. We are a young nation and we've got a diversity of talent and ingenuity that comes from every corner of the globe. (Applause.)

So when you hear people saying, America is in decline, or you hear folks for political reasons trying to paint things as dark as they can, let me tell you something -- there isn't a country on Earth that wouldn't trade places with the United States of America. (Applause.) What is standing in our way right now isn't the lack of technical solutions or good plans. What's standing in our way is the politics in Washington -- folks who think compromise is a dirty word, folks who think the only thing we can do to grow the economy is to go back to the same top-down economics that got us into this mess in the first place.
AUDIENCE: Booo --

THE PRESIDENT: And I promise you, that's their only idea -- to go back to the things that didn't work. Mr. Romney, his friends in Congress, they believe -- they've got two ideas. One, tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Two, they want to get rid of regulations that help keep our air and water clean -- regulations that protect our consumers, regulations that make sure that Wall Street doesn't do the same kinds of things that created the financial crisis.

And their idea is, is that if we give these big tax cuts to folks who don't need them and are doing really well, and we let corporations run roughshod, even if they're not doing the right thing, that somehow that's going to lead to jobs and prosperity for everybody. That's what they're proposing. That's what they will do if they win this election.

AUDIENCE: Booo --

THE PRESIDENT: Now, Crystal mentioned this -- the centerpiece of Mr. Romney's entire economic plan is a new $5 trillion tax cut -- a lot of it is going to the wealthiest Americans. But last week, we found out he expects the middle class to pick up the tab to pay for it.

AUDIENCE: Booo --

THE PRESIDENT: So you've got a $5 trillion tax plan and to pay for it you raise taxes on middle-class families with children by an average of $2,000 -- not to reduce the deficit, not to grow jobs, not to invest in education, but just to give another $250,000 tax cut to people making more than $3 million a year.

AUDIENCE: Booo --

THE PRESIDENT: Now, you know what, they have tried to sell us this trickle-down tax cut fairy dust before. It did not work. It did not work then. It is not going to work now. It is not a plan to create jobs. It is not a plan to cut the deficit. It's not a plan to move our economy forward. We do not need -- I do not need a tax cut. We don't need tax cuts for folks who are doing really, really, really well. We need to keep taxes low for working Americans like you. (Applause.)

We need to keep tax cuts in place for families who are trying to raise kids, and keep them healthy and send them to college, and keep a roof over their heads. And that's the choice in this election. And that's why I'm running for a second term as President of the United States. (Applause.)

Four years ago, I promised that I would cut middle-class taxes. I kept that promise. (Applause.) And the average middle-class family, their taxes are about $3,600 lower than when I came into office. So if you talk to your friends and they say, oh, he’s some big taxing Democrat, you tell them, actually, he’s cut your taxes. Now I want to keep taxes exactly where they are on the first $250,000 of everybody’s income. So if you’re a family making under $250,000 -- which is 98 percent of American families -- you won’t see your income taxes go up by one single dime. (Applause.)

Now, if you’re fortunate enough to be in the other 2 percent, if you make more than $250,000 a year, you still get a tax cut on your first $250,000. But if you make $3 million, then we’re going to go take the rest of it and tax that a little bit more at the rate we taxed it under Bill Clinton. (Applause.)

And listen, the reason we do that is not because we love taxes. I would end up having to pay more under my plan. And it’s not like I love paying taxes, but I understand that I’ve got to do a little bit more. I’ve been so blessed. And it will help us bring down our deficit and invest in things like education that will help us grow as an economy. (Applause.)

AUDIENCE: Four more years! Four more years!

THE PRESIDENT: Now, understand also -- we’re going to make sure that government does its part. We’ve already cut a trillion dollars of spending that we didn’t need, and we’ll keep streamlining government to make it more effective. But we’re just asking folks like me to go back to the rates we paid under Bill Clinton, and that was a time when the economy created nearly 23 million new jobs -- the biggest budget surplus in history. (Applause.)

And it actually was good for businesses and good for folks at the top, too. Because you know what happens? If a steel worker or a construction worker, they’ve got a job and they’ve got a little more money in their pockets, maybe they buy that new car. And that means that now that business has more profits, maybe they hire more workers. If a teacher or a receptionist has a little bit more money in their pockets, maybe they go over to another restaurant. Maybe they go to Romero’s and they eat out. And now the restaurant hires a couple more workers -- everybody does better. That’s how the economy grows best -- from the middle out, from the bottom up, not from the top down.

When all of us share in prosperity, we all do better. (Applause.) That’s the choice in this election. That’s why I’m running for President -- because I believe we’re all in this together. (Applause.)

We’ve got a bunch of examples of the differences, the choice in this election. When the American auto industry was on the brink of collapse, more than 1 million jobs at stake, Governor Romney said, let’s “let Detroit go bankrupt.”

AUDIENCE: Booo --

THE PRESIDENT: I said I believe in American workers, I believe in this American industry, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back and GM is number one again. (Applause.) So now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs not just in the auto industry, but in every industry. I don’t want those jobs taking root in places like China. I want them taking root in places like Pueblo. (Applause.)

Governor Romney brags about his private sector experience, but it was mostly investing in companies, some of which were called “pioneers” of outsourcing. I don’t want to be a pioneer of outsourcing. I want to insource. I want to stop giving tax breaks to companies that are shipping jobs overseas; let’s give those tax breaks to companies that are investing here in the United States of America, making American products with American workers and selling them around the world. That’s why I’m running for a second term. (Applause.)

Here’s another difference. At a moment when homegrown energy, renewable energy is creating new jobs in states like Colorado and Iowa, my opponent wants to end tax credits for wind energy producers.

AUDIENCE: Booo --

THE PRESIDENT: Think about what that would mean for a community like Pueblo. The wind industry supports about 5,000 jobs across this state. Without those tax credits, 37,000 American jobs, including potentially hundreds of jobs right here, would be at risk. Colorado, it’s time to stop spending billions in taxpayer subsidies on an oil industry that’s already making a lot of profit -- (applause) -- and let’s keep investing in new energy sources that have never been more promising. That’s the choice in this election. That’s why I’m running for President. (Applause.)

I’m running because in 2008 I promised to end the war in Iraq, and I ended it. (Applause.) I promised to go after al Qaeda and go after bin Laden, and we did it. (Applause.) We’ve set a timeline to end the war in Afghanistan, to make Afghans responsible for their own security. And we could not have done all this if it had not been for our outstanding men and women in uniform. (Applause.) Here in Pueblo, the Home of Heroes, you know what it means to care for our veterans. (Applause.) I want to thank you for everything you’ve done and are doing to look after our men and women who have worn the uniform. And I promise you that as long as I’m Commander-in-Chief, this country will care for our veterans and serve them as well as they’ve served us. Nobody who has fought for our country should have to fight for a job or a roof over their heads when they come home. (Applause.)

So my plan will create a Veterans Job Corps, so we can put returning heroes back to work as cops and firefighters in communities that need them. And I want to take about half the money that we’re no longer spending on war, and let’s put people back to work -- do some nation-building right here at home. (Applause.) Let’s renew our roads and our runways and our wireless networks. And let’s work on our water infrastructure.

Here in the Southwest, water is the lifeblood of our communities. It was 50 years ago, this month, that President Kennedy came to Pueblo and he signed the Fry-Ark bill. Today, my administration is making sure, 50 years later, that you’ve got the resources to finish the job so that we are leaving your kids and your grandkids clean water, clean drinking water that is long overdue. That’s the kind of investment in America that creates jobs now and makes life better for the future. That’s what this election is about. That’s the America we want to build. (Applause.)

Colorado, I’m running to make sure that we’re once again the country that leads the world in education. (Applause.) I want to help our schools reward and hire the best teachers, especially in math and science. I want to give 2 million more Americans the chance to study at community colleges and get the skills they need for the jobs that businesses are hiring for right now. (Applause.) I want to get colleges and universities to bring tuition down once and for all. (Applause.) Because in the 21st century, higher education is not a luxury, it’s an economic necessity. And I want to make sure none of our young people who are willing to put in the effort are locked out of opportunity. (Applause.)

So the stakes are big in this election on every issue. On homeownership, my opponent says, let’s just let foreclosures bottom out. That’s his answer. What I’ve said is, let’s let every homeowner refinance at historically low rates, save you $3,000 that you can then spend to restore equity in your home or help your kids go to college. (Applause.) That is good for the economy. It’ll be good for the housing market.

Mr. Romney wants to reverse the Affordable Care Act -- Obamacare. Let me tell you something. Right now, 6.5 million young people can stay on their parent’s plan because of the health care law I passed. (Applause.) Millions of seniors are seeing lower prescription drug costs. (Applause.) We are going to make sure that if you’ve got a preexisting condition, you can now get health insurance. (Applause.) We’re not going backwards. We’re not going to take that away. And we’re certainly not going to follow Mr. Romney’s lead and go back to the days when women didn’t have control of their own health care choices. Women can make their own decisions. We don’t need politicians doing it. (Applause.)

Mr. Romney thinks "don't ask, don't tell" was a good idea. I think anybody who loves this country should be able to serve this country. That was the right thing to do. (Applause.)

Mr. Romney believes in something called self-deportation, thinks Arizona is a model for immigration laws across the country.

AUDIENCE: Booo --

THE PRESIDENT: I think we did the right thing to say that a young person who comes to America -- is brought here, is raised here, is friends with our kids, is going to school with our kids, is American in every single way except for a piece of paper should have the chance to be a part of the American family. That was the right thing to do. (Applause.) We're going forward, not backwards. (Applause.)

On every single one of these issues, there is a choice. And it's about whether we go back to the failed policies of the past or whether we actually finally start once again working around that core idea that built this country -- the idea that if you work hard here you can make it. The idea that in America, everybody gets a fair shot and everybody does their fair share, and everybody plays by the same set of rules. (Applause.) The idea that in America, we rise or fall together, and government can't solve every problem and it shouldn't try, and it certainly can't help folks who are aren't willing to help themselves. But there are some things that we can do together as a people that makes us all better off, that makes our country strong, and that our economy works best when the middle class is growing and feels secure. (Applause.)

Now, I've got to tell you, we've got less than three months left in this election -- less than three months. Time is flying. And over the next three months, you will see more negative ads, more money spent than you've ever seen in your life. I mean, these super PACs, these guys are writing $10 million checks and giving them to Mr. Romney's supporters.

AUDIENCE: Booo --

THE PRESIDENT: And, basically, they all have just the same argument. They all say the same thing. They say the economy is bad and it's Obama's fault -- every ad is the same argument.

Now, let me tell you something. That may be a strategy to try to win an election, but they can't hide the fact that they don't have a plan to grow the economy. (Applause.) They don't have a plan to create more jobs. They don't have a plan to revive the middle class. I've got that plan. That's why I'm running. (Applause.)

So when you talk to your friends and your neighbors, some of them may think we'll be better off if we cut taxes for the wealthy and get rid of every regulation, set our sights lower and stop providing the kind of assistance we need to kids to go to college. And you've got to tell them, look, if you think that's going to work better -- that's how democracy works -- you should vote for those other folks. Feel free to try to send them to Washington.

But I believe -- and you believe -- we've come too far to turn back now. (Applause.) We've got too much more work to do. We've got too many good jobs we've got to create. We've got too many teachers we still need to hire. We've got too many schools we need to rebuild. We've got too many students we need to help go to college. We've got too much homegrown energy we need to generate right here in Colorado. (Applause.) We've got more troops we need to come home. We've got more doors of opportunity that we need to open for every young person here in Pueblo, here in Colorado, all across the country. (Applause.)

That's what's at stake right now. That's why I'm running for President. That's why I'm asking for your vote -- (applause) -- not just for me, but for the country that you believe in. You've got to be registered to vote. We've got folks here who are ready to help you do that. Here in Colorado, you can register online. You go to GottaRegister.com. But don't wait until the last minute. Grab some friends, get online -- let's get this done. (Applause.)

Back in 2008, I made a promise to you. I said, I'm not a perfect man and I won't be a perfect President. But what I did say is I'd always tell you what I thought, I'd always tell you where I stood, and most importantly, I would spend every waking minute fighting as hard as I knew how for you. (Applause.)

I have kept that promise, Colorado. I kept that promise because I believe in you. (Applause.) I believe in this country. And if you still believe in me and you're willing to stand with me, and knock on some doors with me, and make some phone calls with me and take your friends to the polls for me, I promise you we will win Colorado. We will win this election. We will finish what we started. And we will remind the world why the United States is the greatest nation on Earth.

Thank you very much, everybody. God bless you. God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

END
11:06 A.M. MDT

This is Colorado Springs, Yesterday:

The White House Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
August 09, 2012

Remarks by the President at Campaign Event -- Colorado Springs, CO

Colorado College
Colorado Springs, Colorado

1:58 P.M. MDT

THE PRESIDENT: Hello, Colorado! (Applause.) Oh, what a beautiful day! (Applause.)

Can everybody please give Christy a big round of applause for the great introduction? (Applause.) And then, I want everybody to acknowledge one of the outstanding alums of Colorado College -- (applause) -- an outstanding senator for this great state of Colorado, an unbelievable Secretary of the Interior, looking after our natural resources -- Ken Salazar. (Applause.)

Now --

AUDIENCE MEMBER: We love you!

THE PRESIDENT: I love you back. I really do. (Applause.)

Now, I have to say, first of all, this looks like a very smart crowd -- (applause) -- which means that you've been spending a lot of time watching our Olympic Games -- (applause) -- and the unbelievable athletes and all the great training -- right here, we've got -- do we have one of our outstanding athletes? (Applause.) Thank you, Colorado, because Colorado Springs has been a training site for all our outstanding athletes. And we're so proud of them. Thank you so much. (Applause.)

And for those of you who are curious, the women are doing pretty good right now in soccer. (Applause.) I know some of you may be -- the game is not over, and some of you may have DVR'd it, so I'm not going to say anything more. (Laughter.) But we're making progress.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Moving forward!

THE PRESIDENT: Moving forward. (Applause.)

Now, even though we've been spending most of our time, sensibly, watching the Olympics, unless your cable is broken, you probably also noticed there’s this pretty intense campaign going on right now. And the reason it is an intense campaign is because the choice that we face in November could not be bigger. It’s not just a choice between two candidates or two political parties. It is a choice between two fundamentally different visions about how we move this country forward. And the direction that we choose -- the direction you choose when you walk into that voting booth -- is going to have a direct impact not just on us, it will have an impact on our kids and our grandkids for decades to come.

Now, four years ago, we came together -- and it wasn’t just Democrats, we had independents and even some Republicans come together because we wanted to restore the basic bargain that made this country great, that built the greatest middle class and the most prosperous economy in the history of the world. And it’s a bargain that says very simply, if you work hard, your work will be rewarded. If you work hard, you can get ahead. It’s a deal that says if you put in enough effort, if you act responsibly, you can find a job that pays the bills, have a home you call your own. You can count on health care when you get sick. You can retire with dignity and respect. (Applause.) And most importantly, you can provide your kids with the education and opportunity so that they can dream bigger than you ever dreamed and they can achieve things you couldn't even imagine.

That's the American promise. That's the core of who we are as a people. And unfortunately, we had gone through a decade where that dream felt like it was slipping away. Jobs had gotten shifted overseas. Incomes had gone down, when you account inflation, even though the cost of everything from health care to college had gone up. And it all culminated in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

So we knew restoring this dream, reinstating this basic bargain was not going to be easy. And we understood it would take more than one year, or one term, or maybe even one President. And that was before the middle class got clobbered by this financial crisis. And a lot of our friends and neighbors lost their jobs, lost their homes, lost their savings -- and it made that dream seem even further out of reach.

But here's the good news. The American people are tougher than tough times. (Applause.) Not only is there a fundamental goodness and decency to the American people, but there’s also grit and resilience. And when we get knocked down, we get back up. (Applause.)

And so, for the last three and a half years, we've worked to make sure that we didn’t slip into a Great Depression. And we created 4.5 million new jobs. (Applause.) We saved an auto industry on the brink of collapse. And although we are far away from where we need to be -- okay, we'll be okay. I hear you. What will happen is that the medical services -- we've just got somebody who fainted. Which reminds me, everybody, if you've been standing for a long time, bend your knees a little bit. Because this happens every time we have a rally. They'll be okay, just give them some space. And make sure that you drink some water if you've got some.

Now, we know that we've still got a long ways to go -- and the medical folks are coming right here. They're on their way. But, you know, what hasn’t changed as a result of this crisis is our character. (Applause.) What's made us great in the past is going to make us great in the future. (Applause.)

We came together in 2008, understanding that we had an urgent mission to make sure that here in America everybody gets a fair shot, everybody does their fair share, and everybody plays by the same set of rules. (Applause.) We're here to build an economy where hard work pays off, so that no matter who you are or where you come from, you can make it if you try. That’s what this campaign is about, Colorado. That’s what the choice is in November. And that's why I’m running for a second term as President of the United States of America. (Applause.)

AUDIENCE: Four more years! Four more years! Four more years!

THE PRESIDENT: Now, here's the good news. Even though there are no quick fixes, there are no easy solutions -- some of these problems built up over decades and they're not going to be solved overnight -- we've got everything we need to meet the challenges we face. We've got the best workers in the world. (Applause.) We've got the best entrepreneurs in the world. We've got the best scientists and researchers in the world. We've got the best colleges and we've got the best universities in the world. (Applause.) We're a young nation. We've got this incredible diversity of talent and ingenuity. People come here from every corner of the globe, because they believe in our creed. They believe in our ideas.

And so, no matter what the naysayers say, no matter how bad folks try to paint the picture just to sell newspapers or sound sophisticated -- (laughter) -- the truth of the matter is that there's not a country on Earth that wouldn't trade places with the United States of America. (Applause.)

We've got what we need to succeed. What is standing in our way right now is our politics in Washington. (Applause.) It's a bunch of folks who think compromise is a dirty word; who think that the right way forward is to go backwards to the same top-down economic policies that got us into this mess in the first place.

AUDIENCE: Booo --

THE PRESIDENT: And, look, Mr. Romney, his friends in Congress, their basic economic plan is really simple to describe. It's not complicated. What they say is, on the one hand, they want to eliminate regulations on Wall Street banks, even after this crisis, or regulations on insurance companies, or regulations on unscrupulous lenders, or regulations that keep our air and water clean. So that's part number one. And then part number two -- big part of their plan -- is to cut taxes a lot more for the wealthiest Americans.

AUDIENCE: Booo --

THE PRESIDENT: And the idea is that somehow if you combine these two concepts that this is going to lead to jobs and prosperity for everybody.

That's what they're proposing. I'm not making this stuff up. (Laughter.) Go to their websites. Look at what the House of Republicans voted on, their budget. That's where they're going to take us if they win. That's their idea. And, look, if you believe in that idea, then you're probably not going to be voting for me.

Mr. Romney's -- the centerpiece of his entire economic plan is a new $5 trillion tax cut on top of the Bush tax cuts, a big chunk of it going to the wealthiest Americans. And last week, we found out that he expects you, middle-class families, to pay for it.

AUDIENCE: Booo --

THE PRESIDENT: Governor Romney’s tax plan -- this is not according to me, this is according to independent analysts -- assuming he kept his promise that it wasn't going to add to the deficit, would mean raising taxes on middle-class families with children by an average of $2,000. And keep in mind this would not be to pay down our deficit. It wouldn’t be to grow jobs or invest in education or make college more affordable, or invest in science and research or clean energy -- because he wants to gut all those things. He wants to cut away that stuff. Your tax increase would be to pay for another $250,000 tax cut for people making more than $3 million a year.

AUDIENCE: Booo --

THE PRESIDENT: How many people think that’s a good idea?

AUDIENCE: No!

THE PRESIDENT: How many people honestly believe that that’s going to unleash incredible job growth in this country?

AUDIENCE: No!

THE PRESIDENT: Look, we have tried this before. They tried to sell us this trickle-down tax cut fairy dust before. (Laughter.) And guess what -- it didn’t work. It didn’t work then; it won’t work now. It’s not a plan to create jobs. It’s not a plan to cut the deficit. It’s not a plan to move our economy forward.

We don’t need more tax cuts for folks like me. We need tax relief for working families. (Applause.) We need tax cuts for folks who are trying to make sure their kids get a good education, trying to keep their kids healthy, trying to keep a roof over their heads, trying to send them to college.

That’s the choice in this election. That’s why I’m running for a second term as President of the United States -- because our work is not yet done. (Applause.)

I’ve got a different idea. Four years ago, I promised to cut taxes for middle-class families. I did that. (Applause.) The average typical family, their income taxes -- their tax burden is about $3,600 lower than it is now [sic]. I want to keep taxes exactly where they are for the first $250,000 of everybody’s income. I’ve already told Congress let’s get it done. We should do it before the election. Now, if your family makes under $250,000 -- which, by the way, is 98 percent of American families and 97 percent of small businesses -- under my plan, your income taxes would not increase a single dime next year. (Applause.) That’s my plan.

But if you’re fortunate enough to be in the other 2 percent, if this country has blessed you the way it’s blessed me, you still get a tax cut on the first $250,000 of income. It’s just that after that, we’re going to ask you to contribute a little bit more so we can pay down our deficit responsibly and invest in things like helping young people go to college -- (applause) -- invest in basic science and research, rebuild our roads -- all the things that help us grow and make the middle class strong. (Applause.)

And, by the way, this doesn’t mean that we don’t still have more work to do to make government more efficient. I’m not somebody who believes government can solve every problem. Government has to do its part by cutting out spending that we don’t need. We’ve already cut a trillion dollars -- a trillion -- that’s with a “T” -- out of our budget. And we can do more to make government more efficient, more customer-friendly. But that doesn’t do enough to bring down the deficit.

So all I’m asking is that folks like me go back to the rates that we paid under Bill Clinton -- which, by the way, you may remember, we created 23 million new jobs, the biggest budget surplus in history -- (applause) -- and we created a whole bunch of millionaires to boot. Because what happens is when a construction worker or a police officer, they’ve got a little more money to spend, you know what, maybe they go out and buy that new car. And suddenly the car company has more profits, which means that hire more workers -- and everybody does better. (Applause.)

When a teacher or a receptionist has a little bit more money to spend, maybe they go to that local restaurant. Maybe they buy a computer for their kid for school. And now, suddenly, all businesses are doing better.

That’s the history of America. When we grow from the middle class out, when we provide ladders of opportunity for those who want to get into the middle class and are willing to work hard to do it, everybody does well -- top, middle, bottom. (Applause.)

We are in this thing together. That’s the choice in this election. And that’s why I’m running for President of the United States of America. (Applause.)

This difference in vision, it shows up on all sorts of issues. When the American auto industry was on the brink of collapse, 1 million jobs at stake, Mr. Romney said, "let Detroit go bankrupt." I said, let’s bet on America’s workers. (Applause.) And we got management and workers to come together, making better cars than ever, and now GM is number one again and the American auto industry has come roaring back. (Applause.)

So now I want to say what we did with the auto industry, we can do it in manufacturing across America. Let’s make sure advanced, high-tech manufacturing jobs take root here, not in China. Let’s have them here in Colorado. (Applause.) And that means supporting investment here.

Governor Romney talks about his private sector experience. But he invested in companies that were called "pioneers" of outsourcing. I don't want to outsource. I want to insource. (Applause.) Let's reform our tax code and let's make it simpler. And let's make sure that we're providing tax breaks to companies that are investing here in Colorado Springs, here in Colorado -- not overseas. (Applause.) They're the ones who need tax breaks.

Let's give tax breaks to companies that are investing here. It's the right thing to do.

At a moment when homegrown energy is creating new jobs in states like Colorado and Iowa, my opponent wants to end tax credits for wind producers.

AUDIENCE: Booo --

THE PRESIDENT: The wind industry supports about 5,000 jobs across this state. Without those tax credits, jobs would be at risk -- 37,000 jobs across this country would be at risk. Why would we want to stop promoting clean, renewable energy that can make our environment better, put people back to work, free our dependence from foreign oil? We should stop spending billions of taxpayer subsidies on the oil industry that is very profitable. Let's keep investing in a clean energy industry that's never been more promising. (Applause.) That's the choice in this election.

Here's another choice. I promised in 2008 I'd end the war in Iraq. We ended it. (Applause.) I said we'd go after bin Laden and al Qaeda. We did. (Applause.) We're transitioning in Afghanistan and starting to bring our troops home. (Applause.)

And so none of this could have been accomplished had it not been for our outstanding men and women in uniform. (Applause.) We are safer and more respected because of them.

But now we've got to make sure that the country they come back to is going on all cylinders. So what I said is let's set up a Veterans Jobs Corps that helps returning veterans get jobs as firefighters and police officers in communities that need them. (Applause.) Let's make sure that they are getting the training that they need. And let's make sure that we take some of those savings that we are spending after a decade of war, let's do some nation-building here at home. (Applause.) Let's put people back to work rebuilding our roads and our bridges, laying broadband lines, rebuilding our schools, putting in new science labs.

I was just down in Pueblo, and we were talking about a water project that John F. Kennedy had signed, authorizing 60 years ago -- 50 years ago. It has never been funded. You know what, under my administration it's getting funded. (Applause.)

There are projects like that all across America. And we can put people back to work right now. That's good for the economy right now -- lower unemployment right now -- but it also lays the foundation for economic growth for decades to come. That's a choice in this election.

I believe that we, once again, should be leading the world in educating our kids. (Applause.) So I've said let's make sure that we're helping local school districts hire the best teachers, especially in math and science. (Applause.) Let's help to provide millions of new slots at community colleges, so people can train for the jobs that businesses are hiring for right now. (Applause.) And I want to make college and university tuitions lower so young people aren't burdened with tens of thousands of dollars' worth of debt. (Applause.) We can do it -- because higher education is not a luxury; it's an economic necessity in the 21st century. (Applause.)

My opponent doesn't have a plan for higher education. He doesn't have a plan for homeownership. He was asked, what should we do about the housing crisis. He says, well, we'll just let foreclosures bottom out. That's not a plan. What I've said is let's help all families take advantage of historically low rates, refinance your homes, get an extra $3,000 a year, which you will then spend and will make the economy stronger and the housing market stronger. (Applause.) That's a choice in this election -- doing nothing, or putting $3,000 in your pocket.

I'm running because I believe nobody in America should go broke because they get sick. (Applause.) Mr. Romney says he wants to repeal Obamacare.

AUDIENCE: Booo --

THE PRESIDENT: Let me tell you, I'll work with anybody to keep improving our health care system. But the Supreme Court has spoken -- (applause) -- 6.5 million young people are able to stay on their parent's plans now. (Applause.) Seniors are getting discounts on their prescription drugs. Insurance companies can't prevent you from getting health insurance if you've got a preexisting condition. (Applause.) Folks are getting free preventive care.

I think it was the right thing to do. We're not going backwards, we're going forwards. That's the choice in this election. (Applause.)

We're not going back to "don't ask, don't tell". Everybody should be able to serve the country they love. (Applause.) That's a choice in this election. Helping out the DREAM Act kids -- that was the right thing to do. We're not going backwards, we're going forwards. That's the choice in this election. (Applause.)

All these things tie together. Because my vision is one in which -- whether we're talking about housing or education or rebuilding America -- the idea is you've got to show individual initiative. Government can't solve all your problems. Government can't help folks who won't help themselves. But there are things we can do to make sure that everybody has got a chance, everybody has got opportunity. (Applause.) If everybody is willing to work hard, they've got those rungs on the ladder to have a secure middle-class life. (Applause.)

That's the promise our parents passed down to us. That's why I'm standing here today -- because somebody helped me along the way. That's the promise I want to pass on to the next generation. That's why I'm running for another term as President of the United States of America. (Applause.)

AUDIENCE: Four more years! Four more years! Four more years! Four more years!

THE PRESIDENT: Now, over the next three months, the other side will spend more money than we've ever seen on ads that tell you the same thing we've been hearing for four years now, which is the economy is not good enough and it's Obama's fault. Basically, they should just have one commercial and they can just run it over and over again, because they don't say anything new. (Laughter.)

And the reason that's their argument is because they don't have a plan, and the plan they've got they can't sell. (Applause.) So they will do their best, like they've been trying to do for the last three years, to just run me down. The problem is they don't have a plan to create jobs. They don't have a plan to strengthen the economy. And they don't have a plan to revive the middle class. And I do. (Applause.) But in order to implement that plan, I'm going to have to have your help.

This election is going to be close. Colorado is going to be close. So I've got to make sure your friends are registered. I've got to make sure you're registered. In Colorado, you can register online. So you got to go to gottaregister.com -- that's "gotta," G-O-T-T-A. (Laughter.)

But we're going to have to work hard. Here is the good news. Here is the good news. I've been outspent before. I've been counted out before. But you know what we learned in 2008 -- when the American people decide that they want to see change, they make it happen. (Applause.) When the American people come together and focus on those values that have made us strong, they cut through all the nonsense. It doesn't matter how much the other side spends -- change happens.

Colorado, we've come too far to turn back now. (Applause.) We've got too many good jobs we still have to create. We've got too many teachers we've got to hire. (Applause.) We've got too many schools we've got to rebuild, too many students we want to send to college. We've got too much homegrown energy we still have to generate, too many troops we've still got to bring home. We've got too many doors of opportunity we still have to open up for everybody who is willing to work hard and walk through those doors. (Applause.)

That's what's at stake right now. That's why I'm running. That's why I need your help. In 2008, I said to you I am not a perfect man and I won't be a perfect President. But I promised you that I would spend every single day fighting as hard as I knew how for you. And I have kept that promise. Because I still believe in you. (Applause.) And, Colorado, if you still believe in me -- if you're willing to work with me and stand with me, and knock on doors with me, and make phone calls with me, we will win Colorado -- (applause) -- and we will win this election. And we will finish what we started. And we will remind the world why America is the greatest nation on Earth.

God bless you. And God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

This dope just wants to nationalize everything. He loans your company money, he can control you.

EDITORIAL: The Civil War of 2016

U.S. military officers are told to plan to fight Americans

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

-
The Washington Times
Tuesday, August 7, 2012

• http://media.washtimes.com/media/ima...1b58e96e5e2ca8Enlarge Photo
  Illustration: Battle worn Tea Party by Greg Groesch for The Washington Times more >

Imagine Tea Party extremists seizing control of a South Carolina town and the Army being sent in to crush the rebellion. This farcical vision is now part of the discussion in professional military circles.


At issue is an article in the respected Small Wars Journal titled “Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A ‘Vision’ of the Future.” It was written by retired Army Col. Kevin Benson of the Army's University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and Jennifer Weber, a Civil War expert at the University of Kansas. It posits an “extremist militia motivated by the goals of the ‘tea party’ movement” seizing control of Darlington, S.C., in 2016, “occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council and placing the mayor under house arrest.” The rebels set up checkpoints on Interstate 95 and Interstate 20 looking for illegal aliens. It’s a cartoonish and needlessly provocative scenario.


The article is a choppy patchwork of doctrinal jargon and liberal nightmare. The authors make a quasi-legal case for military action and then apply the Army’s Operating Concept 2016-2028 to the situation. They write bloodlessly that “once it is put into play, Americans will expect the military to execute without pause and as professionally as if it were acting overseas.”

They claim that “the Army cannot disappoint the American people, especially in such a moment,” not pausing to consider that using such efficient, deadly force against U.S. citizens would create a monumental political backlash and severely erode government legitimacy.


The vision is hard to take seriously. As retired ArmyBrig. Gen. Russell D. Howard, a former professor at West Point, observed earlier in his career, “I am a colonel, colonels write a lot of crazy stuff, but no one listens to colonels, so I don’t see the problem.” Twenty years ago, then-Air Force Lt. Col. Charles J. Dunlap Jr. created a stir with an article in Parameters titled “The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012.” It carried a disclaimer that the coup scenario was “purely a literary device intended to dramatize my concern over certain contemporary developments affecting the armed forces, and is emphatically not a prediction.”


The scenario presented in Small Wars Journal isn’t a literary device but an operational lay-down intended to present the rationale and mechanisms for Americans to fight Americans. Col. Benson and Ms. Weber contend, “Army officers are professionally obligated to consider the conduct of operations on U.S. soil.” This is a dark, pessimistic and wrongheaded view of what military leaders should spend their time studying.


A professor at the Joint Forces Staff College was relieved of duty in June for uttering the heresy that the United States is at war with Islam. The Obama administration contended the professor had to be relieved because what he was teaching was not U.S. policy. Because there is no disclaimer attached to the Small Wars piece, it is fair to ask, at least in Col. Benson’s case, whether his views reflect official policy regarding the use of U.S. military force against American citizens.
The Washington Times



UPDATE: The standard Defense Department disclaimer was added to the article after The Washington Times drew attention to the omission.

I missed your post above and posted the same article in "Will America Break Up?"

Looks like their making plans at any cost.

Np. As long as we're hitting this stuff hard.

I'm actually surprised we've not had a shitload of liberals trying to get on the site to tell us how "wrong" we are about everything.

I think it is because they KNOW we're on to them.

Companion Threads:

• Making martial law easier
  
• Progressive ‘Mission Accomplished,’ Now on to Phase II — Communism
• MSM openly turns programming over to Obama
• Obama Making Plans to Use Executive Power
• How many more Executive Orders will he sign?
• Americans Renouncing Citizenship Over High Taxes
• Homeland Security moves forward with 'pre-crime' detection
• Obama signs Executive Order to form THE COUNCIL OF (10) GOVERNORS
• Obama Signs Executive Order Declaring International Law for the United States
• Nation Building America
• Bill creates Camps in U.S. for 'Emergencies'
• Obama picks La Raza executive to head his Domestic Policy Council
• Will a Leftist Takeover of the Military Precede a Leftist Military Takeover?
• Obama raises eyebrows with executive order revising authority to nationalize resource
• The Growing List Allegedly Committing Sedition Against U.S. Government
• Obama assassinates 2 Americans and nobody cares
• 2nd DHS Domestic Extremism report, guess who they define as a terrorist now?
• Obama Authorizes Assassination of Civilians He now calls Terrorists
• Protest? Police are getting Ready for you
• Obama’s Growing Snitch Program on Extremism
• Homeland Security: You’re All ‘Militia Extremists’ Now
• DHS new Terror Warning: "We are now focused on Americans taking up arms"
• Obama signs EO giving INTERPOL Search and Seizure Immunity in U.S.
• Van Jones: Tea Party Out To Destroy America
• The Left's new threat to silence the right
• Obama wishes America was run like China
  
• Obama Administration using the United Nations to bypass Congress
• New video game slaughters Conservatives and Tea Party Zombies
• Democrats Introduce Bill to Seal Up Obama’s Presidential Records
• Obama marched with New Black Panthers
• New Black Panthers Plot With Ahmadinejad to Overthrow America
  
• DHS Plans to Merge With Local/State Law Enforcement with the use of Drones

DHS Orders 750 Million More Rounds Of Ammo

http://www.alt-market.com/images/sto...mmo%20pile.jpg

The federal government, specifically the Department of Homeland Security, is buying up huge amounts of ammunition and there seems to be no end in sight. Again, this is nothing new as the DHS has refused to explain their purchase of 450 million hollow points and has ordered "up to" 650-750 million rounds of ammo and also seems to be looking for more weapons as well.

What do you make of this? Leave your comments below!

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportun...cf5e3&_cview=0

Will Obama Keep Power 'by Any Means Necessary'?

By Stella Paul

Let's go there: if Obama thinks he's losing, will he allow safe and fair elections on November 6? And if he does lose, will he peacefully turn over power to Mitt Romney on January 20, 2013? Or will he cling to power "by any means necessary," as a highly placed insider alleges?

Now, I'm truly sorry to raise such disgusting, un-American, crazy-sounding questions, but, alas, they're not crazy, and I've got a disquieting amount of evidence. The Democrats have already accused Romney of murdering a woman with cancer, financial felonies, and not filing taxes for ten years -- the last charge delivered by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on the Senate floor, on the basis of absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

By Democrat standards, I've got enough proof to put away Obama, et al. for life without parole.

Whatever chicanery Obama and his investors may be contemplating, it will probably unfold against some gargantuan crisis, manufactured or otherwise. So cast your mind back to September 11, 2001, the day of the New York mayoral primary.

In the chaos after the attacks, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who was term-limited from running, pleaded that his leadership was essential and that he should be granted an extra three months in office after his term ran out on January 1. Giuliani's unprecedented power-grab was rightfully scorned by his eventual successor, Michael Bloomberg. So what did Bloomberg do when he ran into term limits? He deployed his multi-billion-dollar fortune to manipulate the law and buy himself a quasi-legal third term, claiming that only he had the expertise to handle the 2008 financial crisis.

My point? Politicians a great deal more conventional than Obama have loathed giving up power, and they have used crises and unethical machinations to try to keep it.
Now, let's look at just some of the disturbing evidence that indicates that Obama and his investors are plotting something big:

Super-High-Level Trial Balloons

USA Today reported that on September 27, 2011, Governor Beverly Perdue, Democrat of North Carolina, told a Rotary Club audience, "I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two yearsand just tell them we won't hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover[.] ... You want people who don't worry about the next election." When outrage greeted her suggestion, she retreated to the standard defense: she was just joking. What a kidder!

Meanwhile, that same month, Peter Orszag, Obama's former director of the Office of Management and Budget, published an article in The New Republic titled "Too Much of A Good Thing: Why We Need Less Democracy." In it, he posited that the country was too polarized; hence, "radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic."

Please note that these suggestions to suspend elections and radically reduce democratic control did not come from basement-dwelling bloggers. They came from the governor of the very state in which the Democrats are holding their national convention and from one of Obama's most prominent Cabinet members. Their close timing suggests that these ideas were circulating at the highest levels of the Democrat power elite.

"Whom Does the Government Intend to Shoot?"

That's the question recently posed by retired Major General Jerry Curry in the Daily Caller, in light of horrifying reports that the Social Security Administration is buying 174,000 rounds of hollow-point bullets for distribution to 41 locations in the U.S.

According to Major General Curry, Social Security's ammo spree follows the purchase by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of 46,000 rounds of hollow-point ammunition. Will they be shooting fish in a barrel?

Most terrifying of all, Major General Curry reports that the Department of Homeland Security ordered 750 million rounds of hollow-point ammunition in March, then subsequently ordered an additional 750 million rounds, including bullets capable of penetrating walls.

"This is enough ammunition to empty five rounds into the body of every living American citizen," writes Major General Curry, who wonders what plan might require "so many dead Americans."

I strongly suggest that you read Major General Curry's article for yourself, so you can appreciate the full horror of what he describes. After pointing out that Congress has done nothing to investigate these weapon purchases, Major General Curry, a 40-year veteran, concludes with these chilling words:

This is a deadly serious business. I hope I'm wrong, but something smells rotten. And If the Congress isn't going to do its duty and investigate this matter fully, the military will have to protect the Constitution, the nation, and our citizens.

900-plus Executive Orders

Obama may not be fond of governing, but he certainly does enjoy issuing executive orders -- more than 900 so far. As American Thinker's Warren Beatty points out, these little-reported edicts reveal an all-too-predictable pattern: concentrating all national power and resources in Obama's hands, in case of "emergency."

So far, Obama has granted himself the right to control all transportation, including highways, airports, seaports, and railroads, and all modes of communication, storage facilities, electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels, and minerals.

Not so coincidentally, he's also given himself the right to control you. Executive Orders 11002, 11000, and 11004, respectively, give government the right to register all persons, assign them to work brigades, and relocate them.

Should you resist your work brigade assignment or relocation orders, rest assured that the U.S. government is now well supplied with bullets.

Openly War-Gaming against American Citizens

A recent issue of the well-respected Small Wars Journal featured an article titled "Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A 'Vision' of the Future." Written by retired Army Col. Kevin Benson of the Army's University of Foreign Military and Jennifer Weber, a Civil War expert, the article helpfully game-played, in full operational detail, how the Army would destroy a local Tea Party insurrection.

The authors claim that should Tea Party rebels take over a City Hall, "Americans will expect the military to execute without pause and as professionally as if it were acting overseas"; therefore, "the Army cannot disappoint the American people, especially in such a moment."

The brazenness of this scheme for the U.S. military to kill Americans created a small, temporary stir. The Washington Times editorialized, "This is a dark, pessimistic and wrongheaded view of what military leaders should spend their time studying." The Washington Times also noted:

Quote:

A professor at the Joint Forces Staff College was relieved of duty in June for uttering the heresy that the United States is at war with Islam. The Obama administration contended the professor had to be relieved because what he was teaching was not U.S. policy. Because there is no disclaimer attached to the Small Wars piece, it is fair to ask, at least in Col. Benson's case, whether his views reflect official policy regarding the use of U.S. military force against American citizens.

Active Partnership with America's Foreign Enemies

Many spectacles have enlivened presidential elections over the years, but 2012 marks the first time that high-level military personnel have felt compelled to publicly tell the president to stop leaking national security secrets.

A group of former U.S. intelligence and Special Forces operatives created a 22-minute video, "Dishonorable Disclosures," to shame Obama into shutting up about priceless intelligence related to bin Laden's death, British-Saudi penetration of al-Qaeda, and the Israeli-American Stuxnet virus attack on Iran's nuclear program.

Normally, presidents don't want to endanger American citizens and military personnel by leaking top-secret information -- but aiding and abetting the enemy is apparently all in a day's work for Obama.

And so, if he wants to stir up trouble before the election, either at home or abroad, he'll have plenty of enemy partners to help. First, he's got the Russians, to whose president he was caught whispering on a hot mic about missile defense, "This is my last election[.] ... After my election, I have more flexibility."

Second, Obama is this close to the Muslim Brotherhood, who are world-class experts on unleashing political violence. Obama helped the Muslim Brotherhood ascend to power in Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, and Libya, and he's placed its operatives in the highest levels of the American government. Surely, such clever characters as Huma Abedin, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's deputy chief of staff, and Mohamed Elibiary, a Homeland Security Advisory committee member, can be trusted to think up some exciting turmoil to apply where needed.

And finally, close to home, Obama can rely on the Sinaloa drug cartel in Mexico, whom he supplied with thousands of guns. Gratefully, they used their American taxpayer-funded AK-47s to wipe out rival drug gangs and to murder Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. Attorney General Eric Holder is presently in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over documents on Operation Fast and Furious, and Obama ("President Transparency") has claimed executive privilege to withhold them.

Sending hordes of expensively armed drug gang members across our border should be a snap, now that Obama has crippled our Border Patrol. Just think of all the headline-grabbing distractions these energetic young men can unleash!

Active Partnership with Domestic Criminal Groups

When Louis Farrakhan met Ahmadinejad: now there's a romance made in the bowels of hell. Toss in the head of the New Black Panthers and fifty radical imams, and you've got the "Beast Axis" that was forged in a Manhattan hotel on September 27, 2010, according to The Blaze.

New Black Panther Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz boasted on Black Panther Radio thathe "stands on solid ideological ground" with "His Excellency, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad," who understands "the dynamics and the politics of world revolution."

Apparently, Obama approves of these antics, because his attorney general, Eric Holder, dropped charges against the New Black Panthers, even though they were caught on tape allegedly intimidating Philadelphia voters in the 2008 elections. Naturally, Holder's Department of Justice then lied about its actions, covering up its political motivations.
Holder specifically protected King Samir Shabazz, who now serves as national field marshal for the New Black Panthers. Shabazz spearheads the Panthers' ambitious new plan to "create inner city militaries that would go into nurseries and kill white babies and murder white people in the street."

Let's hope this "inner city military" is not what candidate Obama mysteriously referred to in 2008 when he pledged, "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security forcethat's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Imagine, for one monstrous moment, the destructive potential of this burgeoning alliance between the Obama-protected New Black Panthers, Obama's old Chicago associate Louis Farrakhan, and the genocidally obsessed Ahmadinejad. If your blood didn't run cold, you weren't imagining hard enough.

A Tsunami of Voter Fraud

On June 15, 2012, Obama bypassed Congress and issued de facto amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Suddenly, whole new vistas of voter fraud opened up to the Democrats. Admittedly, they've got to ramp up quickly for November, but this gang should prove up to the challenge.

Helping matters along, Holder is busy suing states that require photo ID to vote and attempting to disenfranchise the military. Together, these well-coordinated efforts should provide Obama with the means to pull off staggering amounts of voter fraud.

"By Any Means Necessary"

If all else fails, Obama and his investors may be prepared to keep power "By Any Means Necessary." This information comes from an uncannily predictive website called The Ulsterman Report. Those who have followed its fascinating interviews over the last couple of years with two anonymous sources, Wall Street Insider and White House Insider, have seen its scoops confirmed again and again.

Well over a year ahead of any other media, The Ulsterman Report was informing readers that Valerie Jarrett ran the White House and that Obama was strangely disengaged from the actual tasks of governing. It predicted the emergence of obscure figures -- Kamala D. Harris, who's now attorney general of California, and her brother-in-law, Tony West, the newly named acting associate attorney general at the Department of Justice, who's being groomed as Holder's successor.

Most crucially, shortly after the bin Laden operation, the Ulsterman Report revealed that Valerie Jarrett had canceled three previous bin Laden raids. That information now has been confirmed by Richard Miniter in his book, Leading from Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him.

Recently, a source known as Military Insider (MI) met with Ulsterman (UM) at the urging of Wall Street Insider (WSI) to issue a warning. A section of their conversation follows below:

Quote:

MI: Approximately two years ago...not quite two years ago...I received information pertaining to an election contingency plan. For 2012. After the 2010 elections there were particular operatives...specific to the Obama administration and Democratic Party leadership...indicating an overwhelming need to secure a second term for President Obama. That document's title was...(pauses) WSI: He can be trusted - I give you my word. Please proceed. MI: That document's title was "By Any Means Necessary". It was unofficial - but we know it came directly from channels specific to the administration. We confirmed that. UM: What channels? Who are you talking about? MI: We believe it to have been authored by Mr. Sunstein. Reviewed and approved by Valerie Jarrett. Preparations for implementation are being done in part by Mr. Leo Gerard coordinating with...with high ranking officials within the Department of Justice, Homeland Security...and...the U.S. military.

We could dismiss the anonymous Military Insider's warning as overheated, unsourced hysteria. Or we could examine it as one more piece of evidence to place alongside all the evidence I've described above.

The greatest asset of Obama and his investors has been their warp-speed audacity. We're too stunned to believe what's happening in front of our eyes, and too embarrassed to mention it. Who wants to speak up and be ridiculed as an unhinged paranoid, marching with the tinfoil hat brigade?

But our best bet -- perhaps our only bet -- is to frankly confront this ugly reality. As Iran prepares to go nuclear and the global economy teeters, any number of "national emergencies" can suddenly erupt, demanding unprecedented measures by Obama to "save" us. We must be prepared with skepticism, outrage, and defiance of any actions to deprive us of our Constitutional rights.

America remains the last best hope on earth. And We the People must keep our power, by any means necessary.


Write Stella Paul at stellapundit@aol.com.


http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/...necessary.html

Obama will NOT keep power by "any means necessary".

What he WILL do though, if he loses - he has three months to do severe damage to the government, and the country.

All of November to 20 January and he can do all kinds of things with executive orders. He can shut down agencies, order them to do things to the public. Ban guns. Anything.

Whether the Congress will allow it is another story.

But it's pretty damned obvious any former military member that steps up to the plate and says "NO, we're not gonna take that" will be put into a mental institution.

Who Does The Government Intend To Shoot?

Published: 9:40 AM 08/17/2012











http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-cont...SW-300x170.jpg Photo by Oleg Volk, http://www.olegvolk.net/

By Major General Jerry Curry, USA (Ret.)

The Social Security Administration (SSA) confirms that it is purchasing 174 thousand rounds of hollow point bullets to be delivered to 41 locations in major cities across the U.S. No one has yet said what the purpose of these purchases is, though we are led to believe that they will be used only in an emergency to counteract and control civil unrest. Those against whom the hollow point bullets are to be used — those causing the civil unrest — must be American citizens; since the SSA has never been used overseas to help foreign countries maintain control of their citizens.


What would be the target of these 174, 000 rounds of hollow point bullets? It can’t simply be to control demonstrators or rioters. Hollow point bullets are so lethal that the Geneva Convention does not allow their use on the battle field in time of war. Hollow point bullets don’t just stop or hurt people, they penetrate the body, spread out, fragment and cause maximum damage to the body’s organs. Death often follows.


Potentially each hollow nose bullet represents a dead American. If so, why would the U.S. government want the SSA to kill 174,000 of our citizens, even during a time of civil unrest? Or is the purpose to kill 174,000 of the nation’s military and replace them with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) special security forces, forces loyal to the Administration, not to the Constitution?


All my life I’ve handled firearms. When a young boy growing up on my father’s farm in Pennsylvania Dad’s first rule of firearms training was, “Never point a gun at someone, in fun or otherwise, unless you intend to shoot them. If you shoot someone, shoot to kill.” I’ve never forgotten his admonition. It stayed with me through my Boy Scout training, when I enlisted in the army as a Private to fight in the Korea

War, during my days as a Ranger and Paratrooper and throughout my thirty-four year military career.


If this were only a one time order of ammunition, it could easily be dismissed. But there is a pattern here. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has ordered 46,000 rounds of hollow point ammunition. Notice that all of these purchases are for the lethal hollow nose bullets. These bullets are not being purchased and stored for squirrel or coyote hunting. This is serious ammunition manufactured to be used for serious purposes.


In the war in Iraq, our military forces expended approximately 70 million rounds per year. In March DHS ordered 750 million rounds of hollow point ammunition. It then turned around and ordered an additional 750 million rounds of miscellaneous bullets including some that are capable of penetrating walls. This is enough ammunition to empty five rounds into the body of every living American citizen. Is this something we and the Congress should be concerned about? What’s the plan that requires so many dead Americans, even during times of civil unrest? Has Congress and the Administration vetted the plan in public.


I fear that Congress won’t take these ammunition purchases seriously until they are all led from Capitol Hill in handcuffs. Why buy all this ammunition unless you plan to use it. Unknown to Congress, Does DHS plan to declare war on some country? Shouldn’t Congress hold hearings on why the Administration is stockpiling this ammunition all across the nation? How will it be used; what are the Administration’s plans?


Obama is a deadly serious, persistent man. Once he focuses on an object, he pursues it to the end. What is his focus here? All of these rounds of ammunition can only be used to kill American citizens, though there is enough ammunition being ordered to kill, in addition to every American citizen, also every Iranian, Syrian or Mexican. There is simply too much of it. And this much ammunition can’t be just for training, there aren’t that many weapons and “shooters” in the U.S. to fire it. Perhaps it is to be used to arm illegal immigrants?


We have enough military forces to maintain law and order in the U.S. even during times of civil unrest.


We have local police, backed up by each state’s National Guard, backed up by the Department of Defense. So in addition to all these forces why does DHS need its own private army? Why do the SSA, NOAA and other government agencies need to create their own civilian security forces armed with hollow nose bullets?


Were I the JCS, and if I wasn’t already fully briefed on this matter, I’d stop the purchase of hollow point bullets, ask the secretary of Defense why all this ammunition is being purchased and spread around the country? If I got answers like the ones Congress got during the investigation of Operation Fast and Furious – I’d start tracking all ammunition deliveries nationwide to find out what organizations and units are using them, for what purpose and, if it is not constitutional, prepare to counteract whatever it is that they are doing.


This is a deadly serious business. I hope I’m wrong, but something smells rotten. And If the Congress isn’t going to do its duty and investigate this matter fully, the military will have to protect the Constitution, the nation, and our citizens.


Jerry Curry is a decorated combat veteran, Army Aviator, Paratrooper, and Ranger, who for nearly forty years has served his country both in the military and as a Presidential political appointee.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/17/wh...#ixzz24CgP7fFb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Donaldson

Obama will NOT keep power by "any means necessary".

What he WILL do though, if he loses - he has three months to do severe damage to the government, and the country.

All of November to 20 January and he can do all kinds of things with executive orders. He can shut down agencies, order them to do things to the public. Ban guns. Anything.

Whether the Congress will allow it is another story.

But it's pretty damned obvious any former military member that steps up to the plate and says "NO, we're not gonna take that" will be put into a mental institution.

---

Alright.... I've read that whole article. I read the second one I posted and I'm in the middle of a third.

I take BACK what I said.

The part about him keeping power "by any means".

I'm not so sure now. The rest of it... well, he's already done more EOs than I thought he had. I thought it was just a few. Now this article is claiming 900 executive orders. Well beyond anything I'd do as President, that's for certain.

Administration of Barack Obama (2009-Present)

Disposition of Executive orders signed by President Barack Obama:

• Subject Index
• 2009 - E.O. 13489 - E.O. 13527 (39 Executive orders issued)
• 2010 - E.O. 13528 - E.O. 13562 (35 Executive orders issued)
• 2011 - E.O. 13563 - E.O. 13596 (34 Executive orders issued)
• 2012 - E.O. 13597 - E.O. 13622 (26 Executive orders issued)

---

134 Total Executive orders Issued


NOTE: The total number of Executive orders issued for each administration includes number-and-letter designated orders, such as 9577-A, 9616-A, etc.



I guess I'm a little confused where the "over 900" and "923" executive orders numbers are coming from.

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/06...-in-40-months/
http://www.sodahead.com/united-state...stion-2705037/

http://1461days.blogspot.com/2009/01...nt-obamas.html

That last one says 135.....

135 is a LOT of them.



Yeah.... 135 is a lot, but it isn't 923 or even 900. I think some of this stuff is just made up on the spot.

here's one of the sources of the "900 EOs"

July 16, 2012 Do Obama's Executive Orders Reveal A Pattern?

By Warren Beatty

President Barack Hussein "kill list" Obama has offered over 900 Executive Orders (EO), and he is not even through his first term. He is creating a wonderland of government controls covering everything imaginable, including a list of "Emergency Powers" and martial law EOs. And while Obama is busy issuing EOs to control everything inside the US, he has been issuing EOs to force us to submit to international regulations instead of our US Constitution.
And comments by North Carolina governor Beverly Perdue and former OMB director Peter Orszag only contribute to this pattern.
Is it now time to start connecting the dots? Obama signed EO 13603 on March 22, 2012. Then he signed EO 13617 on June 25, 2012, declaring a national emergency. Then he signed EO 13618 on July 6, 2012.
In EO 13603, entitled, "National Defense Resources Preparedness," Obama says (among other things) that [we must]:

be prepared, in the event of a potential threat to the security of the United States, to take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate resources and production capability, including services and critical technology, for national defense requirements;

Obama has the power, through this EO, to "nationalize" (not seize) private assets in order to protect national interests. Further, the EO effectively states that he can:
1. "identify" requirements for emergencies
2. "assess" the capability of the country's industrial and technological base
3. "be prepared" to ensure the availability of critical resources in time of national threat
4. "improve the efficiency" of the industrial base to support national defense
5. "foster cooperation" between commercial and defense sectors
There are pundits that suggest that by signing EO 13603, Obama has given himself power to declare martial law and suspend elections.
The main problem with EO 13603 is that the words/phrases in quotes can be interpreted in many ways, including ways that favor Obama and Democrats. Wait, we can have our Supreme Court decide what they mean. But that won't work since we know four of them to be Democrat hacks, and one justice can be influenced by the MSM.
In EO 13617, entitled "Blocking Property of the Government of the Russian Federation Relating to the Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted From Nuclear Weapons," Obama says (among other things)that"

the risk of nuclear proliferation created by the accumulation of a large volume of weapons-usable fissile material in the territory of the Russian Federation continues to constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.

Obama, by signing this EO, actually declared a national emergency. I guess that President Theodore Roosevelt's famous saying, "Speak softly and carry a big stick," can't apply in this case because we don't want to offend the Russians by having them honor treaties they signed (the "HEU" Agreement). But what's more important is that Obama can now "justify" any action he wants to take by citing EO 13617 since it declares a national emergency.
Then, in EO 13618, entitled, "Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions," Obama states (among other things) that:

The Federal Government must have the ability to communicate at all times and under all circumstances to carry out its most critical and time sensitive missions. ... Such communications must be possible under all circumstances to ensure national security, effectively manage emergencies, and improve national resilience.

Obama cites "national security" in this EO. I guess Obama sees ANY excuse for declaring a national security emergency will appear better than taking over the nation's communications assets by force
Want more examples of what Obama is doing?

• EO 10990 allows the Government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
• EO 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels, and minerals.
• EO 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision
• EO 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.
• EO 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
• EO 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate and establish new locations for populations.
• EO 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways, and public storage facilities.

Are we beginning to see a pattern here? We're being prepared for a national emergency. Then there's taking control. I personally think that what Obama is doing goes way beyond being prepared.
North Carolina governor Beverly Perdue (Democrat), on September 28, 2011, suggested that perhaps elections should be suspended for two years by canceling, until the economy recovers, the 2012 elections. After that remark got the reception it deserved, Pardue's staff tried to pass it off as a joke.
Former White House director of the Office of Management and Budget Peter Orszag, who, on September 14, 2011, in a The New Republic article entitled "Too Much of a Good Thing: Why we need less democracy," said that we are that we are hampered by too much democracy, that the constitutional system (not really a democracy) is too slow to react, and the deliberations and negotiations are simply too cumbersome. Orszag suggests that the constitutional rules of limiting government offers impediments to autocratic, dictatorial actions, and are just too great.
That North Carolina governor Perdue would even joke (if it was a joke) about canceling an election is frightening enough, but that Orszag, a former official in Obama's administration, believes that doing away with the US Constitution is a viable solution should cause every AT reader to quake.
I'm never comfortable with laws that give the government broad reaching powers in the event of a "national emergency," especially when there is no clear, set, unchangeable definition of what actually constitutes a "national emergency."
Circumvention of the US Constitution by any means possible is the ultimate goal of Democrats and the Obama administration because the 2012 election is shaping up to be a repeat of the 2010 election.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but these three latest EOs and previous EOs Obama signed, coupled with Perdue's and Orszag's comments, suggest that something besides coincidence is going on.
Dr. Beatty earned a Ph.D. in quantitative management and statistics from Florida State University. He was a (very conservative) professor of quantitative management specializing in using statistics to assist/support decision making. He has been a consultant to many small businesses and is now retired. Dr. Beatty is a veteran who served in the U.S. Army for 22 years. He blogs at: rwno.limewebs.com.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/...#ixzz24CnR6EAN

Companion Thread:
Will America Break Up?


Texas official warns of Obama civil war

Compiled by Chronicle Staff

http://blog.cleveland.com/nationworl...18-08-Meye.jpg

Updated 6:33 p.m., Wednesday, August 22, 2012

• Lubbock County Judge Tom Head apparently fears that President Obama's re-election could mean the handover of U.S. power to the United Nations.

Houston and Texas

A Lubbock County, Texas, judge is asking for a tax increase to hire deputies for the inevitable civil war he believes would follow President Obama's re-election.

The way he puts it, Judge Tom Head wants to prepare for the "worst", which to him means "civil unrest, civil disobedience" and possible "civil war", according to a report from Fox 34 Lubbock

Judge Tom Head and Commissioner Mark Heinrich told the station this week that a 1.7 cent tax increase for the next fiscal year was necessary to prepare for many contingencies, including Obama's re-election. He also mentioned to the station that the county needs a pay increase is needed for the district attorney's office and more funds to pay for more sheriff's office deputies.

"He's going to try to hand over the sovereignty of the United States to the (United Nations), and what is going to happen when that happens?," Head asked the station during a Monday interview. "I'm thinking the worst. Civil unrest, civil disobedience, civil war maybe. And we're not just talking a few riots here and demonstrations, we're talking Lexington, Concord, take up arms and get rid of the guy."

Head also seems to fear the retaliation of such civil unrest.

"Now what's going to happen if we do that, if the public decides to do that? He's going to send in U.N. troops. I don't want 'em in Lubbock County.

OK. So I'm going to stand in front of their armored personnel carrier and say 'you're not coming in here'.

"And the sheriff, I've already asked him, I said 'you gonna back me' he said, 'yeah, I'll back you'. Well, I don't want a bunch of rookies back there. I want trained, equipped, seasoned veteran officers to back me."

The station reports that the tax hike will provide an additional $832,433 coupled with $2 million in cuts to make the numbers work.

Wow, the Judge better watch out, the FBI and Secret Service will come put him in a mental institution for saying stuff like that.

hahaha

Mystery Surrounding 1.2 Billion Rounds Of Ammo Solved
August 23rd, 2012
http://marketdailynews.com/wp-conten...mo-300x200.jpg

Dominique de Kevelioc de Bailleul: The mystery surrounding the purpose for the U.S. government’s procurement of 1.2 billion rounds of hollow-point ammunition just got a boost Tuesday.

On the heels of an article penned by Major General Jerry Curry (Ret.), titled, Who Does The Government Intend to Shoot?, a piece written by a retired U.S. general who questions the bizarre series of monstrous ammunition by unlikely agencies of the federal government, host Rick Wiles of TruNews Radio (Aug. 22) revealed to his listeners the answer to the mystery of the billion bullets.

After years warning of the out-of-the-blue presidential candidacy of Barrack Obama, Wiles appears most certain, again, that a powerful connection can be made between information he’s received from a high-level informant at Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—regarding the approximately 20,000 Russian commandos suspected of legally entering the U.S. from Canada—and conversations he had with an old acquaintance, the famous Russian spy of the old Soviet Union era, Colonel Stanislav Lunev.

“Colonel Stanislav Lunev told me, personally, years ago—he said, the Russian military strategy is, that, we [Russians] will strike so hard [at the U.S.], that there will be such shock, that the American people will surrender,” Wiles recalls, during a conversation he had with the spy over a several-day period in 1999.

“He was not talking about a nuclear, chemical [or] biological attack; he was talking about commandos in the country [U.S.]. He said . . . this is what he said, Spetznazs, which are the Russian commandos.

“He said, they have the names addresses of every member of Congress, and the Senate, their wives, their children, the school that they go to, all the cabinet members, all of the head officials in Washington, all the officials in state governments. And he said, they will all be assassinated, quickly.”

From 1988 through 1992, Lunev, the highest-ranking Russian KGB spy to defect to the United States, explained to American authorities that he was deployed by Moscow to actively seek strategic locations within America for the launching of biological, chemical and suitcase-size nuclear devices in the event of a hot war between the two superpowers.

Though, initially thought to be fantastic tales told by a trained professional of deception, Lunev’s seemingly incredulous assertions of an elaborate plot to attack America from within was later confirmed by former SVR officer Alexander Kouzminov, who stated in his book, Biological Espionage: Special Operations of the Soviet and Russian Foreign Intelligence Services in the West, the Soviet Union “was the only country in the world that could start and win a global biological war, something we had already established that the West was not ready for.”

According to Wiles, Lunev “said there will be a massive decapitation of the American government from top to bottom in a matter of days, and we [Russians] will put the country into a state of shock.

“That, he said, is the official strategy, and that’s what they [leaders in Moscow] plan to do, and, he said, it has never changed.” [emphasis added].

And here’s why the U.S. has procured 1.2 billion rounds of hollow-point ammunition, according to Wiles. Moreover, according to him, the Russians appear to be correct in their assessment: the American people are so distracted by lives of entertainment, of consumption and of derelictions of civic duty, that the Russian plan to destroy America from within is quite achievable.

“Let’s not forget that the real person running [Department of] Homeland Security is not Janet Napolitano, it is Valarie Jarrett, the communist,” Wiles explains. “And her father-in-law was Vernon Jarrett, who was a close confidant of Frank Marshal Davis, Barrack Obama’s communist mentor.

“And so, I’m going to continue to say on this radio program that, I believe Valarie Jarrett and David Axelrod, and these other commies are the real architects of this sinister plan to stockpile 1.2 billion rounds of ammo throughout the country.

“That it is not for law enforcement; it is to be turned over to a communist revolutionary army in this country.”

Wiles goes on to say that most Americans don’t realize that President Barrack Obama is a communist. “They don’t know it,” and “they don’t care,” says Wiles.

But, when the communist takeover is unleashed, presumably by a false-flag event or dollar devaluation, the American people will be in shock, he adds, just as Russians were shocked by the Bolshevik revolution and the rise of Joseph Stalin, the man who’s credited with the extermination of approximately 80 million Russians during his reign.

“An old fashion communist revolution is on the way,” says Wiles, suggesting, too, that that fact will become apparent soon enough, executed very quickly, and will shock, yet, another nation along history’s many roads to Communism.

By Dominique de Kevelioc de Bailleul From Beacon Equity Research

http://marketdailynews.com/2012/08/2...f-ammo-solved/

LOL....
Right. We're going to hand a billion rounds over to the bad guys?

Right.

Not if Americans get there first.

Not going to happen.

Besides, if a foreign power decided to decapitate the US and demand surrender terms, boomers would launch nuclear missiles.

Not only would boomers launch, so would we, the American People.

I won't listen to a government that surrenders. Sorry.