Is Barack Obama a real Manchurian candidate?

[Backstop]

...but even you believe Perry is way wrong for the country while Paul might be the better one. I think even you have stated something to the effect that "No more lesser of two evils" right?

They're all lesser of two evils.

Thing about Perry that REALLY pisses me off is he gave in-state tuition to illegal aliens.

I'm not going to school because I don't think it's smart to spend the money now, and there is no financial aid for me because of my income, etc.

Yet, my tax dollars are used to help people who are in this country illegally get an education.

Yeah, I'm seriously pissed at that.

[American Patriot]

I don't like the fact he did that with the tuition either.

Why are you saying they are ALL lesser of "two evils".

Shall we NOT have any humans in charge of anything then?

Look here - this is my biggest gripe with voters. I KNOW you're a smart guy and you know damned well, as does Michael that we're all human beings and fallible. Even Ronald Reagan made mistakes both before the Presidency and during.

No one is perfect. There's no such thing as a perfect President.

There are only choices. The whole idea and feeling of this "lesser of two evils" came about when you had two shitty candidates, one on each side.

There is not a lesser of two evils here because it is, quite simply GOOD versus EVIL.

The Left is EVIL. They want Communism, ultimately. The right doesn't WANT it and works to prevent it, keeping Capitalism as the mainstay of this country.

There's obviously some problems with a mediocre candidate like, say McCain last time around. It's no wonder Obama showed up as a Golden Boy. (Was that racist?)

But - Cain vs Obama? Perry Vs Obama? Romney vs Obama? Hands DOWN any one of those three would do a vastly BETTER job than Obama has done.

We may not AGREE with everything they say, and in fact I don't always agree with Bush I or II, or Reagan. Hell, I think *I* have the only RIGHT answers and everyone else is way off on their clues.

But the truth is, none of them are going to be "prefect" and hunting for the perfect candidate is simply a waste of time.

[Backstop]

Why are you saying they are ALL lesser of "two evils".

No one is perfect. There's no such thing as a perfect President.

I used your quote for my answer to your question.

IE: There is not one single candidate that I completely agree with, or completely disagree with.

Not one single candidate supports all my ideas.

[American Patriot]

I used your quote for my answer to your question.

IE: There is not one single candidate that I completely agree with, or completely disagree with.

Not one single candidate supports all my ideas.

Exactly.

That's my point.

What each of us must come to grips with is that very fact.

None of them will be perfect. Period.

But, that does NOT make them "evil", just not perfect by each of our standards. That's all.

The "lesser of two evils" was a phrase that was created (in politics) by the left I believe back in the days of Nixon. I'm sure it was used before that, but honestly, MOST people that have used it in the past are Democrats.

I hate when conservatives use it, because it makes us sound like we're compromising (again).

[Backstop]

I hate when conservatives use it, because it makes us sound like we're compromising (again).

Well...we are. At least in my case.

Using that term doesn't bother me a bit, because as far as I'm concerned, most every politician is a crook, and does not have the best interests (all inclusive) of this nation in his sights.

[American Patriot]

Well, I can agree with that. They are crooks.

I'm NOT a politician, even though I have run for public office before. I will never be one. I lack a very basic requirement, actually two of them.

First, I'm HONEST and second I will tell it like it is without any necessity for diplomacy.

Not sure how I've kept the 3-4 jobs I've had in my life for so many years at a time. LOL

[American Patriot]

Aside from the opinion I voiced about Cain-his unelectability-I simply don't think he has the qualifications to be President, and I don't trust him at all. There is something seedy and downright nasty i've always sensed in the man. I hope i'm wrong. Obama is so simply godawful an option that we Republicans feel we have to settle in order to win, which in fact always produces the candidate who loses. I saw it with Dole and then with McCain, and I fear that i'll see it again.

There is no such thing as "un-electability". That's where I have issues with this sort of thing. If there were, Clinton and Obama both would have been out of the race at the first glance to anyone with half a clue.

I pegged Clinton as a smarmy liar the VERY FIRST interview I saw with him talking about how he was planning to legalize drugs the minute he was in office. Then the first (maybe second) debate talking about how he WOULDN'T do it because of his brother who had been addicted to drugs or some such thing.

He was smarmy right off the bat. So for that matter is Romney to me.

Romney is just as electable as Clinton was and for the same reasons. Men and women both see them as "good looking specimens" which is why they will likely get elected.

Obama had the same issue. In fact, I can't even TELL you how many women told me they were voting for him because he was 'good looking'.

If "Good Looking" is a criteria, then I guess Cain must be out. He's less than average (not that I'm a great judge of "good looking men" but in comparison to either Perry or Romney he's lacking.

His "problem" with "sexual harassment" isn't a problem - it's a fact of life for ANY male in a position of having been a manager. Hell, *I* have gone through it - and I never sexually harassed ANYONE. It is all about perception my friend.

As the BIG manager in Charge of any organization there's going to be some feminist who is going to make accusations. That someone made an agreement with the Restaurant Association only means there was a COMPLAINT and not at all a real problem.

When someone makes such a complaint on unfounded speculation or accusations they should be FIRED when nothing is to be found to be true.

I suspect that is precisely what happened too. Some woman made an unfounded accusation and then was released with a small severance package. Some women I've heard of do this from company to company getting months of pay for nothing and getting away with it over and over.

I'm sure some men would do it if they could...

I wonder why or how you as a Republican can jump on that bandwagon so quickly when 1) we don't know where the accusations came from, 2) who "leaked" the data (you can BET it was someone from the left, or Karl Rove) and 3) because someone is accused of something you instantly lost any respect for the guy....

In America, you're innocent until proved guilty.

I sure haven't seen any court cases about this, and worse... compared to what Clinton did (actual Rape which he GOT AWAY with) a minor accusation which actually led to NOTHING at all isn't anything and it's no reason to throw out a smart man with the bad water in the gene pool.

We're not "settling" for Cain, we're CHOSING him. There's a big difference in him and Dole and McCain.

[Backstop]

...and I don't trust him at all. There is something seedy and downright nasty i've always sensed in the man.

Interesting - friend of mine said almost the exact same thing about Cain.

[American Patriot]

well... I can't put my finger on what it is about Romney. I can only interpolate it from knowing something about his father. Then, who knows? I was young then and heard a lot of bad things way back when.

Perhaps it is because back then everyone who was a politician was suspect, due to all the scandals that always rocked the various places, Chicago, Detroit, New York. Who knows?

So... wonder what it is? Just cuz some women accused him of something?

Hell they accused Clinton. Didn't stop him from fucking up the country. Obama? Never been accused of anything except not being a US Citizen, a Socialist, stealing from us, using US funds for companies like Solyndra. Nothing much....

[Ryan Ruck]

We're not "settling" for Cain, we're CHOSING him. There's a big difference in him and Dole and McCain.

Definitely this! Cain is the first candidate I've felt driven to donate to for the first time for a couple reasons:

1) I honestly think we are at a crossroad in our nation's future. We've seen what Obama has done in his first term, imagine another!
2) I like the 999 plan. It is a good transition to get us on the Fair Tax plan which is where I'd like to see us.
3) At least one or more Justices are likely to retire in the next Presidential term and at least one of those is likely to be liberal. Cain has already stated he would appoint Justices like Thomas, one of the most Originalist Justices on the bench.
4) We need to get the economy going again and someone with a lot of business experience is likely the best one to do that.
5) We need someone in the White House to promote Conservative values. Cain has pretty much come out that if it isn't one of the few things the Federal government should be doing, it should default to the states just as The Founders intended it to be in our Federalist system.

Interesting - friend of mine said almost the exact same thing about Cain.

And that's the exact opposite of what I've heard everyone who's met him say about him.

From what I've seen and heard (when he's filled in for Hannity) I really don't see how anyone could get nastiness from him. I've seen him rightfully get irritated at stupid reporters but, I can honestly say I'd likely give them worse! Add to that the "injured" reporters are always quick on the draw to show that as some sort of temper or blow up.

[American Patriot]

I personally don't want to see Obama back in office. He's ruined this country - but not quite to the point we can't recover.

He IS controlled by the Left - the VERY FAR LEFT - Socialists and perhaps even commies. All his mentors, including his dad from what I have been able to understand of him, were MARXISTS.

What kind of a Free Country let's them in control?

[Backstop]

What kind of a Free Country let's them in control?

Not to repeat myself, but...I'm not yet convinced the majority of voters in this nation think we're headed in the wrong direction.

We have the greatest system of government in the world.

If the majority of voters think we're headed in the right direction, then that's where we need to go.

Whatever happens...well...that's what happens.

I wouldn't change a thing.

I mean seriously. What more can you do than vote, write letters, get involved, etc?

(The above assumes all elections are without fraud, etc.)

[American Patriot]

You could... ummm START OVER.....

[Backstop]

You could... ummm START OVER.....

How?

I have my own single option, just wondering what yours is/are.

[American Patriot]

Probably the same as yours... but I won't tell all our secrets here. /chuckles

[vector7]

Companion Threads:

• Iran has 'penetrated' the Obama Administration
• Obama Administration Tries To Weaken Sanctions Against Iran
• Putin's Spies in America
• COMMUNISTS KNEW IN 1992 that BARACK WOULD BE PRESIDENT

BREAKING: Glenn Beck Names Valerie Jarrett As Barack Hussein Obama's 'KGB Handler'

Posted Sep 14, 2011 12:07 PM

by Jared Law

This morning, about 38 minutes into his GBTV HD Broadcast of the Glenn Beck Radio Program, Glenn Beck made a startling announcement:

Valerie Jarrett, a Senior Advisor to Barack Hussein Obama, whose father-in-law was a famous Communist (who worked with Obama's Communist mentor Frank Marshall Davis), has herself proven to be a committed Communist. So it shouldn't be surprising that Glenn Beck named her Obama's KGB handler.

And yes, Glenn was kidding, but Jarrett's hard line Communist background is a very serious matter that is part of the reason that Obama has been so destructive since he moved into the White House. Here's some more information about Valerie Jarrett's Communist father-in-law:

After graduating from Knoxville College, Vernon Jarrett started at The Chicago Defender in 1946, where he wrote columns extolling Communist poet Langston Hughes and lifelong Stalinists W.E.B. DuBois and Paul Robeson. (Obama would write in Dreams of My Father that “I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm [X], DuBois and Mandela.”) A contemporary writer at Kansas City Star asserts by 1948 Jarrett “had been forced out [of journalism] by the Cold War, the Red scare and racism.” He freelanced at Kansas City’s The Call from 1954-58, then returned to Chicago to become the first nationally syndicated black columnist for the Chicago Tribune, and still later wrote for the Chicago Sun-Times.

Here's some more interesting information about Vernon Jarrett, Valerie Jarrett, and BHO, from the same article:

Vernon Jarrett later wrote of another up-and-coming political figure in the Chicago Sun-Times:

Good news! Good news! Project Vote, a collectivity of 10 church-based community organizations dedicated to black voter registration, is off and running. Project Vote is increasing its rolls at a 7,000-per-week clip. Just last Saturday it registered 2,000 during the Chicago Defender’s annual Bud Billiken Parade. But now, the not-so-good news: If Project Vote is to reach its goal of registering 150,000 out of an estimated 400,000 unregistered blacks statewide, “it must average 10,000 rather than 7,000 every week,” says Barack Obama, the program’s executive director…”There’s a lot of talk about `black power’ among the young but so little action.”

When Vernon died in 2004, he was saluted in the pages of People’s Weekly Worker, the house organ of the Communist Party USA. A final point of confluence, perhaps more fortuitous than anything: Vernon Jarrett once sat on a union publicity committee with Frank Marshall Davis, the Communist poet who occasionally counseled…the young Barack Obama.

Valerie Jarrett had more immediate radical ties. Her mother, Barbara Taylor Bowman, co-founded Her mother, Barbara Taylor Bowman, co-founded the Erickson Institute in Chicago and still serves on its Board of Trustees. Tom Ayers, the father of Bill Ayers, was a one-time fellow trustee. According to WorldNet Daily’s Brad O’Leary, the Erickson board also included Bill Ayers’ wife, Bernadine Dohrn. For his part, Bill Ayers called Bowman “a neighbor and friend” in his book A Kind and Just Parent, noting his neighbors include Louis Farrakhan (whose guard, The Fruit of Islam, patrols the neighborhood and “has an eye on things twenty-four hours a day”), and “writer Barack Obama.”

And remember, Valerie Jarrett was sent by Barack Hussein Obama to be the keynote speaker at the Islamic Society of North America’s national convention in 2009, and the ISNA has admitted its ties to the Brotherhood.

And do you remember this headline?

New Warning About Muslim Brotherhood’s Influence on White House From…Liberal Marxist Muslim

Not only was Valerie Jarrett a slum lord at one point, let's not forget her key role in recruiting self-avowed Communist Van Jones into the White House.

And remember that Glenn Beck showed Valerie Jarrett's ridiculous spin prior to the 2011 Obama State of the Union Address, including her reference to Obama's 'five pillars' of his SOTU speech. If you don't remember it, the episode featured Glenn Beck, a bunny rabbit, and a chainsaw (and Lang Lang playing an Anti-American Communist Chinese tune at the White House):

I could go on for days on the subject of Valerie Jarrett, so I'll just end this now. If it weren't for the fact that Glenn Beck was joking (although it's quite possible he's actually correct), the media would be right to raise an eyebrow, since the KGB has been called the FSB since April of 1995. But since he was obviously kidding, I expect to see them attack Glenn Beck about this by this time tomorrow.

[Phil Fiord]

Jarrett is the key. I have seen this for some time. She is definately the liason for what O is to do. While she acts as the conscience to O, it is her take on things that probably also stopped any action regarding the UAV downing in Iran.

Her involvement in Osama was noted as she pushed O to decline the attack. He only took credit because it was a popular thing to do and he simply had to since the .mil accomplished it.

That brings to mind something Rick has touched on. Many Generals have been fired. Suppose these Generals knew what O was about and refused to follow his directives?

[vector7]

Companion Post and Thread:

• Russia Wants Obama Re-elected
• Russia honors Obama with postage stamp for 50th birthday

January 19, 2012
Russia: Re-Elect Obama, or It's World War III

By Kim Zigfeld

Last week, Americans learned that they are, or soon may be, at war with Vladimir Putin's Russia. That is, of course, unless they do just exactly what the Kremlin asks, which is pretty simple, really, and consists largely of re-electing Barack H. Obama, the best friend the Kremlin ever had, as president of the United States.

The word came down from two of Russia's highest-ranking politicians, Nikolai Patrushev (head of Russia's National Security Council) and Dmitri Rogozin (formerly Russia's ambassador to the United Nations, recently elevated to deputy prime minister). Both chose to use Iran as the focal point of their remarks.

Rogozin declared:

Iran is our neighbor. And if Iran is involved in any military action, it's a direct threat to our security. We are definitely interested in the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. But at the same time, we believe that any country has the right to have what it needs to feel comfortable, including Iran.

The words sounded uncomfortably like the words used by President John Kennedy in his October 1962 address to the nation regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Then Patrushev chimed in:

There is a likelihood of military escalation of the conflict, towards which Israel is pushing the Americans. It cannot be ruled out that the Iranians will be able to carry out their threat to shut exports of Saudi oil through the Strait of Hormuz if faced with military actions against them. Talk about Iran creating an atomic bomb by next week we have heard for many years.

Patrushev accused the United States of attempting to topple Iran's government and subjugate its population "by all available means" and implied that Russia would help Iran to shut down oil supplies to the United States through the Persian Gulf if the U.S. dared to try to block Iran's nuclear weapons program, which, he assured, is nothing urgent that Americans need to worry about.

But Patrushev (who is one of Russia's most strident haters of America and her values) said it all still might work out: "In the case of Vladimir Putin and then Barack Obama coming to power, the Russian-U.S. relationship, as well as the situation in the world as a whole, may see a strengthening trend." It seems that the prospect of Americans returning Republicans to the White House makes Russians at least as nervous as the prospect of the West unseating Russia's bosom buddies in Tehran.

Russia did not limit itself to aggressively supporting Iran against the U.S. It also sailed a major part of its naval fleet into Syria, including a weapons delivery, in order to push back against Western efforts to support pro-democracy protesters there. Such action is hardly surprising, since the Kremlin has consistently supported dictators throughout the Arab spring, from Mubarak to Gaddafi.

By supporting tyrants across the Middle East, Russia accomplishes multiple objectives. It takes a stand against the spread of democracy protests, thus immunizing its own domestic scene against such outbursts. It destabilizes the Middle East, roiling oil markets and helping to fill Russian coffers with cash as the price of crude soars. And it undermines American influence, sending a clear message that if the United States does not play ball, it will face increased terrorism and uncertainty abroad.

Russia's Foreign Ministry simultaneously launched a scathing attack on the recently enacted U.S. defense budget, echoing the Soviet era in accusing the U.S. of violating multiple provisions of international law, including the Geneva Conventions, just by enacting it. Russia also accused the U.S. of violating the Conventions in conducting activity at its prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. And Vladimir Popovkin, head of the Russian version of NASA, implied that the United States was secretly behind the recent string of spectacular Russian failures in space, using ominous and unspecified "powerful means" to knock out Russian space exploration vehicles time and again.

Even as these bellicose declarations were issuing from Russia, America's new ambassador, Michael McFaul, was arriving in Russia. McFaul released an utterly ridiculous propaganda video on YouTube and was deluged with hostile comments from Russians. Then McFaul opened a Twitter feed and proudly retweeted multiple press articles proclaiming that he had arrived in Russia like a white knight upon a fiery steed to prove that Obama's "reset" with Russia was not dead. Instead of confronting the Kremlin, in other words, Obama was sending a clear signal that he was on board with Russian plans -- not a hard position to take, since they conveniently include the reelection of the Russian dictatorship's best friend abroad, Obama himself.

So the Kremlin will be actively engaged in two different election campaigns this year. First in March, it will be struggling to reinsert Vladimir Putin into office as president for life, and then in November it will be struggling even harder to make sure that Putin's patsy, Barack Obama, gets to remain in the White House. Its principle strategy will be to threaten Americans with World War III unless they choose Obama.

Meanwhile, Putin is launching an all-out attack on his opponents inside Russia, for instance releasing a video comparing demonstration leader Aleksei Navalny to Adolf Hitler. Another opposition leader, Sergei Mitrokhin, was arrested during a protest action. It's a sign of things to come. Once he's president for life and has Obama safely re-ensconced in Washington, Putin will be free to launch a final crackdown on Russian civil society and wipe out any chance that the Arab spring could spread to Russia. Having done so, Putin can continue his foreign policy, which amounts to raking in a bounty of unilateral concessions from Obama, including WTO admission and the abandonment of missile defense in Eastern Europe, meanwhile forging ahead with aggressive policies in the Middle East.

In Russia's behavior, we see proven the fact that one can deal with a bully only through strength. Russia has understood Obama's "reset" proposal and his unilateral concessions only as weakness, and Putin has responded with more and more aggression both at home and abroad. Only if Obama is ousted from office by a Republican who understands the lessons taught by Ronald Reagan will there be any hope for Russia or for American interests where Russia is concerned.

[American Patriot]

last week, americans learned that they are, or soon may be, at war with vladimir putin's russia. That is, of course, unless they do just exactly what the kremlin asks, which is pretty simple, really, and consists largely of re-electing barack h. Obama, the best friend the kremlin ever had, as president of the united states.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

безбожного Свиньи

[vector7]

Dinesh D'Souza - Obama & 2016

Full speech of Dinesh D'Souza from the CPAC livestream