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

[vector7]

This documentary is being put out FOR FREE on Vimeo by the movie's group until Election Day: http://vimeo.com/52009124

Spread the link far and wide!

The 2016 documentary is back up:

2016: Obama's America

[Ryan Ruck]

I picked it up at Walmart when I was out doing some shopping, it was only $12!

I then promptly lent it out to some liberal leaning friends and told them to please watch it before the election before they decided how to vote. Hopefully it will make a difference.

[vector7]

Cool and thanks, next time I go through look to pick up a couple.

[American Patriot]

Thanks for sharing this. Watching it now. Will share with the family members that need to watch it. (Many of them, I'm sad to say)

[vector7]

Obama's new Cabinet: 7 candidates, plus 4 Supreme Court options

Posted: 11/06/2012 09:12:33 PM PST
Updated: 11/06/2012 09:38:46 PM PST


As Barack Obama embarks on his second term as president, he has some holes to fill in his Cabinet. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner both have said they'll step down, and other openings could emerge as well - some as possible chain-reactions as those positions are refilled. Obama also may have the opportunity to appoint additional justices to the Supreme Court.


Secretary of State: John Kerry vs. Susan Rice

John Kerry - senior senator from Massachusetts.

Pro: A strong backer of the president - he acted as Mitt Romney during Obama's practice sessions for the debates - with deep experience on the Senate's Committee on Foreign Relations, which he chairs.

Con: There are similar worries to those regarding putting Hillary Clinton in the Cabinet in 2008 - concerns that he might grandstand or not fully line up with the president's agenda. He acted as Mitt Romney during Obama's practice sessions for the debates - including the first, in which Obama performed poorly. And selecting him would give Scott Brown an opening to run for Senate again in Massachusetts, threatening to chip away at Democrats' thin margin in the chamber.

Susan Rice - ambassador to the United Nations.

Pro: She has 20 years of experience in and around U.S. foreign policy. She is a former assistant Secretary of State and member of the National Security Council, as well as a foreign policy advisor to both the Kerry and Obama presidential campaigns.

Con: Got caught up in the furor about the Obama administration's conflicting views on whether the Sept. 11 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, were planned terrorism or the result of rioting.

Other potential candidates: Thomas Donilon, National Security Adviser

Treasury Secretary: Jacob Lew vs. Erskine Bowles

Jacob Lew - White House chief of staff

Pro: Two-time director of the Office of Management and Budget, first under Clinton - for whom he led several ambitious budget efforts - and then under Obama.

Con: All of his experience, save for a short and potentially controversial stint at Citigroup in the mid-2000s, is in the public sector. May be so well-regarded as chief of staff that Obama may prefer to keep him there.

Erskine Bowles - former White House chief of staff under Clinton

Pro: He's a centrist Democrat and thus might be better suited to negotiate with congressional Republicans, and recently raised his profile by co-chairing a commission that produced a major deficit-reduction plan.

Con: Liberals hate the idea of Bowles as Treasury Secretary - and the Simpson-Bowles plan for that matter - and he may not want the job anyway.

Other options: A pair of Wall Street businessmen - Larry Fink, CEO of investment firm BlackRock, and Roger Altman, chairman of Evercore Partners private equity firm and a former Treasury Secretary under Clinton.

Supreme Court appointments

The oldest members of the court are Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 79, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy, both 76, and Stephen Breyer, 74. Of the four, Ginsburg may be the most likely to retire, owing both to age and two bouts with cancer, although she's suggested in the past that she'll try to stay on beyond the end of Obama's second term. However, her retirement likely would mean no shift in the court's balance, as her rulings have been well-aligned with the Obama administration's policies.

None of the other three septuagenarians have had any major health scares. Scalia, given his frequent, strongly worded dissents against the court's more liberal rulings, may be unlikely to willingly step down during a Democratic president's term. Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote on the current court, might represent Obama's best chance to change its direction, though he too has made no indications he's nearing retirement. If Obama does have a vacancy or two to fill, who's likely to get the nod? The administration vetted several other potential nominees during the president's first term before settling on Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Diane Wood, judge, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, 62: Has served 17 years on the court since being appointed by Bill Clinton in 1995. Senior lecturer at the University of Chicago, where Obama also taught. Clerked for Associate Justice Harry Blackmun. Serves as a liberal counter-balance to better-known conservative voices in her court. Well-liked by liberals; conservatives regard her strong support for abortion as her main weakness. But has the GOP litmus test shifted from Roe v. Wade to Obamacare?

Merrick Garland, judge, D.C. Court of Appeals, 59: Has served 15 years on the court since being appointed by Bill Clinton in 1997. Graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law and clerked for Justice William Brennan. Oversaw the Oklahoma City bombing and Unabomber prosecutions while serving in the Justice Department in the mid-`90s. Regarded as a moderate and consensus-builder.

Sidney Thomas, judge, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 59: Prior to joining the ninth circuit after being nominated by Clinton in 1996, Thomas had spent his entire career in Montana. Well-versed in First Amendment law. Handles some of the oversight duties of the ninth circuit court, coordinating en banc rulings.

Janet Napolitano, secretary, Department of Homeland Security, 54: The youngest of the leading candidates, although still two years older than Elena Kagan (and four years older than Kagan at the time of her nomination). As the highest-profile name on the list, also carries the most potential political baggage, given her tenures in the president's cabinet and as attorney general and then governor of Arizona. Chaired the National Governor's Association and spoke at the 2004 and 2008 Democratic national conventions. Congressional Republicans may be give her nomination a harsh reception as she served as an attorney for Anita Hill. Was a Truman Scholar and clerked for a ninth circuit court of appeals judge. Also interested in the Attorney General position. Obama has an interest in adding a justice to the court who has experience in elected office. Other major cabinet and White House are currently occupied but could open up soon:


White House chief of staff: Valerie Jarrett vs. Ron Klain

Why it might open up: Jacob Lew is a leading candidate for the open Treasury Secretary slot. Also, presidential-access playing traffic cop is a stressful job that lends itself to rapid burnout. Most recent administrations have gone through several; Lew is Obama's fourth chief of staff, following Rahm Emanuel, Pete Rouse and William Daley.

Valerie Jarrett - senior adviser to the president

Pro: One of the only loyalists left in the White House from Obama's days in Chicago. She's served in the White House since the start of his administration, so she's well-acquainted with all the players.

Con: Former economic adviser Lawrence Summers said she was behind the president's poor relationship with Wall Street.

Ron Klain - former chief of staff for Vice President Joe Biden

Pro: Also served a previously for four years as Vice President Al Gore's chief of staff.

Con: Also a former lobbyist for Fannie Mae.

Other options: Thomas Donilon, National Security Adviser.

Defense secretary: Michelle Flournoy vs. the field

Why it might open up: Leon Panetta commutes home to his California walnut farm every weekend and is ready to retire.

Michele Flournoy - former undersecretary of Defense

Pro: Since leaving the administration earlier this year she's been a fierce advocate for Obama's foreign policy and one of his re-election campaign's most dependable surrogates. She'd be the first female Secretary of Defense. Taught at the National Defense University. Founder of the think tank Center for a New American Security.



Con: Since leaving the administration earlier this year she's been a fierce advocate for Obama's foreign policy and one of his re-election campaign's most dependable surrogates. Too political? She'd be the first female Secretary of Defense. Would she have the full respect of the military?

Other candidates: Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, former Democratic senator Chuck Hagel, Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, John Kerry and Donilon again.

Attorney General: Janet Napolitano vs. Deval Patrick

Why it might open up: Eric Holder has been in hot water because of Operation Fast and Furious, which allowed thousands of firearms to be directed toward Mexican cartel members, and possibly resulted in the shooting death of a Border Patrol agent.

Janet Napolitano - Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security

Pro: Was appointed U.S. Attorney for Arizona by Bill Clinton, and was elected the state's attorney general in 1998.

Con: Has not had a controversy-free tenure managing DHS, with a near-miss bombing attempt of a flight on Christmas 2009 and conflicts on how immigration laws should be enforced.

Deval Patrick - Democratic governor of Massachusetts

Pro: Served as assistant Attorney General for the civil rights division in the Clinton administration's Justice Department, after he worked for several years at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.

Con: Worked in the private sector for many years for Texaco and United Airlines, tenures that included some controversial legal efforts.

Other options: Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, Democratic U.S. senators Amy Klobuchar, Claire McCaskill or Sheldon Whitehouse.

[American Patriot]

Left, Left, your left, left left! The Left Marches on....

/sigh

[vector7]

Congress will be rendered completely toothless and non-essential, as Obama has been working to affect since he first took office

Obama-Land vs. the USA: The end of a Country, its People and Liberty

- Sher Zieve (Bio and Archives) Wednesday, November 7, 2012
(3) Comments

Two-hundred-and-thirty six-years ago, a new country “conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal”* was born. Men and women seeking religious and economic freedom from an increasingly perverse, suppressive and feudal Europe sailed to ‘the New World’ which would later become the United States of America.

Most began to occupy this fresh and promising land in the 1600s. However, some intrepid souls began their journey into and through portions of North America much earlier. Such was the case of my ancestors who arrived on the shores of this new land in the 1500s. They were part of the original founding of this once extraordinary country and eagerly participated in and watched it being built. I morosely am now observing its end.

Over the many years it took to establish viable colonies in this New World, many experimental governments were attempted, including the one that we now call Socialism or Communism. Over a relatively short period of time, the colonists discovered that it did not and could not work. Those who labored the most were given the same portion as those who did little to nothing. Therefore, the true workers and entrepreneurs of the time were not truly recompensed for their labors, while the non-working groups continued to live off of the fruits of other’s successes…as if they were their own. Suffice it to say, this was untenable and a form of free enterprise began to percolate and appear. This was a system which rewarded those who worked and we eventually called it Capitalism…a structure that would imbue all participants with economic freedom as long as they worked for and participated in it.

For well over 200 years that economic freedom coupled with the freedom to worship God allowed We-the-People to build, prosper, enjoy the fruits of our labors and share our bounty with others around the world as no other nation in the history of mankind had done before. However, on 6 November, 2012 that all came crashing down. The Islamo-Marxist “President” of the United States of America Barack Hussein Obama was elected to another 4 years in office. I had hoped and fervently prayed that the prophetic words in my column ‘Is the USA Ready for an American Stalin?’ written in 2008 “if Obama is elected we will never be able to get rid of him” were not true. But, they were and are.

Whether many in the country choose to believe it or not, we are not only now facing an era of almost unbearable hardship but, the removal of any and all of our once-Constitutional liberties and rights as human beings. We are moving from the light back into the darkness of both body and soul. The elimination of the Obama syndicate’s enemies has already been reported as having issued from the lips of co-POTUS Valerie Jarrett. That should begin soon. Obama’s plan to turn the sovereignty of the USA over to the United Nations is already well under way. The UN Small Arms Treaty will be signed by Obama and it will effectively remove and replace the former Bill of Rights’ Second Amendment, while the First Amendment will be replaced with “hate speech” restrictions…punishable by new global laws. The Obama government’s war on Christianity has been in play since the early months of his ‘presidency’. Soon, Christianity and Judaism will be replaced by Islam—which will be the official ’religion’ of the USA (see my 18 August 2010 column ‘ObamaGov Establishing Islam as Official USA State Religion?’) and our Constitution will finally and officially become null and void…to be replaced by Shari‘a law.

ObamaCare will not now—nor ever—be repealed so, the Obama regime’s theft of what was left of our money will continue and his death panels will rise supreme over what’s left of our bodies. The new motto will likely be “If you cannot serve the State the ways in which the State demands, the State must terminate you.“

Congress will be rendered completely toothless and non-essential, as Obama has been working to affect since he first took office. Our economic and other systems designed for liberty of and for the individual are now dead and is only waiting to be buried.

The time to panic was November 2008—when Obama was elected to his first term. Too many refused to listen to the warnings and, instead, chose to listen to others who lied gently and soothingly to them that they would be told when it was so. The Roman philosopher and statesman Cicero advised us over a millennium ago that a nation cannot survive treason from within. Thus, neither will—nor can—the now-former United States of America. It has now come to its close as a nation. The shining city on the hill is no more and has been reduced to rubble.

May God be with us and—I pray—eventually lead us out of our now-inevitable bondage. But, it appears now that it will not be soon.

*From President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address

[vector7]

A Trip to the Grocery in the Near Future


by Natty Bumppo
November 8, 2012 05:30 ET

With all the new technologies in place and those being tested on the American public to keep us safe, I thought we should take a look into the future of grocery shopping.

It is the 7^th of the month and according to the Dept. of Homeland Security’s new “Travel Now” program. This is the 1^st of 2 days your family is permitted to visit the grocery store for the week. The day is sunny and beautiful this is Sunday and your children are at home and want to go shopping with you. So you load them up into their proper restraints and off you go.

Then while you are driving through town the bio-metric scanner determines what you have in your vehicle, guns, knives, drugs, liquor and what trouble you would be in if you have a copy of the Scriptures, the car did not shut down so you continue on. And that is not all, because as soon as you arrive at your destination, the local Pigly Wigly grocery. You then must walk through a body scanner with a retina scan to determine you really are what your National I.D. card says since you are one of the last holds outs to ‘get chipped’ and also to make sure that those are your children. For your sakes I really hope the scanner does not have some technical glitch that day because you will never see your children again.

After you gather your groceries into your cart and you are approved by Michele Obama’s calorie counting police, you get to the checkout lane and discover that the RFID in your cell phone used for purchases mistakenly doubled the gas purchase you made earlier which will take a month to refund if you can prove you only received the 5 gallons at 50 credits to begin with that now you don’t have enough credits remaining to make the purchase of the entire contents of your cart. No problem you say, just remove a couple items and it’s a go, but then a red light begins to flash while your items were scanning.

Unfortunately you took out the wrong items. You should have kept the carrots and not the bag of cookies. Because the calorie count fail safe installed 2 days earlier by the Michele Obama’s calorie counting police at the isle’s scanner told that you have an unhealthy cart and you are again required to go through the store and re-examine all potential purchases as you go through the process again. Finally you are cleared to return to your car from the local Pigly Wigly. You are so thankful that that was your first demerit at the grocery, 2 more and you would be required to take a special class on ‘healthy hearts and healthy homes’. After the class and if you receive 2 more demerits then your children would be removed from your unhealthy home and placed with a government approved ‘healthy hearts and healthy homes’ facility until they become of age after reeducation to remind you about proper dieting and report back to their superiors on your behavior. Your scared because your oldest is 7 and your youngest is 4 and they never come back to the families until the age of 10.

Now that you are back at your car (after going through the body scanner again verifying that you did not have an extra item in your purse which you did not pay for) with such relief that you made it out of the grocery in one piece with your 2 children. You load up your purchases and get the kiddos in their proper restraints and you settle in for the trip back home. Then half way home you see flashing lights in the rear view mirror and you pull over knowing that you were not speeding wondering what this was for. The officer approaches and asks for your copy of receipt of purchases from the local Pigly Wigly and you quickly comply because you know if you don’t have the required paperwork in a timely manner you are charged 15 credits per minute of the officers time after the initial 2 minute grace period. The officer tells you that according to the Bio-Metric scan at the intersection that you were missing 1 bottle of shampoo and 1 bag of cookies.

You quickly explain that the shampoo is there and that you stopped at a friends home and your children and theirs ate the cookies and you discarded the package at their home. The officer then takes down the name of your friend to verify your story and to check if too many calories were brought into that residence. However you cannot find the shampoo. But to your relief the officer notified you that someone seen you drop it as you were loading your vehicle and reported it to the proper authorities.

This is not good as you soon find out, because of recent terrorist activities this could easily be seen as a potential threat of an exploding device concealed as a bottle of shampoo. However because of the timely reporting of the eyewitness and the quick response of the city’s finest. You will not be held for an indefinite period of time for the case to be resolved, but will be under house arrest for the next 2 weeks to determine the contents of the shampoo bottle.

Finally arriving at home, with your 2 children and remaining groceries, you consider yourself fortunate.

[American Patriot]

omg....

Really stupid.

Scary though.

LOL

[vector7]

Yes, This Is the Obama Cover for Newsweek’s Post-Election Issue

• Posted on November 8, 2012 at 3:41pm by Becket Ada
• Comments (585)

Newsweek editor Tina Brown announced earlier this year that the magazine would transition from print to all-digital by early 2013, meaning that, excluding the following, the publication has one more issue to go.

And you didn’t expect Newsweek, a magazine well-known for iconic, controversial, and bold covers, to go out without a bang, did you?



Yes, the same publication that asked why the president’s critics are so dumb has a post-election message for the GOP: You’re old, you’re white, and you’re finished.

Follow Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) on Twitter

(H/T: Andrew Kaczynski). This story has been updated

[American Patriot]

Seriously? That's the actual cover?

[vector7]

Michelle Obama 2016: Why Not?


Associated Press

• Email article

What's the case against Michelle Obama starting a political career of her own? It starts and ends with the fact that she doesn't want one. But what if she changes her mind? The first lady has three important things for a future in politics: the popularity, the skills, and the opportunity. (We'll get to "the will" later.) Here's the case for her taking her turn on the ballot:



People love her. Aside from her husband and Hillary Clinton, the first lady is the biggest rock star in the Democratic Party. Her approval rating, at 69 percent, is higher than her husband's. But more tellingly, it's more than 20 points higher than Hillary Clinton's was in 1996. Clinton was elected to the Senate four years later. And while Clinton was a sympathetic figure because of her rocky marriage, Obama is popular because of her "aspirational" marriage, in the words of campaign photographer Scout Tufankjian. She took the photo of the Obamas hugging that became the most-liked Facebook photo ever. Tfankijan told Slate that she was fully aware the photos popularity wasn't about her composition, but about "how people feel about the Obamas."



She has the skills. Obama's speech at the Democratic National Convention was very well-received. The Daily Beast's Andrew Sullivan ran out of adjectives to describe how good it was. ("Stunning, brilliant, moving, passionate and right. Flawless. That was a speech a presidential nominee would be proud to have given.")

When TV Guide speculated about what Obama might do if her husband lost, the leading theory was that she'd be some kind of TV talk show host:

“Personally I want to see her in the White House,” says Hillary Estey McLaughlin, president of Telepictures Productions, the syndication company behind the Ellen DeGeneres Show. “But if she were not going to be in the White House, I’d love to have her as the host of a show. She’s amazing...She reminds me of Oprah Winfrey, as someone who has the ability to make people understand complex things in a simple way.”

Obama could use her ability to "make people understand complex things in a simple way" to help moms with troubled teens, or she could explain public policy to the masses.

She has the opportunity. No one thinks she can or would run to replace her husband in 2016. But if she wanted to launch a political caree, Republican Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois will be up for re-election in 2016. Obama wouldn't face the attacks Clinton did during her race for Senate in New York in 2000, while her husband was still President, that she was an opportunistic carpetbagger. Obama was born and raised in Chicago. John McLaughlin, the shouting host of The McLaughlin Group thinks Obama will do so, thus "duplicating the career of Hillary Clinton." Politico's Charles Mahtesian points out that if 2016 is too soon, there's always 2020, when Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin comes up for reelection. He'd be 75 years old by then. Obama is only 48 now, so she'd be just 56 in 2020.

What about the will to do it? This is the only case people make against Obama's potential political career. Salon's Alex Pareene says, sarcastically, "a minor problem that she has never evinced any interest in running for public office." Jodi Kantor, author of The Obamas, says she'll eat her book if the first lady runs. But guess what? People said that about Hillary Clinton, too.

In February 1999, The Wall Street Journal's John Fund wrote that Clinton "isn't likely to succumb to media calls for her candidacy, but she may be tempted... [S]he is in an awkward position from which she may find it difficult to transfer her public popularity into meaningful power." Bill Clinton's chief of staff while he was governor, Betsey Wright, said there was no way in an interview with Northwest Arkansas Times: "I can't imagine that in the end she would want to run for elective office and go back and work in Washington, D.C. I don't think she is that much of a sadist — I mean a masochist. That was a really bad slip. I don't want her limited by being in the Senate." Clinton announced an exploratory committee in July 1999.

[vector7]

The mask is coming off and there looks to be a Dictator behind it.

Companion Threads:

• If Obama were a Marxist, what would he believe?
• A Socialist America?
  
• Progressive ‘Mission Accomplished,’ Now on to Phase II — Communism
  
• How To Destroy A Country
  
• government BS. Obama's BS. This is ALL BS!
• The Growing List Allegedly Committing Sedition Against U.S. Government
• Obama Wants Power To Increase Debt Limit Unilaterally
• The Truth Behind the Enemy
  
• Exposing America’s Enemies: The ‘Social Justice Seeking’ Communist Left
  
• US communists say their time has come
  
• What Would a Communist Do?
  
• From The Soviet Files: An American 'Negro Republic' - The Communist
  
• David Axelrod’s Red Roots: Obama Adviser’s Communist Ties Exposed
  
• Is Barack Obama a real Manchurian candidate?
  

Obama: Give me Dictatorial Powers or I’ll Take your Country out

- Sher Zieve (Bio and Archives) Thursday, December 6, 2012
(19) Comments | Print friendly | Subscribe | Email Us



Well…well. The Obama has finally begun his now-open for all to see and hear demands for a dictatorship over the [former] United States of America. A few days ago, Dictator-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama laid out his demands to Congress for not yet pushing the current USSA (aka “Amerika”) and its people over the ostensible fiscal cliff.

These demands include: a doubling of his campaign “promise” to $1.6 Trillions in new taxes levied on the American people (which will decimate what’s left of the middle-class…his intent all along), an immediate funding (to Obama) of $50Billions (to be used for political purposes as he sees fit…in other words a “gift” to him personally for any political purposes he deems necessary) and personal unlimited sole authority to raise the USSA’s debt ceiling as he desires…whenever he wants.

Translation: Obama now demands full dictatorial powers over the US economy and the elimination of Congressional authority—or even input—in all economic matters. In exchange, Obama said he “may” consider spending less of the taxpayers’ (aka “serfs”) money—but, he did not say it was a guarantee.

We discovered a day or so ago that these most recent ObamaDemands are not negotiable. Either Congress gives him full dictatorial control in this matter or he will 1. Bring the country to an immediate close or 2. Write another illegal non-binding Executive Order giving himself supremacy in this matter. As Congress has not yet challenged Obama on any of his EOs we can assume they will, also, remain silent on this one…should it be written.

Another “discovery” is that only Boehner (Obama’s new BFF) and Obama are “negotiating” behind closed doors. The American people—long ago—were shut out of their own government. Now Congress is being shut out, also. Sadly, most people will not accept that which is right in front of them…the truth that we have been living under a dictatorship for at least the last four years. The media won’t report it as, for some inexplicable reason, they rather like barbaric totalitarian governments. Besides, with the Benghazi assassinations being “okayed” by Obama, we already know the media support, if not endorse, murder from this “president” and they will protect and serve him no matter what additional atrocities he commits. And said new atrocities are coming, folks. The media stopped reporting the news years ago and now only deliver what the White House tells them to “report.” As a matter of record, Obama most recently met with Marxist channel MSNBC reporters privately 4 December, 2012.

Any one who still has the ability to think clearly and reason logically understands perfectly well what’s going on. We have been taken over by a criminal totalitarian syndicate that has no intention of letting go until every last liberty is destroyed, every perversion imaginable is employed (the only things Obama will allow to be employed by the way) and every last dollar is either spent or squeezed from our cold dead hands. With no one stopping him, Obama will nationalize everything—including us—for his own reprehensible purposes. Note: For those of you who grew up in the US government school system over the past 20-30 years, please Google USSR. Lenin, Karl Marx Communist Manifesto, Marx’s poems to Lucifer and Josef Stalin’s genocide. You will then get a truer picture of what you—and we—are now facing.

For those who say “Obama won this reelection” I say “garbage” and Obama won nothing. The election was “won” via massive voter fraud. In my last column “It’s Official: Obama Voter Fraud Reason for “Reelection”/growing Totalitarian Government”, I identify and sourced where much of the fraud was affected. Or, you may Google “massive voter fraud Obama reelection.” One of the old leaders of the USSR and one of Obama‘s personal favorites Josef Stalin wrote quite accurately of all totalitarians:

“It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything”—Josef Stalin.

We cannot do anything about Obama’s adoring media—except not watch them—but, we may still be able to do something about Congress. If we do not vote out all of the House and Senate members who are hell-bent upon enslaving us—our slavery is assured. There is currently a conservative movement afoot in the House of Reps to replace Boehner as Speaker. In January, only 16 House members need to abstain from voting for Boehner as Speaker of the House. Despite his protestations to the contrary, Boehner has already signaled his intent to give Dictator-in-Chief Obama what he wants. I urge you to call and write your Congress man or woman and tell them not to vote for Boehner but, to abstain. In that way, the door will be opened for a conservative representative. At least that will give us a small margin of clout.

These have become some of the hardest days of many of our lives. Watching the complete dismantling of our country—including our military, liberties, transfer of our wealth overseas or into the pockets of those who have stolen not earned it—is only the beginning of the torture Obama has planned for the remnant left in what was once our country. If we continue to sit back and do nothing, our fate is already sealed and we have accepted the bondage Obama demands and that which is already upon us. Above all else and all others, remember by whose authority we are here and what our actions convey on multiple levels. By the way, look to Egypt’s Morsi as a foreshadowing of the still-emerging Obama.

“And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”—Matthew 16:19

Obama demands $1.6 trillion tax boost, and an unlimited credit card:
Obama Has Private White House Meeting With MSNBC Primetime Lineup – UPDATED:
Josef Stalin quotes:
Only 16 Members Can Unseat Boehner, Group Says:

Sher Zieve is an author and political commentator. Zieve’s op-ed columns are widely carried by multiple internet journals and sites, and she also writes hard news. Her columns have also appeared in The Oregon Herald, Dallas Times, Sacramento Sun, in international news publications, and on multiple university websites. Sher is also a guest on multiple national radio shows.

[American Patriot]

well... more to come on this:

How Obama's 2nd Inauguration Will Differ From 1st

by Ari Shapiro
Dec 10, 2012 (Morning Edition) — Details are emerging about President Obama's inauguration next month. Unlike in 2009, a record-breaking crowd is not expected in Washington, D.C., this coming Inauguration Day. Plus, the festivities are expected to cost less than four years ago.

Related Topics at NPR.org




Details are starting to come out about President Obama's second inauguration next month. The co-chairmen include some leaders of the Democratic Party and the business world as well as actress Eva Longoria. A record crowd came to the nation's capital in 2009 to witness the country's first black president take the oath of office, but this event is expected to be less flashy.


On Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House, a huge metal and wood structure has been erected over the past several weeks for Inauguration Day. The same thing is happening at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the U.S. Capitol. These hard structures are pretty much exactly what they were four years ago, but the feel of a second inauguration is always very different from a first.


"By the time of the second inaugural, I could at least find my way to the mess to get a cup of coffee," says Gordon Johndroe, who worked through all eight years of the George W. Bush White House.


Like everyone who has been through two inaugurations, he says from the inside, the second one feels way more relaxed.


"The president and first lady aren't moving into a new house. The staff aren't moving from a new city. People aren't trying to find their way around the West Wing. So it just has a different feel than when you're moving up to Washington for that first time," Johndroe says.


A first inauguration launches a sweeping new project in America. It's the start of a new chapter — full of questions and full of potential. A second inauguration is more prosaic, says Marcia Hale, who was an assistant to President Clinton.


"You can still stop and appreciate the day for the historical significance," Hale says. "But you take that afternoon and enjoy it, and then you're back to work the next day."
A second inauguration does have its own unique magnitude, though. It's bittersweet, says Muffy Cabot, who was social secretary in the Reagan White House.
"There's a slight sense of its coming to an end. You know, this is the last chance; this is where I make my history," Cabot says.
A president going through his second inauguration knows that he will never run for office again — that the next four years will cement his legacy. And, Cabot says, for whatever reason, second inaugurations often take place under a cloud. That was true of Reagan in 1985.
"There was the Contras in Latin America," Cabot says. "They'd had the terrible Marine barracks bombing in Beirut. It was not a happy time. And it was a sober time."
President Obama is beginning his second term at a sober time, too.
The Middle East is boiling with violence and protests. The U.S. unemployment rate has been stubbornly high for years. And a divided government is wrestling with a "fiscal cliff" that economists say could drive the country into another recession if it's not resolved.
Still, New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, who heads the congressional committee on inaugural ceremonies, says the proceedings on Inauguration Day may not look too different from last time.
"We do pretty much the same thing. We make sure there's a platform, we're in charge of the ceremony. So there's very little difference except it's going to cost a little less; we've managed to find some savings," he says.
Schumer helped drive the first nail into the inaugural platform in late September — more than a month before the election was over. Schumer says one thing that will be different is the size of the crowds.
Nobody's expecting 1.8 million people to flood Washington the way they did last time.
"I'm finding, and many of my colleagues are finding, for instance, in requests for tickets, it's not as great as it was last time, but it's very high," Schumer says.
Another difference this year comes thanks to the calendar. Inauguration Day is Jan. 20, which falls on a Sunday. Chief Justice John Roberts will officially swear in the president at a private White House ceremony at noon that day.
Public events — a ceremonial swearing-in on the mall, the procession, the inaugural address and balls — all will take place on Monday, Jan. 21.

[American Patriot]

Apparently, the WH is preventing media from attending a private swearing in ceremony.

Normally, inauguration won't be held on Sunday (if it falls on 20 Jan, which it is this year).

So the 20th event is CLOSED to the reporters.

[American Patriot]

Obama's Second Inaugural Too Secretive?

Oath of office day falls on Sunday
Next> Tweet
45 min ago by PolitixDavid
David Mark, Editor-in-Chief t

Image: AP.

President Barack Obama would hardly be honoring his pledge for more transparent government if he's inaugurated in private. That's the take of Commentary's Alana Goodman, about the proposal floating now to swear in the president on Sun., Jan. 20 behind closed doors. Obama would then take part in a formal inauguration ceremony at the Capitol that Monday.
"The White House Correspondents Association has reason to be concerned," Goodman writes. "While Obama's second oath of office in 2009 (if you remember, he had to do it twice) wasn't completely closed to the media, only four reporters were allowed to attend."
Inauguration Day falling on a Sunday is hardly unprecedented. Mathematically it's bound to happen once every 28 years. Indeed, Ronald Reagan's second inauguration was held privately on Sun., Jan. 20, 1985, and publicly the next day.
But it's different for the current president, Goodman suggests. "This issue seems more about principle than anything else, since Obama hasn't exactly followed through on his vow to run a more transparent administration. It's about time the press finally started calling him out on it."

[American Patriot]

Somehow, this seems "appropriate"....
Dec. 11, 2012, 12:04 p.m. EST
Extinct lizard named after President Obama






















By William Spain CHICAGO (MarketWatch) -- An extinct lizard has been named after President Barack Obama by scientists from Harvard and Yale universities, the Boston Globe reports. The foot-long fossilized reptile, christened Obamadon gracilis, was found in northeastern Montana and went extinct about 65 million years ago. The decision to name it came before the election, paleontologist Nicholas Longrich told the newspaper, adding that "I was seriously thinking, if the election had gone the other way, I would have yanked it." A newly discovered species of fish was also recently named after the 44th president.

[vector7]

Companion Threads:

• If Obama were a Marxist, what would he believe?
• A Socialist America?
  
• Progressive ‘Mission Accomplished,’ Now on to Phase II — Communism
  
• How To Destroy A Country
  
• The Growing List Allegedly Committing Sedition Against U.S. Government
• Obama Wants Power To Increase Debt Limit Unilaterally
• The Truth Behind the Enemy
  
• Exposing America’s Enemies: The ‘Social Justice Seeking’ Communist Left
  
• US communists say their time has come
  
• From The Soviet Files: An American 'Negro Republic' - The Communist
  
• David Axelrod’s Red Roots: Obama Adviser’s Communist Ties Exposed
  
• Is Barack Obama a real Manchurian candidate?
  

2013 Part 1: The Imperial Presidency

by John Galt
January 2, 2012 21:30 ET

- This is Part One of a Fifteen part series of what will probably happen to the United States in a rapid fire series of events under the second Obama term.

Let’s begin this journey with a simple definition from Merriam Webster:

na·ive

adjective \nä-ˈēv, nī-\

na·iv·erna·iv·est
Definition of NAIVE

1: marked by unaffected simplicity : artless, ingenuous

2: a deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment; especially : credulous

Seems simple enough, right? I am afraid not. There are still millions of individuals who are living under the delusion that the current regime in power will act within the constraints of the United States Constitution and obey the rule of law.

There is some merit to the idea that the Obama administration’s second term will provide the appearance of complicity, but in reality the political infrastructure that allowed for the circumvention of our nation’s cornerstone legal document is not only in place and ready to act yet in an expedited manner.

The recent issues left unresolved after President Obama’s first term are numerous:

1. Gun control – Now a major issue for debate in the U.S. thanks to a hyperactive media and leftist extremists and globalists terrifying the masses.

2. “Unfair” mass communications – In the eyes of the MSM and left, the so-called right wing monopoly of talk radio and the internet will result in a retaliatory action of some sort.

3. Illegal immigration.

4. The Capitalism issue – Unequal distribution of wealth and resources.

Can Obama fix these issues? Yes per President William Jefferson Clinton’s favorite adviser, Paul Begala in 1998:

“Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool.”

And so he shall. Obama has an opportunity rarely afforded to the Executive branch of the U.S. government. He can nominate numerous judges to replace Republican members of the bench as they retire or die off. He will reshape the United States Supreme Court before his term is over, codifying international law as an acceptable alternative to the U.S. Constitution when regulatory or statutory actions are impeded.

Executive Orders will replace the Legislative Branch of government’s oversight. Laws can and will be issued to mandate behavioral and economic controls and there is insufficient opposition and a shortage of judges at the Federal level who will resist. This nation is about to witness a blitz of edicts which shall become the law of the land unseen since World War I and the 1930′s. The complicit media will say it is a lack of “bipartisanship” but in reality this is what dictators engage in, as one President succeeded in doing to a great degree some eight decades ago. Americans will not care as the distractions of our culture will keep them sufficiently averse to objecting to any actions which do not directly impact their lives.

Unfortunately for the American people and those who believe in freedom and the rule of the Constitution, this President has power and a willingness to use it unseen since the days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The con job who pulled on the Republicans regarding the so-called fiscal cliff was an example of skill; the implied threat of terror based on racism upon anyone who reflected on his past, his family, his collegiate career, or any aspect of his overseas created an atmosphere where no debate or criticism was possible without ostracizing the candidate or individual out of the public spotlight. Worse, this President does not fear using his law enforcement, financial enforcement, and tax collection divisions of the government to destroy his enemies. Publicly there has been acknowledgement that indeed this President has an enemies list, including military heroes and businessmen who have opposed his regime on policy issues, making this affront far worse than Richard Nixon’s actions in this regard.

During the reign of FDR, America witnessed dozens of Unconstitutional Executive Orders, attempts to usurp and pack the Supreme Court, and actual Marxist ideals implemented into policy (WPA, FERA, Agricultural colonies/aka Communes based on the Soviet model). Under this regime, corporations have been seized and given to the unions under the guise of distorting the bankruptcy laws, legitimate businesses like coal companies and offshore oil drillers have been forced out of business by regulatory actions, and now with the compliance of a weak and inept opposition, the government now has the power to determine air, water, and quality of life issues which may impact one’s health. The proposition is terrifying because the dictatorship of the proletariat is now in place and sadly few have taken notice.

The excuses offered in 1933 America were that “things were so bad, we had to take drastic action.” The excuse offered in 2009 to press his legislative agenda:

“We have to be bold, we have to act fast, and we have to think of the future.”

Let that sink in as he hammered the poor condition of the economy home blaming Bush, the Republicans, and those businesses which would not bow down to his statist extortion. The result is what most citizens are beginning to witness now; a degradation of freedoms and economic stagnation. This coincides perfectly with the actions of FDR as well as the NDAA detention clauses and DHS which terrifyingly parallel Woodrow Wilson’s detention camps and American Protective League. Yet so-called liberals and Republicans remain silent because a mythical war on terror is more important to maintain to restrict American’s freedoms than to prevent attacks on our soil. The power and technology in the possession of this President far surpasses that of any regime in the history of the world, down to soon controlling and monitoring the very DNA within one’s body.

America has not realized it yet, but in the months to come and historians living in free nations might come to agree with the statement I shall make to summarize our situation:

Imperator Baracum Obamam, Americam primum imperialis dux.

(Emperor Barack Obama, America’s first imperial leader – translated to Latin with Google Translate)

Part II shall appear tomorrow night.

[vector7]

Companion Threads:

• Unions: Socialist, Progressive, Communist - Taking over America from inside
  
• Socialism in America
  
• Progressive ‘Mission Accomplished,’ Now on to Phase II — Communism

January 8, 2013
Good News: You May Be Spared Execution

By Daren Jonescu

Back in those quaint days when KGB-supported communist subversives planning to overthrow a republic had to meet in secret to discuss their operations, William Ayers and his chums reportedly opined that during the post-revolutionary period of normalization, approximately twenty-five million Americans (ten percent) would have to be executed. Today, however, I have good news: that number may now be reassessed at as low as ten million, which, when one factors in the increase in the overall American population since the original estimate was made, suggests as much as a seventy percent savings in the government's stockpile of ammunition. There's a spending reduction we can all applaud.

To refresh your memory, Mr. Ayers -- now Dr. Ayers, of course -- while a leader of the youth outreach program known as the Weather Underground, was asked by one of his cohorts, FBI informant Larry Grathwohl, about the contingencies of power should the group actually succeed in its revolutionary activities. Specifically, Grathwohl asked what might be done with that minority of the adult population that would continue to resist communism even after it had been so eloquently justified through the violent seizure of power.

The young Renaissance man -- author of the brilliantly-reasoned dope fantasy Prairie Fire, and later of some prominent works on teaching social justice to toddlers, a comic book, and one Harvard Law graduate's autobiography -- deigned to answer Grathwohl's question earnestly. "For those who continue to cling to their Bibles and their guns," he said -- oh, wait a minute, that was the Harvard Law graduate. What actually happened, according to Grathwohl, was this:



They also believed that their immediate responsibility would be to protect against what they called the counter-revolution, and they felt that this counter-revolution could best be guarded against by creating and establishing re-education centers in the southwest, where we would take all the people who needed to be re-educated into the new way of thinking....

I asked, "Well what is going to happen to those people that we can't re-educate, that are diehard capitalists?" And the reply was that they'd have to be eliminated; and when I pursued this further they estimated that they would have to eliminate twenty-five million people in these re-education centers -- and when I say "eliminate," I mean kill; twenty-five million people.... And they were dead serious.

Well of course they were serious. They were young, naive, and idealistic. Communist revolutionaries must always eliminate people whose constitutions reject re-education. What else is one to do with them? After all, communists have no desire to play along with some multiparty democratic masquerade; theirs is not one view among many. Communism, to have any hope of surviving -- given its inability to feed people -- must become one contiguous plant, growing from firm roots. Needless to say, when one is trying to enforce universal moral conformity within a society, alternative voices must not be permitted. One dissenter makes for a fun afternoon's hunting; twenty-five million, however, are a counter-revolutionary force. Elimination is unavoidable.

Now that those halcyon days of incognito living, clumsy bomb-making ventures, training junkets to Cuba and orgies in the back of a van have been left behind, a man such as Dr. Ayers is free to host campaign events for future presidents, to be named Chicago's Citizen of the Year, and to be a professor of education at a distinguished university. And one does not grow up from idealistic advocate of mass extermination to respected professor -- declared a "model scholar" by his colleagues -- without having an epiphany or two.

Look again at Grathwohl's account of that Weather Underground board meeting. For all the immediate appeal of wiping out the NRA membership or climate deniers, that exciting talk about "eliminating" millions of American citizens tends to obscure the Weatherpersons' more fundamentally interesting idea, namely the establishment of re-education centers. Mass murder is quick and simple; mass indoctrination slow and complex. It is easy to see why the latter lacks the glamor of the former, and why both the prospective executioners and their intended victims are likely to become mesmerized by words like "eliminate" and "kill," rather than focusing on the hundreds of millions who will not have to be killed, because they have been successfully re-educated.

So let's play "Ginger or Mary Ann" for a moment, and ask ourselves whether, in the course of what the SDS radicals called "fundamentally transforming America" -- oops, that was the Harvard Law graduate again -- it is ultimately better to murder those capitalists who refuse to give up their property, Mao-style, or to indoctrinate them so effectively that they will give it up without resistance. Immediately, we see that these options are not purely contradictory. They are merely thesis and antithesis. All that is needed is a synthesis to resolve the apparent contradiction.

Since the goals of these two courses of action are essentially the same -- namely, the eradication of private property and the universal acceptance of the governing authority's right to control and distribute all material resources (including human resources) as it sees fit -- it is clear that the mass killings are necessary merely in order to ensure universal acceptance by eliminating the failures of the re-education system.

At once, Ayers' synthesizing epiphany arises. The traditional, time-honored pattern of leftist revolution -- overthrow the regime, establish a re-education program, kill the bitter clingers -- is a recipe for trouble and frustration. Much preferable would be a reordering of events to reduce the uncertainties of political overthrow and the wasteful inconveniences of mass murder. Re-educate first -- "pre-educate," if you will. Done well, this makes overthrow unnecessary, as the majority of the population will eventually hand you the reins of power when you ask for them; when your "social justice" rhetoric seems as American as apple pie, you will know the population is baked to progressive perfection.

Thus, the new formula: establish re-education centers first; wait until they have successfully reduced the number of potential "diehard capitalists"; then simply ask the re-educated to appoint and protect the communist rulers of their own accord, when they are all-too-willing to comply.

Did William Ayers choose to become a professor of education because he thinks children are so cute? Because he wants to get America's standards in core subjects back up to Asian levels? Because he hopes to keep America at the forefront of the modern global economy? Because he hopes to revive the study of the classics in America's schools?

No; he is a professor of education -- a teacher of teachers -- because with maturity he realized, like the greatest of all progressive educators, John Dewey, that well begun is half done, i.e., that Occupy Kindergarten is the surest path to Occupy Washington.

And this brings us back to those twenty-five million diehard capitalists. The Weather Underground leadership made its calculations in the early 1970s. Three complete K-12 generations of progressive public schooling have passed since then. The educational establishment has progressed so far that the KGB-supported communist revolutionaries, who received training and funds from Cuba's DGI, have been welcomed, first as honored guests (in lieu of a prison sentence), and finally as leading members of the establishment.

Now think hard, and honestly. Do you believe there are twenty-five million adults left in the United States today who are truly, intransigently committed to individual liberty on principle? And do not answer by citing voter turnout for Mitt Romney; people who want lower taxes, who believe the economy is handled better by Republicans, who disapprove of abortion or gay marriage, or who worry about over-regulation, all voted for Romney -- but none of those views indicate a person who necessarily rejects the entire progressive worldview, let alone one who would actually die for something as antiquated and petty as individual freedom.

Let us look at it another way: the vast majority of those Romney voters have willingly sent their children to the Dewey-Ayers pre-education centers for years. These people tell themselves the system just needs better teacher training, more school prayer, or a tougher stance on bad behavior.

That "twenty-five million" figure is only really disturbing to people who suspect that they would be a part of it -- that Bill Ayers, and the guys from his neighborhood, want to kill them.

These people should be happy to welcome reforms to the Marxist model that reduce the number of necessary victims. If I am correct, and public education has by now secured a much higher percentage of the U.S. population as the kind of well-adjusted, ultimately accommodating worker-units the revolution requires, then in all likelihood there are no more than, say, ten million American adults who truly care enough about life, liberty, or property to resist whatever confiscations, restrictions, or redistributions are judged appropriate by the most "forward"-looking Chicago/Washington experts and planners.

Those who continue to live on the Russian Roulette principle with regard to progressives and their recent proposals -- "oh come on, surely they don't mean it literally" -- can take heart: your odds of survival are getting better, thanks to the effective strategy of pre-education camps. Progressives are only likely to have to eliminate one thirtieth of the population, rather than the one tenth they had previously thought.

So all you "conservatives": keep your children in the public schools, by all means. It's the least you can do to repay a system that, in exchange for your children's souls, may deem it fit to spare your bodies.

At a pep rally back in the early days, Ayers' comrade Jerry Rubin, of Youth International, told a group of students that "The first part of the Yippie program is to kill your parents. And I mean that quite literally, because until you're ready to kill your parents, you're not ready to change this country."

Naturally, he meant it "quite literally" for everyone but himself. Be that as it may, the sentiment was quite progressive -- indeed, literal or not, it sums up the essence of progressive social psychology in one pithy phrase. Being "ready to kill your parents" means hating the past, rejecting historical continuity, forsaking emotional attachments to pre-revolutionary ideas and habits, and boldly asserting your discovery of the ultimate answer, which is that all human history prior to us, "the ones we've been waiting for," has been one big, racist, sexist, oppressive lie that deserves to be crushed, shot, torn apart, and mocked as it dies.

That sentiment is "literally" the primary thrust and intent of the public education establishment which has finally dismantled Western morality and insinuated itself into the highest reaches of Western politics. A society truly "ready to kill its parents" will no longer need to kill very many of them.

Thus it is that public education, the gift that keeps on giving, has helped to save or create fifteen million rounds of ammunition which, in spite of previous estimates, may no longer need to be used.

[American Patriot]

We are at war. We just don't 'get it' yet:

owa Paper Publishes Radical Anti-Gun Column: If People Refused to Give Up Their Guns, ‘Prying’ Them ‘From Their Cold, Dead Hands’ Works for Me

• Posted on January 2, 2013 at 6:00pm by Jason Howerton

A security official reaches for a sign a Code Pink protester held up in protest as National Rifle Association (NRA) Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre spoke on December 21, 2012, in Washington, DC, on the one week anniversary of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings in Newtown, Connecticut, is removed from press conference by security officials. Credit: AFP/Getty Images



In an opinion column published in the Des Moines Register on Dec. 29, columnist Donald Kaul is uncensored in his disdain for the Second Amendment and anyone who values their right to bear arms. In his column, he calls for a full repeal of the Second Amendment, advocates for violence against Republican leaders “until they see the light on gun control” and declares the National Rifle Association a terrorist organization.


The piece, titled “Kaul: Nation needs a new agenda on guns,” seems to have been inspired in part by the tragic shooting in Newtown, Conn. where shooter Adam Lanza opened fire at Sandy Hook Elementary School, killing 20 children and six adults. Lanza also killed his mother before he began his shooting spree at the school.
“I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control,” Kaul wrote. “And if that didn’t work, I’d adopt radical measures.”
Kaul would also like to make it illegal to even be a member of the NRA, similar to the way it was illegal to join the Communist party in the past.

He went on:

“Here, then, is my ‘madder-than-hell-and-I’m-not-going-to-take-it-anymore’ program for ending gun violence in America:
• Repeal the Second Amendment, the part about guns anyway. It’s badly written, confusing and more trouble than it’s worth. It offers an absolute right to gun ownership, but it puts it in the context of the need for a “well-regulated militia.” We don’t make our militia bring their own guns to battles. And surely the Founders couldn’t have envisioned weapons like those used in the Newtown shooting when they guaranteed gun rights. Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right.
• Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. Hey! We did it to the Communist Party, and the NRA has led to the deaths of more of us than American Commies ever did. (I would also raze the organization’s headquarters, clear the rubble and salt the earth, but that’s optional.) Make ownership of unlicensed assault rifles a felony. If some people refused to give up their guns, that ‘prying the guns from their cold, dead hands’ thing works for me.”

The irony in Kaul’s argument is apparently lost on him. He is seemingly promoting a more peaceful and enlightened society while saying it’s OK to tie Republican leaders to the back of pick-up trucks and drag them around until they agree with him. Kaul berates gun owners while also saying it’s alright to pry “the guns from their cold, dead hands.”


“Publishing death threats is bad enough, but doing so in the name of promoting a more peaceful, compassionate society is beyond sick,” writes Tim Graham, director of media analysis at the Media Research Center.