A Communist in the Whitehouse – I’m just getting started…more to come

9 01 2014

propagandaAt a glance many people will smirk and chuckle about the title of this post, but I’m not using hyperbole and trying to emphasize a point of view;  I’m stone cold serious. And I’ll demonstrate how I found this and why I believe it and why it’s important.

First off, this country is not a Democracy nor is it a Republic per se.

We live in a Constitutional Republic.

Why is it important to understand this from the beginning?  Because it is the very foundation upon which our nation was perceived, framed and constructed; and the antithesis of Barack Obama’s vision for our future.

What is a Constitutional Republic? First, let’s start by defining Democracy and Republic.

A democratic form of government is simply, majority rule.  Everyone who is eligible and can vote has a voice, and in the end the majority’s persuasion wins the day.

A republic form of government is one where the elected government officials represent the individual, but are beholden to the populus at large and therefore, their affairs are open to public view and scrutiny.

America is a Constitutional Republic.

We adhere to the tenets of our founding Constitution and its articles of declaration and our elected government officials, who are elected by a process that is democratic (and that’s why people believe America is a democracy, because we vote) are therefore bound to the principles within the Constitution and its amendments.  The Constitution is their playbook.  Everything they do, comes from within those documents.  At least that’s how it’s supposed to work.

In America, the Federal government has no power over the people.  They merely have the authority act within the boundaries created by the Constitution; nothing more and nothing less.

The individual united states however, have authority to pass laws and regulations based on their social needs created from the desires of the people living within their boundaries by a democratic process.

Elected officials within the states represent the people to the Federal government i.e. Congressmen and Senators.

So to make it very simplistic, the people in the states vote for individuals who have the same beliefs and principles and give them their trust as they then go to the Capital of the Nation to represent the voice of the individual.

Why are there Congress and Senate and what do each do?

I’m not going to go into all that much detail but the purpose of a Congressman is to hear the voice of the people by the state in which he was elected and take that voice to the Federal government to be heard.

The Senate is there to evaluate the deeds of Congress, and to ratify their bills and laws and decide if they are in line with constitutional principles.  If they are, the laws are passed, amendments chartered and so on and so forth.

The purpose of the President is to oversee the deeds of the Congress and Senate and to make sure that they are upholding the principles of the Constitution, from which their authority is granted.  And he is given the power to veto bills and laws if they are not in line with the Constitution.

He is an overseer.  The president is granted no legislative authority.  That is reserved for the purposes of the Congress and the Senate.

But all to often, once a man is given a little authority, he immediately exersizes unrighteous dominion, and that is why there is a Senate, to keep Congress in check, and a President to make sure all bills are in line with constitutional principles.

And then we have the Supreme Court, but we won’t go into that.  Enough is enough with our discussion of government 101.

However, many people believe that the office of the President is one of authority, and power over Congress, the Senate and the People.  This is completely opposite to the purpose of the creation of this experiment called America.  For the President to have authority over the legislative bodies and the people, would be to have a King or a Dictator.  As I said before, the President is merely an overseer and protector of our freedoms; nothing more, nothing less.

The office of the President is very simple, although its execution is complicated by politics.  And now we return to the temptation that a man given authority has the tendency toward the immediate exersize of unrighteous dominion.

Without being too detailed, I’ll lay out, based on my understanding, which has come by my formal education and relentless pursuit for the knowledge of our nation’s history and government (I’m not just repeating what I hear others say) so that as we proceed, we also understand together the same definition of political titles and terminologies, where authority is given and its boundaries.  Because too often conversations turn contentious simply because ideas are represented by words which are defined differently from one person to another; ergo the explanation of the authorities of the different branches of government in America.

And now that we have that foundation laid down, and a common understanding of things we can begin to discuss all this communist-in-the-whitehouse hoopla (see what I did there, with the foundation and that…).

One thing I’ll give to this president is his honoring the promise to fundamentally transform America.  Because that’s exactly why he ran for office.  Hope and change, to fundamentally transform America.

Here’s the actual quote given October 31, 2008

“After decades of broken politics in Washington, and eight years of failed policies from George W. Bush, and 21 months of a campaign that’s taken us from the rocky coast of Maine to the sunshine of California, we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America. In five days, you can turn the page on policies that put greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of folks on Main Street.”

And in this context its critical to remember that in another speech given February 19, 2008, which has been given the title “Just Words”, he quoted many former presidents and emphasised how important the words used in presidential speeches really are, and that they mean what they say.

He threw those words over our heads in his speech but when I heard him say that my hair caught fire.  And that’s one of the reasons I’ve been relentless over the past five or six years in pointing out his actions and trying to demonstrate in a way that people can understand, the direction in which they are steering our nation.

So what does a ‘fundamental transformation’ really mean and why would he say something like that in regards to his Hope and Change campaign?

It’s important now, that we understand where the campaign slogan “Hope and Change” originated.  What are the roots of these terms and why did he use the word Hope, and what does the word Change really mean to him?

Those words resonate with everyone on a level that brings comfort and enthusiasm for prosperity, and relief from our burdens.   But it’s important to understand what those terms mean to the person who used them in the first place.  Why did he say them to us and what is he really trying to say?  Because he knows that those are positive, uplifting terms to most, however his definition of them is far more sinister than many of us realize.   And its because of the origin of those terms coming from him, in context with his background, that they are so dangerous.

Let’s start with the term ‘change’ and what it really means coming from his roots.

Barack Obama was indoctrinated deeply with sympathy for the cause of Marxist, Leninist, Taoist, Trotskyite, AKA Communist principles, especially while he was at Columbia University and then in Chicago in the mid nineteen eighties where he was given accolades, attention, a taste of power and some vision he could believe in, in actually being an influential part of the infiltration and eventual overthrow of what he perceived as a corrupt and oppresive American regime.

When Obama got to Chicago, he began his work as a community organizer.  This is public knowledge and sounds like a credible and honorable position of leadership.  But understanding what a community organizer is and where its roots spring is critical in understanding Obama’s indoctrination into a full blown Marxist.

He began training in the mid nineteen eightees at the Midwest Academy, through a grant from the Woods Fund which he received through his associations with Thomas Ayers.

Thomas Ayers is the father of William Ayers and was then CEO of Commonwealth Edison, which is one of the largest gas and electric utility holding companies in the nation.

One of Bill Ayers’ most poignant comments was, after being charged with terrorist bombings and being acquitted on a technicality, “guilty as sin, free as a bird.”  Of course he was acquitted because of his powerful connections through his father.

The Midwest Academy was founded by sixties radicals who were members of the SDS, Students for a Democratic Society.  Remember the definition of Democracy?  Majority rule.  No foundation in principle or ethics and no constitution.  Simply a powerful arm to forcing the rule of the strong over the weak.

Now were going to take a little diversion to explore the origins of the SDS, just for a moment, so that we can better understand what type of motivation his trainers at the Midwest Academy had in forming him into a community organizer, then I’ll demonstrae what a community organizer really is.

The SDS was born of Marxist philosophy and founded upon its principles.  In short, the SDS is a new-age euphamism for modern day Marxist think-tankers.

NOTE: If you don’t understand Karl Marx and the fact that he was a megalomaniac bent on the destruction of liberty and freedom then you should go back to the drawing board, get a little brush up on the origins of Communist theory and start all over with this post.

Here’s how the SDS links directly to Karl Marx and the proof that Obama is a Communist.  But that’s not even the smoking gun in all of this, so stick with me because it will all come together.

Karl Marx was inspired by the philosopher George Hegel, who created dialectic theory and the art of argument.  Without going into the details of Hegelian Dialectics, I’ll define it briefly.  George Hegel isn’t the man who created the dialectic theory originally but he is the one to whom its philosophical body is commonly attributed.

Dialectics approaches all theories and theoroms based on the premise that all supporting axioms of thought are inherently flawed.  Therefore the proponents of dialectic theory naturally seek to find fault in everything around them and therefore are able to create a new problem which then needs to be overcome by thier implementation of a solution, thereby giving them the control; which was their original design, taking control.

Dialectic is more than just rhetoric or debate.  It is a mode of moving an idealogy or philosophy off of its foundation for the purposes of change and assimilation, to bring differing ideals into a more commonly accepted realm of thought.

This is how socialists, leftists, Marxists and facists think and approach everything.  At a glance it looks like a healthy way of exploring ideas, because we must be open to the possibility that there are flaws in ideas so that we can correct them and move forward to healing and truth.

However, those who have more diabolical ideals coursing through their thought processes use dialectic theory to poke holes in otherwise sound and solid modes of thought for the purposes of usurping power over more natural and morally based ideals which have stood for millenia.  That’s why it’s so easy to lead a group around by the nose once religion, or a principled foundation is removed from the equation.

There are no absolutes in dialectic thought.  Everything is up for discussion and everything is open to change; and a democratic power structure who rules over a dependent, lower class is always the force manipulating that change for their own needs and pleasures at any given time.

All that the power hungry structure needs for a populus to follow them is a large enough common crisis that affects everyone, and then they are able to propose a solution to what seems an unsolvable problem.

Please share this with everyone who is open to the truth.  It’s important that Americans are knowledgeable about these things.  This isn’t a game and it isn’t a safety net.  It’s literal tyranny, just what the Founding Fathers escaped.

(image used without permission)

Advertisements




Talk is cheap – The politics of appeasement

15 05 2008

President Bush finally said something I am proud of. It seems that in his past eight years of public speaking he has done little more than build a legacy of providing material to late night talk show hosts. Well, this week he finally spoke as a true leader of nations to the Knesset concerning the appeasement of terrorists.

“Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is –- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

This really pissed off Senator Barry O’ and the democrats, who are the absolute pinnacles of talky talk, appeasement and symbolism over substance.

“It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel’s independence to launch a false political attack. It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power — including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy – to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President’s extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.”

It really saddens me that the man who expects to be President can actually believe that fighting the greatest threat to America’s liberty has strengthened Iran and failed to secure America and Israel. The democrats are so blinded by their lust for power that they will twist the obvious truth and play partisan politics to the point where they deny that fighting terrorism is the only way to stop it.

Did Jimmy Carter’s peace efforts in the middle east do anything to stop Arafat? No, it did not. Did Bill Clinton’s finger wagging do anything to stop the escalation of terrorism against the USA around the world and within our own borders? No, it did not.  In fact, it emboldened the terrorists and brought us 9/11.

Did President Reagan’s ass whupping on Kadafi do anything to stop him? Hell yes it did. Did Reagan’s perceived development of the Star Wars initiative do anything to topple communism and the Soviet regime? Hell yes it did. Has George Bush’s proactive offenses on terrorist nations and regimes done anything to protect us within the borders of the United States and our embassies across the world? Hell yes it has.





The Israeli occupation?

10 01 2008

This week George Bush said, “There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967. The agreement must establish a Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people.”

First of all, there is no “Palestinian people”. If anything, the Palestinian people are made up of Arabs and Jews together. The Palestinian people are those people who occupy the Palestinian territories. They are not a race and they are not a nation.

After all of the Jewish concessions to the Arabs over the last couple of hundred years, not to mention the last couple of thousand years, I don’t understand how any educated person can call the Jewish existence in Palestine an occupation. The bottom line is that the Arabs will never be happy until the Jews are eradicated from Palestine. The Jews want nothing more than to live free in their homeland. Yes, Palestine is the Jewish homeland and always has been.

Take a look at historical maps and see how the Jewish state has dwindled into what it is today. Jewish concessions and cooperation has given the Arab Palestinians more and more of what they ask for. What more do they want? We know what they want but for some reason the leaders of the world are unable to admit it and are continuing to try to solve the problem by giving away more and more of the Jewish homeland.

Not only did the Jews bring Israel back to life, which brought the Arab Palestinians into the area, but they are leaving and surrendering their lands at the behest of world leaders under the veil of “peace”. This is not peace, this is occupation by the Arabs.

Black is white and white is black in this ridiculous conflict. George Bush is fighting a war on terror. He absolutely understands what it is the blood thirsty and barbaric Arab Palestinians want. It is the destruction of Israel, the Jews and the west. He is complicit in feeding their blood lust while working to fight it on other fronts. Shame on President Bush for supporting the terrorism of the PLO and continuing to give in to their demands for destruction and occupation.

Give the Jews their homeland. The Arabs have more than 90% of the land in the area and they want the Jews to give up the slivers they have established in their quest for some sort of sovereignty. The right thing to do here would be to protect Israel and tell the Palestinian Arabs to take it or leave it, then prepare for war.

Nobody wants war but there will be war until the Jews are extinguished from Arab lands. The Jews deserve to exist. They are a peaceful people who welcome peaceful coexistence with other nations. The Arabs are the problem. The Arabs are the occupiers. Shame on George Bush for supporting them.








%d bloggers like this: