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




Where has accountability gone?

20 04 2011

I don’t normally like to post news items as blog posts but this one got me fired up.  This issue of homosexuality is a sensitive one.  If any of you have read most of my blog you know my opinions.  If you have skimmed and not taken the time to actually understand my position you might think I’m a bigot.  That is fine with me, I am not a bigot and I don’t have animosity or hatred toward any individual.

I have problems with many prevailing philosophies, dogmas and tenets.

There is nothing wrong with standing on our principles.  We all need to stand up for what we believe.  Too many people today trade their values for the clamoring and whining of the weak, who fail to stand on any firm foundation.  They give in because of emotion, sensitivity and sympathy.  Empathy is a virtue we should all live by, but sympathizing with causes in contrast with our core values is destructive to our being.  There is a critical difference between empathy and sympathy.  Ignorance and lack of understanding lead people down paths of confusion and this is happening in the halls of academia more and more; at the elite universities that were once standards of greatness.

It has become very trite and cliche, but it is true that if we stand for nothing we will fall for anything.  United we stand; divided we fall; and how much proactive divisiveness do we see going on today?

The principles and philosophies that this nation were founded upon are as solid today as they were back then.  The problem is not the principles but the misunderstanding and misinterpretation of them by people today who allow their emotions to interfere with reason.

On to the new item that started this outburst.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110420/ap_on_re_us/us_rutgers_suicide

You can’t punish one person for the choices another person makes!  That’s just not right.  The news story reports that, in short, a Rutgers student who was an aspiring violinist had a gay trist with another man in his dorm room and the roommate caught it on a webcam.  According to the article it was a make-out session.

For anyone to believe that THIS one incident alone is what caused this young man to kill himself is completely short sighted.  This certainly was a catalyst, but was merely one piece of a much larger  puzzle that made up his life.  It doesn’t make sense to charge the roommate for the end result, an individual choice that another person made.  If you do that you have to go back throughout his life to all of the other factors and give them attention and blame as well.

If what was caught on camera was so shameful, that is an issue for the victim, not the roommate.   If we have private behaviors that we feel we must keep hidden from society then we are solely responsible for the humiliation we feel.  If we believe in what we are doing then we should stand tall in our beliefs, regardless of what society tells us.  If our actions are illegal or unethical or immoral then we will be judged for them, but again, if we believe in what we do we should stand tall in the face of ridicule.

Rutgers is way out of line. They brought Snookie in as a guest speaker and they’re punishing a kid for video taping his roommate?  There’s nothing illegal or unethical about rolling film in your own house.

We all know that this is an issue because it has to do with homosexuality.  If the victim had been making out with a fat chick (no offense to the overweight, but this is a valid argument) and then killed himself for shame it would have been observed as something out of kilter with his psychology due to HIS own choice.

I’m getting so tired of the over-sensitivity in this country. Pussification!! Where’s the grit and integrity gone?

OK, here I go into the realm of real offensive opinion — the world is a much bigger place than your imaginary bubble and the protective environment you wish you could live in.  The world is harsh and it WILL not change because we want it to. It is what it is, and always will be.  Political correctness is an illusion.   Politeness should be expected, not pandering.

There are rules, there are standards and there are laws that will not change due to our behaviors and desires.  Evolution does not work that way.  The changes that come about as a result of our behaviors have consequences, and those consequences will play out in time. We are all free to choose our path.  We are all free to choose our behavior, but we are never free to choose the consequences of our actions.





Don’t kick the armed robber!

8 05 2010

I was looking at drudgereport.com today and I saw the headline. It read:

POLICE FIRESTORM: ‘BEAT THE F****** MEXICAN OUT OF YOU, HOMEY’

Story herehttp://www.kirotv.com/investigations/23490010/detail.html

That sounds pretty bad.

But I read the story and found out that the ‘victim’ here was a recently abducted armed robber.  He just stuck up a bowling alley or something and they took him down.

So the cops are kicking him and giving him sh*t, which I think any dumbass armed robber deserves. But the headline is all about what they were saying when they were kicking him. The story isn’t that they were kicking him, but what they were saying.

All I want to say is, what about the crime that led up to this?





I. S. Wichman

26 06 2008

I received this in an email forwarded by a friend, requesting that I forward it on to my friends, etc.  I don’t do chain emails but I’ll post it here because it’s been verified on snopes.com as true.  God bless people like Indrek Wichman!

The story begins at Michigan State University with a mechanical engineering professor named Indrek Wichman.

Wichman sent an e-mail to the Muslim Student’s Association.  The e-mail was in response to the students’ protest of the Danish cartoons that portrayed the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist.  The group had complained the cartoons were ‘hate speech’.  Enter Professor Wichman.  In his e-mail, he said the following:

Dear Moslem Association,

As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU I intend to protest your protest.  I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders, murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey ), burnings of Christian churches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims, the rapes of Scandinavian girls and women (called ‘whores’ in your culture), the murder of film directors in Holland , and the rioting and looting in Paris France.

This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many of my colleagues. I counsel you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile ‘protests.’  If you do not like the values of the West – see the 1st Amendment – you are free to leave.

I hope for God’s sake that most of you choose that option.  Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans.

Cordially,

I. S. Wichman

Professor of Mechanical Engineering

As you can imagine, the Muslim group at the university didn’t like this too well.  They’re demanding that Wichman be reprimanded and the university impose mandatory diversity training for faculty and mandate a seminar on hate and discrimination for all freshmen.

Now the local chapter of CAIR has jumped into the fray.  CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, apparently doesn’t believe that the good professor had the right to express his opinion.  For its part, the university is standing its ground in support of Professor Wichman, saying the e-mail was private, and they don’t intend to publicly condemn his remarks.








%d bloggers like this: