Obama-messiah seeks Muslims for White House posts

March 30, 2009

obama-muslim-garbFor a man who constantly claimed during his campaign to be ‘rooted in the Christian tradition,’ our great Obama-messiah sure seems to be exactly what his critics claimed all along:  a Muslim at heart. 

 

According to the news article below, Obama-messiah is apparently actively backing a plan to put more Muslims into staff positions in Congress.  There’s even a “Congressional Muslim Staffers Association” that works to identify “qualified adherents of Islam” and get them placed into government positions.

 

Can you imagine the outcry that would have taken place had any U.S. president backed a “Congressional Christian Staffers Association” and made the Christianity a prerequisite for obtaining high government positions?  The press would have had a field day…that president would have been run into the ground…and likely the entire operation would have ended up in court and deemed to be “unconstitutional.” 

 

In Britain, the practitioners of Islam have become so influential in local, state and regional politics that the entire country is upside down in new regulations designed to make sure the religious sensibilities of Muslims are not offended in any way.  For example, police using bomb-sniffing dogs to search a suspected Muslim terrorist’s home for bombs or drugs must put little booties on the dog’s feet, so as not to violate the religious conscience of the Muslim suspect, who as part of their religion believe dogs are “unclean.”  Terrorist murder of innocent Britons, of course, is apparently perfectly okay.  Nothing “unclean” about killing infidels, right?

 

The Islamization of Europe, as a whole, is in full swing, to the point that Europe is now being referred to in some circles as Eurabia.  Free speech in Europe is under such violent assault by the Muslims that cartoonists who offended Muslims with their cartoons have had to go into hiding after bounties were put on their heads by Islamic extremists.

 

Don’t think it can happen in America?  I beg to differ with you.  It already is. 

 

By the time Obama-messiah is done with us, America too will be a nation under the process of Islamization.  One can only wonder if our police officers will have to wear little matching booties to those placed on the feet of their bomb-sniffing dogs.

 

— Steve

 

Obama seeks Muslims for White House posts

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&;pageId=93251

 

45 Ivy League grads, Fortune 500 execs, government officials submitted for look

 

——————————————————————————–

Posted: March 28, 2009

11:55 pm Eastern

 

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

 

WASHINGTON – Barack Obama is conducting his own affirmative action program to get more Muslims in the White House.

 

The move began with Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn, who took his oath of office with a hand on the Quran, to solicit the resume of what he considered to be the nation’s most qualified adherents of Islam.

 

According to the Denver Post, when White House officials heard about the program, it was put on overdrive.

 

So far, 45 Ivy League grads, Fortune 500 executives and government officials have been submitted for consideration.

 

J. Saleh Williams, program coordinator for the Congressional Muslim Staffers Association, sifted through more than 300 names as part of the search.

 

“It was mostly under the radar,” Williams said. “We thought it would put (the president) in a precarious position. We didn’t know how closely he wanted to appear to be working with the Muslim American community.”

 

Ellison is serious about his faith. He made the pilgrimage to Mecca with the sponsorship of the Muslim American Society, an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

In 1991, Mohamed Akram wrote a memo for the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood that explained its work in America as “a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Advertisements

Obama-messiah top recipient of campaign donations from AIG

March 18, 2009

obama-campaign-moneyIf you’re starting to feel as if you’ve been hosed, my friend…it’s because you have!

 

— Spencer

 

Obama top recipient of campaign donations from AIG

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000000123

AIG: All Recipients

Among Federal Candidates, 2008 Cycle

 

Name

Office

Total Contributions

Obama, Barack (D-IL)

Senate

$104,332

Dodd, Chris (D-CT)

Senate

$103,900

McCain, John (R-AZ)

Senate

$59,499

Clinton, Hillary (D-NY)

Senate

$37,965

Baucus, Max (D-MT)

Senate

$24,750

Romney, Mitt (R)

Pres

$20,850

Biden, Joseph R Jr (D-DE)

Senate

$19,975

Larson, John B (D-CT)

House

$19,750

Sununu, John E (R-NH)

Senate

$18,500

Giuliani, Rudolph W (R)

Pres

$13,200

Kanjorski, Paul E (D-PA)

House

$12,000

Durbin, Dick (D-IL)

Senate

$11,000

Perlmutter, Edwin G (D-CO)

House

$10,500

Rangel, Charles B (D-NY)

House

$9,000

Edwards, John (D)

Pres

$7,850

Corker, Bob (R-TN)

Senate

$7,400

Smith, Chris (R-NJ)

House

$6,900

Neal, Richard E (D-MA)

House

$6,500

Rockefeller, Jay (D-WV)

Senate

$6,500

Reed, Jack (D-RI)

Senate

$6,000

Udall, Mark (D-CO)

House

$5,800

Maffei, Dan (D-NY)

House

$5,000

Nelson, Bill (D-FL)

Senate

$5,000

Warner, Mark (D-VA)

Senate

$5,000

Bean, Melissa (D-IL)

House

$4,750

Shelby, Richard C (R-AL)

Senate

$4,500

Mahoney, Tim (D-FL)

House

$4,000

Crowley, Joseph (D-NY)

House

$3,500

Fimian, Keith S (R-VA)

House

$3,300

Huckabee, Mike (R)

Pres

$3,300

Leavitt, David O (R-UT)

House

$3,000

Murphy, Chris (D-CT)

House

$2,800

Franken, Al (D-MN)

Senate

$2,700

Berman, Howard L (D-CA)

House

$2,500

Dole, Elizabeth (R-NC)

Senate

$2,500

Garrett, Scott (R-NJ)

House

$2,500

Cornyn, John (R-TX)

Senate

$2,300

Culberson, John (R-TX)

House

$2,300

Goode, Gregory Justin (R-IN)

House

$2,300

Landrieu, Mary L (D-LA)

Senate

$2,300

Lummis, Cynthia Marie (R-WY)

House

$2,300

Shays, Christopher (R-CT)

House

$2,200

Davis, Tom (R-VA)

House

$2,000

Hoyer, Steny H (D-MD)

House

$2,000

Inouye, Daniel K (D-HI)

Senate

$2,000

Pomeroy, Earl (D-ND)

House

$2,000

Visclosky, Pete (D-IN)

House

$2,000

Weiner, Anthony D (D-NY)

House

$2,000

King, Pete (R-NY)

House

$1,843

Gillibrand, Kirsten E (D-NY)

House

$1,500

Shaheen, Jeanne (D-NH)

Senate

$1,500

Grassley, Chuck (R-IA)

Senate

$1,250

Nelson, Ben (D-NE)

Senate

$1,200

Wicker, Roger (R-MS)

Senate

$1,100

Baker, Richard (R-LA)

House

$1,000

Barrasso, John A (R-WY)

Senate

$1,000

Bennett, Robert F (R-UT)

Senate

$1,000

Brady, Kevin (R-TX)

House

$1,000

Capps, Lois (D-CA)

House

$1,000

Coleman, Norm (R-MN)

Senate

$1,000

Collins, Susan M (R-ME)

Senate

$1,000

Cooper, Jim (D-TN)

House

$1,000

Donnelly, Joe (D-IN)

House

$1,000

Ellsworth, Brad (D-IN)

House

$1,000

Engel, Eliot L (D-NY)

House

$1,000

Enzi, Mike (R-WY)

Senate

$1,000

Gordon, Bart (D-TN)

House

$1,000

Graham, Lindsey (R-SC)

Senate

$1,000

Harkin, Tom (D-IA)

Senate

$1,000

Himes, Jim (D-CT)

House

$1,000

Jones, Stephanie Tubbs (D-OH)

House

$1,000

Kind, Ron (D-WI)

House

$1,000

Kirk, Mark (R-IL)

House

$1,000

Lautenberg, Frank R (D-NJ)

Senate

$1,000

Lowey, Nita M (D-NY)

House

$1,000

Maloney, Carolyn B (D-NY)

House

$1,000

McMahon, Michael E (D-NY)

House

$1,000

Olson, Pete (R-TX)

House

$1,000

Pryor, Mark (D-AR)

Senate

$1,000

Salazar, Ken (D-CO)

Senate

$1,000

Tiberi, Patrick J (R-OH)

House

$1,000

Towns, Edolphus (D-NY)

House

$1,000

Wilson, Charlie (D-OH)

House

$1,000

Mielke, Daniel Ernest (R-WI)

House

$900

Huelskamp, Timothy A (R-KS)

House

$750

Laesch, John (D-IL)

House

$750

Tinklenberg, Elwyn (D-MN)

House

$750

Vilsack, Thomas J (D)

Pres

$700

Harrison, Stephen A (D-NY)

House

$604

Brownback, Sam (R-KS)

Senate

$500

Courtney, Joe (D-CT)

House

$500

Crapo, Mike (R-ID)

Senate

$500

Davis, Geoff (R-KY)

House

$500

Fossella, Vito (R-NY)

House

$500

Gilchrest, Wayne T (R-MD)

House

$500

Hastings, Alcee L (D-FL)

House

$500

Musgrove, Ronnie (D-MS)

Senate

$500

Myers, Chris (R-NJ)

House

$500

Pelosi, Nancy (D-CA)

House

$500

Pierluisi, Pedro (3-PR)

 

$500

METHODOLOGY: The numbers on this page are based on contributions from PACs and individuals giving $200 or more. All donations were made during the 2008 election cycle and were released by the Federal Election Commission. Figures for the current election cycle are based on data released on March 02, 2009.

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.

 


Obama-messiah thumbs nose at God, seeks to sign UN gay rights declaration

March 18, 2009

gay-obamaTalk about thumbing your nose at the face of God. 

 

As the Scripture says of the antichrist in Daniel 7:25, “And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.” 

 

And what law is our wonderful Obama-messiah thinking of changing at the moment? 

 

Lev 18:22  Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

 

Lev 20:13  If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

 

Of course, our wonderful Obama-messiah is not the antichrist.  But he is rapidly becoming a very interesting type of the antichrist, at least, for those who are familiar with their Bible. 

 

And like the antichrist will do, he is by his latest actions helping draw not only our nation, but the entire world, into a covenant of (spiritual) death, for our Lord will not tolerate the enshrinement of perversion into global law.

 

Now, we can truly say this liberal man-god is becoming an Obamanation before our heavenly Father.

 

The day this man was elected I told you that we would in short time come to long for the days when Bush was president, and that all of those who ran around crying “I hate Bush” would come to regret it.  Soon we will learn what the signing of this global legislation means.  When you see your preachers being hauled off to international courts for teaching the above Bible verses, don’t say I didn’t tell you so.

 

— Spencer

 

Obama to sign UN gay rights declaration

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090318/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_gay_rights

 

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration will endorse a U.N. declaration calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality that then-President George W. Bush had refused to sign, The Associated Press has learned.

 

U.S. officials said Tuesday they had notified the declaration’s French sponsors that the administration wants to be added as a supporter. The Bush administration was criticized in December when it was the only western government that refused to sign on.

 

The move was made after an interagency review of the Bush administration’s position on the nonbinding document, which was signed by all 27 European Union members as well as Japan, Australia, Mexico and three dozen other countries, the officials said.

 

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because Congress was still being notified of the decision. They said the administration had decided to sign the declaration to demonstrate that the United States supports human rights for all.

 

“The United States is an outspoken defender of human rights and critic of human rights abuses around the world,” said one official.

 

“As such, we join with the other supporters of this statement and we will continue to remind countries of the importance of respecting the human rights of all people in all appropriate international fora,” the official said.

 

The official added that the United States was concerned about “violence and human rights abuses against gay, lesbian, transsexual and bisexual individuals” and was also “troubled by the criminalization of sexual orientation in many countries.”

 

“In the words of the United States Supreme Court, the right to be free from criminalization on the basis of sexual orientation ‘has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom’,” the official said.

 

Gay rights and other groups had criticized the Bush administration when it refused to sign the declaration when it was presented at the United Nations on Dec. 19. U.S. officials said then that the U.S. opposed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation but that parts of the declaration raised legal questions that needed further review.

 

According to negotiators, the Bush team had concerns that those parts could commit the federal government on matters that fall under state jurisdiction. In some states, landlords and private employers are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; on the federal level, gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military.

 

It was not immediately clear on Tuesday how the Obama administration had come to a different conclusion.

 

When it was voted on in December, 66 of the U.N.’s 192 member countries signed the declaration — which backers called a historic step to push the General Assembly to deal more forthrightly with anti-gay discrimination.

 

But 70 U.N. members outlaw homosexuality — and in several, homosexual acts can be punished by execution. More than 50 nations, including members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, opposed the declaration.

 

Some Islamic countries said at the time that protecting sexual orientation could lead to “the social normalization and possibly the legalization of deplorable acts” such as pedophilia and incest. The declaration was also opposed by the Vatican.

 


Million dollar bonuses for bankrupt AIG leave Obama-messiah in hot water with taxpayers

March 17, 2009

keep-the-change-2People on both sides of the aisle are beginning to understand what a calculated liar we’ve got as president.

First our great messiah promises to reign in the political corruption and ban lobbyists from working in his administration.  Then he begins appointing one of the most corrupt administrations in U.S. history, and gives “waivers” to some of the wealthiest and most influential lobbyists in the world to come work for him.

 

Next, he promises to go over every budget with a fine-tooth forensic comb, and cut out all of the pork, wasteful spending and earmarks.  Then he passes a gargantuan budget laden with pork and wasteful spending and earmarks.

 

Finally, he promises to smack down the greedy and thoroughly corrupt Wall Street banksters and their derivatives-laden cronies in the financial insurance industry.  Then he rewards them with additional tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer “bailout” money and lets them take million-dollar-apiece bonuses (while your taxes go up in order to pay for it).

 

How many people remember the days when bonuses were given for positive performance, not negative?

 

As the popular new bumper sticker says, “Give me my money, my freedom and my guns, Obama.  You can keep the change.”

 

— Spencer

 

Anger Over Bankrupt AIG Million Dollar Bonuses Depletes Obama’s Political Capital

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/16/AR2009031600640_pf.html

 

By Michael D. Shear and Paul Kane

Washington Post Staff Writers

Tuesday, March 17, 2009; A01

 

President Obama’s apparent inability to block executive bonuses at insurance giant AIG has dealt a sharp blow to his young administration and is threatening to derail both public and congressional support for his ambitious political agenda.

 

Politicians in both parties flocked to express outrage over $165 million in bonuses paid out to executives at the company, demanding answers from the president and swamping yesterday’s rollout of his efforts to spark lending to small businesses.

 

The populist anger at the executives who ran their firms into the ground is increasingly blowing back on Obama, whom aides yesterday described as having little recourse in the face of legal contracts that guaranteed those bonuses.

 

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, peppered with questions about why the president had not done more to block the bonuses at a company that has received $170 billion in taxpayer funds, struggled for an answer yesterday afternoon. He explained that government lawyers are “looking through contracts to see what can be done to wrest these bonuses from their recipients.”

 

Obama himself sought to channel the public’s sense of disbelief yesterday. “How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?” he said, declaring the bonuses an “outrage” that violate “fundamental values.”

 

White House aides grasped for actions that could soothe sentiment on Main Street and in the halls of Congress, where the fate of the new president’s sweeping agendas on health care, climate change and education will be decided. They suggested that the government will use its latest pledged installment of $30 billion for the ailing company to recover the millions in bonuses paid Friday.

 

But the damage control did not seem to satisfy incredulous lawmakers in both parties, who said the image of financial executives taking huge bonuses from a taxpayer-funded rescue puts the president in a politically impossible position.

 

“I warned them this would be met with an unprecedented level of outrage,” Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), the chairman of the banking committee and part of a group of senators who pressed Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner to stop the bonuses, said yesterday.

 

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said the bonus issue added to his belief that there will be almost no Republican support for any expansion of a bank-bailout program that passed Congress last fall with broad bipartisan support.

 

“What is the government’s exit strategy from this sweeping involvement in private business?” he asked in a statement, adding that “taxpayers are not receiving an adequate accounting from either the Treasury or the management of the companies that received taxpayer funds. Unfortunately, we have not yet seen such a plan.”

 

The rhetoric grew so heated yesterday that Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) suggested in a radio interview that AIG executives ought to “follow the Japanese model . . . resign, or go commit suicide.” An aide later explained he does not actually want executives to kill themselves.

 

More than 80 House Democrats signed a letter demanding that the money used to pay the bonuses be recouped from AIG. New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo announced that he will subpoena the Manhattan-based company, seeking data documenting who received the bonuses and the justification for them.

 

“You could argue that if taxpayers hadn’t bailed out AIG, the contracts wouldn’t be worth the paper they were signed on,” Cuomo said.

 

The Obama administration was already facing a skeptical public and members of Congress critical of the huge sums of money the government has allocated to shoring up the devastated financial system.

 

News of the latest AIG bonuses only compounded the political problems that the huge expenditures pose for the president. The administration has tried to manage the public anger by expressing empathy with the outrage over the large outlays to financial firms, while explaining that they are necessary to stabilize the economy.

 

Earlier this month, the administration added to the bailout money needed to keep AIG functioning, saying failure of the company would be disastrous for the larger economy. And the administration is all but certain to return to Congress for hundreds of billions of dollars more to aid the financial system.

 

But the bonus issue, in particular, is hounding Obama as he pursues his larger goals, in part because of the president’s own repeated declarations of outrage — offered again yesterday — aimed especially at the firms that are feeding at the public trough.

 

In February, Obama announced tough new restrictions on executive compensation that promised an end to massive salaries for executives of failing companies. Similar rules were eventually written into legislation and hailed as evidence that executive compensation would be checked.

 

But reports about the latest AIG bonuses quickly undermined whatever political capital Obama has earned with his past efforts.

 

Over the weekend, White House officials expressed outrage at the bonuses paid out by AIG but said there was nothing they could do to stop them. After news of the bonuses dominated news coverage for two days, the administration took a newly aggressive stance.

 

Asked why the administration is attempting to claw back the bonuses now but did not do more to block the payments earlier this month when it was authorizing the latest $30 billion in new loans to the struggling insurer, Gibbs was unresponsive.

 

“The administration is taking the steps today to go back and see what can be done,” he said.

 

Staff writers Michael A. Fletcher and Scott Wilson contributed to this report.

 


Obama-messiah’s Plan to Charge Wounded Military Vets for Medical Treatment

March 17, 2009

obamadope

This really takes the cake.  Of all of the dirty, low-down tricks Obama-messiah has pulled in his meager 60 days in office, this is the lowest of them all. 

 

Like his previous Democrat predecessor, Bill Clinton, Obama-messiah hates the military with a passion.  And he plans on slashing support for them, in order to increase support for his social welfare programs, i.e., let those who are too lazy to hold a job have the money that would otherwise go to our wounded vets. 

 

For those who care about our wounded vets, and would like to voice their opinion on this travesty, the White House phone number is 202-456-1414, and the White House fax number is 202-456-2461

 

I am told that faxes have more impact than phone calls, but if you don’t have access to a fax machine, make the call.  Pass this along to your email list, too, if you believe Obama is giving our wounded vets a raw deal.

 

— Spencer

 

The American Legion Strongly Opposed to Obama’s  Plan to Charge Wounded Military Vets for Medical Treatment

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20090316/pl_usnw/the_american_legion_strongly_opposed_to_president_s_plan_to_charge_wounded_heroes_for_treatment

 

Contact: Craig Roberts of The American Legion, +1-202-263-2982 Office, +1-202-406-0887 Cell

 

WASHINGTON, March 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The leader of the nation’s largest veterans organization says he is “deeply disappointed and concerned” after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases.

 

“It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan,” said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. “He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it.”

 

The Commander, clearly angered as he emerged from the session said, “This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate ‘ to care for him who shall have borne the battle’ given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm’s way, and not private insurance companies. I say again that The American Legion does not and will not support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of America’s veterans!”

 

Commander Rehbein was among a group of senior officials from veterans service organizations joining the President, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki and Steven Kosiak, the overseer of defense spending at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The group’s early afternoon conversation at The White House was precipitated by a letter of protest presented to the President earlier this month. The letter, co-signed by Commander Rehbein and the heads of ten colleague organizations, read, in part, ” There is simply no logical explanation for billing a veteran’s personal insurance for care that the VA has a responsibility to provide. While we understand the fiscal difficulties this country faces right now, placing the burden of those fiscal problems on the men and women who have already sacrificed a great deal for this country is unconscionable.”

 

Commander Rehbein reiterated points made last week in testimony to both House and Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committees. It was stated then that The American Legion believes that the reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate that VA treat service-connected injuries and disabilities given that the United States government sends members of the armed forces into harm’s way, and not private insurance companies.

 

The proposed requirement for these companies to reimburse the VA would not only be unfair, says the Legion, but would have an adverse impact on service-connected disabled veterans and their families. The Legion argues that, depending on the severity of the medical conditions involved, maximum insurance coverage limits could be reached through treatment of the veteran’s condition alone. That would leave the rest of the family without health care benefits.

 

The Legion also points out that many health insurance companies require deductibles to be paid before any benefits are covered. Additionally, the Legion is concerned that private insurance premiums would be elevated to cover service-connected disabled veterans and their families, especially if the veterans are self-employed or employed in small businesses unable to negotiate more favorable across-the-board insurance policy pricing.

 

The American Legion also believes that some employers, especially small businesses, would be reluctant to hire veterans with service-connected disabilities due to the negative impact their employment might have on obtaining and financing company health care benefits.

 

“I got the distinct impression that the only hope of this plan not being enacted,” said Commander Rehbein, “is for an alternative plan to be developed that would generate the desired $540-million in revenue. The American Legion has long advocated for Medicare reimbursement to VA for the treatment of veterans. This, we believe, would more easily meet the President’s financial goal. We will present that idea in an anticipated conference call with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel in the near future.

 

“I only hope the administration will really listen to us then. This matter has far more serious ramifications than the President is imagining,” concluded the Commander.


Obama-messiah’s “stimulus” package: Viagra for the welfare state

March 3, 2009

do-you-feel-that-thrill-running-up-your-leg-yetSo the Obama-messiah’s “stimulus” package is going to repeal the welfare reform passed by the Republican Congress in 1996, and give huge federal “bonuses” to states that put more people on welfare.  In other words, the “stimulus” is exactly that:  Viagra for the welfare state.

 

What’s more, it now turns out the supposed “tax refunds” promised by the Obama-messiah are in reality handouts to millions of lower-income people who didn’t earn enough money to pay federal taxes. 

 

In other words, Obama-messiah is simply taking the money from those who earned it and giving it away to people who didn’t earn it, under the guise of a “tax refund.”

 

As Phyllis Schlafly points out in the article below, “The flow of taxpayers’ money will be so gargantuan as to make Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society expansion of the welfare state look puny.”

 

I’ve stated before that the Obama-messiah presidency is not about “economic justice.”  It’s about revenge.  It’s about plunder.  It’s about getting back at whitey.  It’s about taking from the “haves” and giving to the “have nots.”  It’s about the greatest theft and redistribution of wealth in U.S. history, and probably world history.

 

Dan 11:24  He shall enter peaceably even upon the fattest places of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers’ fathers; he shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil, and riches: yea, and he shall forecast his devices against the strong holds, even for a time.

 

Yes, unlike the Obama-messiah’s forefathers who fought whitey at every turn, going all of the way back to the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya in 1952, good old “Barry O” did things differently.  Instead of fighting, he entered “peacefully even upon the fattest places of the province.”

 

In other words, he infiltrated the system, and rose peacefully to the top of it, conquering the dreaded and despised whitey through subterfuge and deception. 

 

And now that he’s on top, the Obama-messiah will “scatter among them (i.e., among his own people) the prey, and spoil, and riches” of his conquest.

 

And he will “forecast his devices against the strong holds” of American civilization, taking from those who have built this country and made it great, and giving to those who have been parasites on society by virtue of the professional victim status. 

 

And one day, when all of those young, dumb, white liberals who voted for the Obama-messiah, and who drive around in their daddy’s cars “playing ethnicky jazz to parade their snazz on their five grand stereos,” finally come to realize that they’ve been had by their mandingo man-god, it will be too late. 

 

1Sa 8:18  And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.

 

In other words, “Too bad, so sad, (signed), your Dad.”

 

— Spencer

 

Obama’s Stimulus Bill Repeals Welfare Reform Passed by Republican Congress of 1996

www.eagleforum.com

 

February 27, 2009     

by Phyllis Schlafly

 

Under the subterfuge of helping the economy, Barack Obama’s Stimulus legislates vast new spending programs to finance liberal policy goals that are unnecessary and undesirable. The flow of taxpayers’ money will be so gargantuan as to make Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society expansion of the welfare state look puny.

 

Barack Obama revealed his long-term goals in a radio interview on Chicago’s WBEZ-FM in 2001. Asked about the Earl Warren court decisions that started long lines of activist decisions in many areas, Obama argued that the Warren court didn’t go far enough: the Warren court changed the laws, but failed to address the economic issues to bring about “redistributive change.”

 

Obama complained that “the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth” or “economic justice” and failed to “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.” The Stimulus is designed to break through those constitutional restraints on government action.

Here are some of the major “change” provisions of the 1000+-page Act that all admit no Member of Congress read before passage. This list doesn’t include any of the dozens of “porky” items that Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) boasts Americans don’t care about (and usually don’t know about).

 

First, the Stimulus repeals the essentials of Welfare Reform passed by the Republican Congress in 1996. It was reluctantly signed by President Bill Clinton after he realized the public was demanding reform, and after it proved popular, he tried to take credit for it.

 

LBJ’s Great Society welfare was probably the worst of all liberal policies because it was directly responsible for destroying marriage by subsidizing illegitimacy and divorce, thereby creating a matriarchy dependent on government handouts. It wasn’t poverty that destroyed marriage in the lower-income classes; it was the liberal policy of giving taxpayers’ money to women, thereby making the husband and father irrelevant and even an impediment to the flow of easy money.

 

By setting limits on government handouts, the 1996 Welfare Reform encouraged welfare recipients to get jobs or job training, to make themselves self-sufficient, and to end their long-term dependency on government.

 

The Obama Stimulus increases the taxpayers’ money that the federal government gives to the states for welfare, and reverses incentives by giving bonuses to states that put more people on welfare. The Stimulus is even worse than the Great Society policies of the 1960s.

 

That is a good example of the Obama goal to spread the wealth around (regardless of the harm it does).

 

Second, the Stimulus calls for nearly doubling federal spending on education, which means doubling federal control. This money gives Obama the opportunity to spread his friend William Ayers’s “social justice” teaching (i.e., that America is an oppressive and unjust society) throughout K-16 education.

 

This goal will be facilitated by Obama’s appointment of Arne Duncan for Secretary of Education who, like Obama and Ayers, is an alumnus of the Chicago political machine. Duncan made news last year with his plan to open a “gay-friendly” public high school in Chicago with a curriculum teaching “the history of all people who have been oppressed and the civil rights movements that have led to social justice and queer studies.”

 

The gay-friendly school to be called “Pride Campus” was quietly put on hold after Duncan’s appointment as Secretary of Education was announced.

 

Third, the Stimulus calls for Obama “change” by giving government control over access to medical treatments plus surveillance over online medical records for every American. Giving bureaucrats the power to decide which procedures have “clinical effectiveness” and may be used means nationalizing the health care industry and rationing medical care.

 

Fourth, the Stimulus greatly expands by about $23 billion nearly every element of the welfare state, including food stamps, Medicaid eligibility, EITC, WIC, and child-support enforcement for single moms. The Governors have just awakened up to the fact that the Stimulus will require their states to raise business taxes if they accept this new free money.

 

Fifth, Obama’s claim that the Stimulus cuts taxes is a fraud. A large percentage of the alleged tax “refunds” is just another handout because it will go to people who don’t owe any income taxes.

 

Sixth, the announced purpose of the Stimulus is to create jobs, but Obama’s photo-op to illustrate this at Caterpillar Tractor in Peoria turned into a political donnybrook. National television showed Obama speaking to some of the 20,000 whose jobs have been outsourced by Caterpillar and implied that the Stimulus will enable them to be rehired.

 

Minutes later, Obama was contradicted by Caterpillar’s CEO who warned that, on the contrary, more layoffs are coming. It looks like the Stimulus will create more government jobs plus an estimated 300,000 jobs for illegal aliens, but not much for anyone else.


State lawmakers telling Obama-messiah “Don’t Tread on Me!”

March 2, 2009

flag-dont-tread-on-me-42The headline on the below news article is just a little bit misleading. 

 

State lawmakers aren’t joining the state sovereignty movement to protest the so-called “economic stimulus” bill, per se. 

 

No, they are doing so to protest Obama-messiah’s huge federal power grab, which in essence is consolidating all power in the federal government, and destroying the intent of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which affirms that the powers of the federal government are strictly limited, and that any power not specifically reserved to the federal government belongs instead to the people and the states. 

 

In other words, state governments are moving to protect the liberty of the people, and the Constitutional sovereignty of the states they live in.

 

The news article says these resolutions are “largely symbolic.”  Yes, they are.  But they are signs. Warnings.  Great big billboards, so to speak, telling the federal government under Obama-messiah that if he doesn’t back off, the states are ready to hold his feet to the hot fire of the U.S. Constitution. 

 

I have repeatedly stated that the time will come when people will look back on the Bush years with longing, because they failed to realize that as “bad” as they thought Bush was, this Stuttering Messiah they elected is a power-hungry monster, by comparison. 

 

We can only hope the state sovereignty movement continues to gain ground.  If nothing else, it fires a warning shot over the bow of the federal behemoth, crying out in no uncertain terms “Don’t Tread on Me!”

 

— Spencer

 

 

Some lawmakers declaring state sovereignty to protest stimulus

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090302/ap_on_re_us/states_rights_stimulus

 

CONCORD, N.H. – For small-government die-hards, the $787 billion economic stimulus bill recently passed by Congress isn’t a life saver. It’s the last straw.

 

Lawmakers across the country are sponsoring resolutions — most of them only symbolic — asserting state sovereignty, in effect the right to ignore any federal law or policies they deem unconstitutional, including the stimulus bill, the No Child Left Behind Act and any new assault rifle ban.

 

In New Hampshire, the House is scheduled to vote on Republican state Rep. Daniel Itse’s resolution Wednesday. Supporters are planning a rally at the Statehouse before the vote.

 

“I think that the specter of some assaults on our liberty have become so real and immediate that there is a reaction,” Itse said.

 

Lawmakers in at least 15 states are sponsoring similar resolutions. They say they’re fighting back against decades of federal overreach, culminating in the stimulus package.

 

“This has been a progression from (the New Deal) days to today, with the only break being Ronald Reagan,” South Carolina state Rep. Michael Pitts said by e-mail. Pitts, a Republican, has a resolution pending in the South Carolina House. “The stimulus bill is simply propellant for the resistance.”

 

In January, 22 percent of those surveyed by the Pew Research Center disapproved of the stimulus. That number rose to 34 percent in February. The survey — which polled about 1,300 respondents — has a sampling margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

 

Two lawmakers say they have received hundreds of calls from constituents supporting their resolutions. Michigan state Rep. Paul Opsommer, a Republican, said about 250 people have called or e-mailed to say thank you, whereas most of his bills draw fewer than 10 messages.

 

Missouri Republican state Rep. Cynthia Davis, whose resolution is pending in the House, said she has received at least 200 supportive messages from constituents and residents in other states.

 

“I’m getting letters from all over the country,” Davis said. “It’s really a beautiful thing, watching the spirit of the American Revolution come back.”

 

Resolution sponsors cite the 10th Amendment, which says the federal government has no authority beyond the powers granted to it under the Constitution.

 

Several governors — mainly Republican — have threatened to reject some of the stimulus money, claiming it would raise taxes in their states. Some analysts see the revolt as partisan posturing.

 

But Opsommer, who thinks the stimulus has spurred many of the resolutions, said in an e-mail that the states’ rights movement transcends party politics.

 

“Some Democrats feel it is an attack on Obama until I explain I also introduced it last year,” said Opsommer, whose resolution is pending in the Michigan House. “This is about the rights of the states and the people, not anything to do with Republicans or Democrats.”

 

A Democrat in Kentucky, state Rep. John Will Stacy, is the prime sponsor of a sovereignty resolution in that state. He did not immediately return calls.

 

The Oklahoma House recently passed a resolution from Republican state Sen. Randy Brogdon. Most of the resolutions are nonbinding, but Brogdon’s would have the force of law if it passed the Senate.

 

Oklahoma’s Democratic governor and attorney general would likely refuse to enforce the resolution, Brogdon acknowledges.

 

Karl Kurtz, a policy analyst at the National Conference of State Legislatures, couldn’t say how many sovereignty resolutions Congress has received in prior years, but he suspects the current craze is no accident.

 

“In the case of the sovereignty resolutions it appears to be an organized campaign,” Kurtz said, adding that states’ rights activists may have influenced the sponsors.

 

New Hampshire’s Itse has ties to the Free State Project, which urges small government activists to move to New Hampshire. Many project members also belong to the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance, a states’ rights group listing Itse as its political director.

 

“Anybody who’s willing to stand up and make a statement like that is a special friend,” said project spokesman Calvin Pratt. “I just wish we had thought of it first.”

 

Some in New Hampshire wish no one had thought of it. Richard Hesse, professor emeritus of constitutional law at the Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, said Itse’s resolution could strip authority from state leaders, as well as from Congress and the president.

 

“When you think about this claim that if a state believes a federal law is unconstitutional it can just ignore it, then I presume if a county believed a state law was unconstitutional it could just ignore it,” Hesse said. “Really what’s implicit in this is an unwillingness to recognize a lawful authority.”