Obama Sucks - The worst President ever, by far

Socialism is a liberal disorder!

This Guy is a professional bait and switch con artist.

What were those American Dumbshits thinking? What is this lier doing running our once great Nation 14-minutes of pure hog wash from OBAMANATION - WOW!
http://youtu.be/nDDbTaWpwoc

Speech that got Breitbart assassinated by Obama (NDAA)

http://www.youtube.com/v/zS1CacgMWIs?autohide=1&version=3&showinfo=1&attribution_tag=bUPxDbPfVoJv_6qXH0NeBA&autohide=1&autoplay=1&feature=share

Obama is a Shithead!

Reagan Obamanation

7 Lies In Under 2 Minutes

http://www.youtube.com/v/UErR7i2onW0?autohide=1&version=3&showinfo=1&attribution_tag=oS3dC2zOSo505sO8uA8Gtw&autohide=1&feature=share&autoplay=1

The battle between Obama and the Republicans is a sad and pitiful...

America's Civil War: "On one side there is no consensus and no law; only sheer will. On the other there is a body of legal traditions going back centuries"

Can a government be considered in rebellion against a nation’s laws and its established order? 

That is the bizarre situation we find ourselves in. There is no shot fired at Fort Sumter. Instead a million conspirators tear apart and remake the system in countless ways on a daily basis while the leadership remains in open rebellion of the laws that it is obligated to abide by and enforce.

This is as good as any analysis and understanding that I have seen of what's happening. Read it all. It says what so many of us are thinking. We are already in a civil war. But the Republicans are still playing by rules despite the Democrats rejection of American law, as magnificent a system that has ever been created and instituted by any nation in human history. We are witnessing, with incredulity and horror, the American system of governance steamrolled by looters, moochers and destroyers.

The Supersessionists of the Liberal Confederacy Daniel Greeenfield

The battle between Obama and the Republicans is a sad and pitiful contest for the same reason that a baseball game in which one side plays by the rules and the other one races the bases in motorcycles and shoots the balls over the fence with an RPG.

Ted Cruz has come the closest to understanding that the other side just doesn’t play by any rules, but lacks the leverage to make much of that. Cruz is still a product of a system in which there are rules. And that system is as unfit for challenging the left-wing radicals running things as trying to play a game of chess against an opponent who feels like moving the pieces any which way he feels like and always claims to have won.

Law is a consensus. If you stop keeping the law, the police arrest you. If a gang of left-wing radicals in a basement somewhere stopped following the law, they might be locked up. It’s not a certain thing considering that mad bomber Bill Ayers is a university professor. But once those same left-wing radicals control much of the system and the media that reports on the system, they have no reason to follow the law.

Political factions agree to follow the law for mutual benefit. The Constitution had to be agreed upon by just about everyone. The left-wing radicals in Rhode Island who were making everyone pledge allegiance to their worthless paper currency while threatening to nationalize everything refused and had to be forced in with threats of military intervention and trade embargoes.

But in the end they got the last laugh.

The United States has never really had full-bore left-wing radicals running it before. It does now.

Media outlets breathlessly report on Tea Party radicalism, which consists of wanting to undo the judicial activism of the last century. Meanwhile Obama and his cronies just ignore any law they don’t like and rule by fiat.

Which of these is more radical? The Tea Party activists who would like to revisit the debate over the Tenth Amendment or an administration that does anything it pleases and challenges an impotent judiciary and an even more impotent legislature to stand in its way?

The Tea Party activists would like to revise American legal history. Their left-wing opponents sweep the whole thing off the table. The Tea Party would like the system to abide by the letter of its legal covenants while their left-wing opponents have “modernized” them by judicial fiat and disregarded them by executive fiat.

The only laws that Obama will follow are those that allow him to do what he wants to do anyway. Like the Caliph who conquered Egypt and declared that if the Library of Alexandria should be burned because if its books contradicted the Koran they were heretical and if they agreed with it they were blasphemous, the entire American system, its laws and regulations, are at best supplementary.

Law is a consensus. But the left rejects that consensus. It subjects each law to an ideological test. If the law meets the ideological test, which is based on social justice criteria entirely foreign to the American legal system, and the practical test of furthering social justice, it can stay. If not, then it will either be struck down or disregarded. They have applied that same ideological test to the nation as a whole and decided that the existence of the United States does not meet their ideological tests.

Political factions in the past may have engaged in bare-knuckle political hostilities but they all agreed that the United States in its past, present and future forms was the proper arena for their disputes and that the maintenance of an objective system of laws was the best way to ensure its perpetuation. When that consensus broke down, a civil war resulted. Now the consensus is in even worse tatters.

It’s not the Tea Party that is the new Confederacy, as popular a media talking point as that may be. The new threat isn’t secessionist, but supersessionist. The new Confederacy isn’t out to break up the Union into territorial slices, but to replace the Union with a new and different Union. Call it the Confederacy of the Community Organizers, the War between the Unions or the Supersession War.

The Supersessionist rebels insist that the Constitution and the old order were superseded a long time ago by the march of history. And the only reason that we don’t call them rebels is because they are in control of almost the entire system of government.

Can a government be considered in rebellion against a nation’s laws and its established order? That is the bizarre situation we find ourselves in. There is no shot fired at Fort Sumter. Instead a million conspirators tear apart and remake the system in countless ways on a daily basis while the leadership remains in open rebellion of the laws that it is obligated to abide by and enforce.

Obama and the Republicans are fighting a civil war which only the Supersessionists of the Liberal Confederacy fully understand.

The Republicans, who for the most part are about as radical as a three-piece suit, are fighting to maintain a consensus in which everyone follows the law and settles their disagreements by hammering out a compromise that keeps the system going. And their opponents disregard the consensus and the system and go on doing what they want while defying anyone to stop them.

You could call it political civil disobedience, the left would certainly like to when dealing with the administration’s radical lawbreaking on immigration or gay marriage, but civil disobedience applies to the civil population, not to their government. Government disobedience isn’t noble or virtuous. The rebellion of governments against the laws they are obligated to enforce is self-righteous tyranny. 

A government in rebellion against the laws is one that asserts that no power, not that of tradition, of the legal covenants that brought the system into being or even the previous votes of the people, is superior to it. That is why the rebellion of the supersessionists is far worse than the rebellions of secessionists. Both the secessionists and the supersessionists reject the consensus, but only the supersessionists insist on forcing a new system of their own making in place of the old consensus.

The unequal contest places liberal rebels looking to trash the system from the top against conservative defenders of an old order fighting from the bottom. The old Nixon vs. Hippies match-up has been flipped over. Nixon is in the crowd of protesters against government abuse and the hippies are laughing at him from the White House. The counterculture has become the culture, but still acts like it’s the counterculture even when it’s running everything.

On one side there is no consensus and no law; only sheer will. On the other there is a body of legal traditions going back centuries.

It’s painfully clear that two such approaches cannot coexist within a single government. And those who have the power and follow no rules have the supreme advantage of wielding government power without the legal restrictions that were meant to bind the abuse of that power.

The Republicans are struggling to find common ground over a mutual respect for the system where none exists. Like any totalitarian radicals, their opponents regard their concern for legalism with contempt.

The radical does not respect process, only outcome. He holds law in contempt, but respects will. While the Republicans debate process, the Democrats steamroll them by focusing only on outcome. Where there is no consensus, then process does not matter. The Democrats treat process as a fiction when it comes to ObamaCare or immigration. And the Republicans struggle to understand why no one holds them accountable without understanding that accountability is also an aspect of process.

The radicalization of the Democratic Party is slowly leading to a counterpart radicalism in the Republican Party. The process is moving far slower because of the vested interests in the way, but every time the radicals of the left displays their contempt for the consensus, they are paving the way for the rise of a Republican Party whose members are more like Ted Cruz than John McCain.

What radicals never understand is that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The process of the consensus exists to safeguard both sides and prevent political battles from spinning out of control. Democrats, under the influence of the radical left, have decided that they can unilaterally transform the country by acting as if the consensus and the process don’t bind them. They have not considered what will happen when a Republican Party that has as much resemblance to its present day leaders as Barack Obama does to Hubert Humphrey makes that same decision.

Liberal supersessionists claim to be worried about conservative secessionists when they should be far more worried about conservative supersessionists. The consensus we all live by is a fragile thing. It is being torn apart by the radical left and once it is destroyed, it will not bind the right, in the same way that it no longer binds the left.

And then the true conflict will begin.

So the question must be... Whom Do We Shoot First?

WE ARE ALL ONE RACE, THE HUMAN RACE!

Proud  to be White!  and, it ain't my fault. I have been wondering about why Whites are racists, and no other race is…???  Michael Richards makes his point... Michael Richards better known as Kramer   from TVs Seinfeld does make a good point.  This was his defense speech in court   after making racial comments in his comedy act.  He makes some very interesting points...   Someone finally said it.   How many are actually paying attention to this?  There are African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans,  Arab Americans, etc.   And then there are just Americans..   You pass me on the street and sneer in my direction.  You call me 'White boy,' 'Cracker,'  'Honkey,' 'Whitey,' 'Caveman'...   And that's OK...  But  when I call you, Nigger, Kike, Towel head, Sand-nigger,   Camel Jockey, Beaner, Gook, or Chink ..  You call me a racist.   You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you....   So why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?  You have the United Negro College Fund.   You have Martin Luther King Day.  You have Black History Month.  You have Cesar Chavez Day.   You have Yom Hashoah.  You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi.  You have the  NAACP.  You have BET....  If we had WET   (White Entertainment Television), we'd be racists.  If  we had a White Pride Day,  you would call us racists.   If we had White History Month, we'd be racists.  If  we had any organization for only whites to 'advance'   OUR lives, we'd be racists. We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black Chamber of Commerce,  and then we just have the plain Chamber of Commerce.  Wonder who pays for that??  A white  woman could not be in the Miss Black American pageant,   but any color can be in the Miss America pageant.  If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships...  You know we'd be racists.   There are over 60 openly proclaimed Black Colleges in the US ..   Yet if there were 'White colleges',   that would be a racist college.  In the Million Man March,   you believed that you were marching for your race and rights.  If we marched for our race and rights,  you would call us racists.   You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange,   and you're not afraid to announce it.  But when we announce our white pride,   you call us racists.   You rob us, car jack us, and shoot at us.  But,   when a white police officer  shoots a black gang member  or beats up a black drug dealer running from the law  and posing a threat to society, you call him a racist.  I am proud......   But you call me a racist.   Why is it that only whites can be racists? - - There is nothing improper about this e-mail.  Let's see which of you are proud enough to send it on.  I sadly don't think many will.  That's why we have LOST most of OUR RIGHTS  in this country. REMEMBER - WE THE PEOPLE? All the people. We won't stand up for ourselves! BE PROUD   TO BE WHITE! BE PROUD TO BE AMERICAN! BE PROUD TO BE ANY COLOR! WE ARE ALL ONE RACE, THE HUMAN RACE! It's not a crime  YET....  But getting very close! It is estimated that ONLY 5%  of those reading this,  will pass it on. I  DID!

President Magariaf was insulted in front of his own people.

A key Benghazi whistle-blower, responding to Democratic claims that the prolonged scrutiny over the administration's botched talking points is unwarranted, testified Wednesday that the early mischaracterization of the attack may have actually hurt the FBI's investigation. 
"I definitely believe that it negatively affected our ability to get the FBI team quickly to Benghazi," said Greg Hicks, the deputy chief of mission in Libya who became the top U.S. diplomat in the country after Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed. He claimed the Libyan president was angered by the mischaracterization, in turn slowing the U.S. probe. 
The claim was one of several new accounts given at Wednesday's high-profile hearing where three whistle-blowers testified. 
Democrats, while giving deference to the officials and their version of events, used the hearing to try and deflect criticism away from the administration. In particular, they rejected the notion that early talking points on the attack were deliberately changed, to downplay terrorism, for political reasons. 
"People who have actually seen the documents, who have actually conducted a real investigation completely reject the allegation that they were made for political purposes," Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass., said.   
But the substance of the claims Wednesday could serve to re-open questions about that deadly night -- and specifically about the initial claim by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice that the attack was triggered by a protest over an anti-Islam film. 
"I think the American people learned today ... the facts as we were told before, during and after Benghazi simply aren't as they were," Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the oversight committee holding the hearing, said.
'I definitely believe that it negatively affected our ability to get the FBI team quickly to Benghazi.'
- Greg Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in Libya
Hicks was asked to respond to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's statement at a prior hearing asking "what difference" do the questions over the talking points make. 
Hicks argued that Rice's comments so insulted the Libyan president -- since they contradicted his Sept. 16 claims that the attack was premeditated -- that it slowed the FBI's investigation. 
"President Magariaf was insulted in front of his own people, in front of the world. His credibility was reduced," Hicks said, adding that the president was apparently "still steamed" two weeks later. 
This bad blood, he claimed, contributed to the FBI team being stuck in Tripoli for about 17 days. He added that the U.S. could not even get the Libyans to secure the crime scene during that time. 
As for Rice's comments that Sunday, when she repeatedly cited the video as the trigger for the attack, Hicks said his "jaw dropped" when he heard that. 
"I was stunned," Hicks said. "My jaw dropped, and I was embarrassed." 
He said Rice never talked to him before those appearances. 
Hicks said the only information coming out of his team was that there was an "attack" on the consulate. "The YouTube video was a non-event in Libya," he said. 
He also claimed that, when he asked a superior about the interviews, he was told "he should not proceed" with his questions. He was later given a "blistering critique" of his management style and effectively demoted to "desk officer," he claimed. 
Hicks' testimony marked some of the most detailed of any delivered Wednesday. He and others also suggested the State Department's internal review into the attack was lacking. Hicks said when he was interviewed by the group, a stenographer was not present. 
In hours of testimony, the witnesses recounted in great detail what happened in eastern Libya on Sept. 11 and how U.S. personnel came under a series of attacks that left four Americans dead. Though Democratic officials have argued the attack has been thoroughly investigated and that the hearing Wednesday was political in nature, the claims challenged several long-standing assertions by the Obama administration. 
The witnesses criticized the lax security at the Benghazi site in the run-up to the attack, and suggested the military did not do all it good to respond to the scene that night despite claims to the contrary. 
Hicks also revealed that it appeared some were trying to lure even more U.S. personnel into a separate "ambush" while the attack was still being carried out. He described how, as diplomatic officials were trying to find out what happened to Stevens, they were receiving phone calls from supposed tipsters saying they knew where the ambassador was and urging Americans to come get him. 
"We suspected that we were being baited into a trap," Hicks said, adding that he did not want to send anybody into what he suspected was an "ambush." 
Getting choked up, Hicks described how the Libyan prime minister later called him to tell him Stevens was in fact dead. "I think it's the saddest phone call I've ever had in my life," he said. 
At the very beginning of the attack, before Stevens went missing and was later found dead, Hicks said his team believed it was terrorism. He said a regional security officer rushed into his villa yelling, "Greg, Greg, the consulate's under attack." 
He then spoke by phone with Stevens who told him the same: "Greg, we're under attack." 
After enduring a night of attacks on the U.S. consulate, Hicks said the team departed at dawn for the nearby annex -- shortly after they arrived, "the mortars came." 
Another whistle-blower questioned Wednesday why more military assets were not deployed sooner during the Benghazi terror attack. Mark Thompson, a former Marine and official with the State Department's Counterterrorism Bureau, said he was rebuffed by the White House when he asked for a specialized team -- known as a FEST team -- to be deployed. This is a unit made of special operations personnel, diplomatic security, intelligence and other officers. 
Suggesting that some were hesitant to deploy because they were unsure what was happening, "One definition of a crisis is you do not know what's going to happen in two hours," he said. 
Further, Hicks explained how a separate team of special forces personnel were not given the authorization to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi. "They were furious," he said. 
Issa defended the witnesses, calling them "actual experts on what really happened before, during and after the Benghazi attacks," who "deserve to be heard." 
The three witnesses were Hicks, Thompson and Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer who was formerly the regional security officer in Libya; and Thompson. 
"I am a career public servant," Hicks said. "Until the aftermath of Benghazi, I loved every day of my job." 
Nordstrom choked up as he began to testify Wednesday.   
Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., top Democrat on the oversight committee, said Wednesday that Republicans are using the witnesses' statements for "political purposes." He said he's glad the whistle-blowers are testifying and would ensure they are protected, but pre-emptively challenged some of their claims -- including the claim that U.S. military could have responded sooner to the site of the attack. 
The Obama administration has adamantly denied several of the latest charges, including a claim that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a key aide tried to cut the department's own counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making on Sept. 11. The administration also denied that the whistle-blowers in question were intimidated -- while behind the scenes questioning the credibility of the witnesses. 
A "fact sheet" released by the department ahead of the hearing reiterated its denials. The statement said the department has "demonstrated an unprecedented degree of cooperation with the Congress" on Libya, and rejected claims that the military was in a position to help that night but was told to stand down. Citing its internal review, the statement noted the review "found no evidence of any undue delays in decision making or denial of support from Washington or from the military combatant commanders."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/08/whistle-blowers-testify-on-benghazi-attacks/#ixzz2Sm3Itncl

National Prayer Breakfast, Thursday, February 7, 2013

Dr. Benjamin Carson, a black pediatric neurosurgeon with Johns Hopkins Hospital, gave this amazing speech at the National Prayer Breakfast, Thursday, February 7, 2013.

Rocks rock

Rocks rock

Gratetful to God

Remember!

About the Lecturer:

Burton Folsom is Charles Kline professor of history and management at Hillsdale College.  He received his Ph.D. from the University of Pittsburgh, and he is the author of seven books, including The Myth of the Robber Barons, and New Deal or Raw Deal? His most recent book is FDR Goes to War, which he co-authored with his wife Anita.

That Obamanation @ Our White House

Most of the time I feel sad.
I do get relief when I look at the big picture. One day he will be out of there.

Did you get a chance to read about your President?
Probably not, due to the lock-Step Media.
I can't quite remember that special guy that said "I have a dream" I was still very young.
Something about judging a man by his content of CHARACTER not by his color of skin...
What is your president doing anyway???

Anyway, here is the main thrust of the news article in The Washington Times that you missed on the last day of March, here it is.
- Obamanation -
...

Sometimes, that perception cuts to the core. Like when President George W. Bush stopped playing golf in 2003, at the height of the Iraq War.

“I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal,” he said years later. “I don’t want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf. I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them.”

That’s also why Mr. Bush did two other things, without fanfare or praise. First, he never headed home to his Texas ranch until after Christmas, instead going to Camp David for a few days. That way, the hundreds of people revolving around him at all times — White House staff, Secret Service agents, reporters, photographers, all the others — could spend the holiday with their families in and around Washington, D.C. No one ever reported that — until this column.

Second, he rarely attended sporting events, although he once owned a baseball team and was a self-confessed stats junkie. His thinking there was the same: If he went to a baseball game (right down the street from the White House), his mere presence would mean hours and hours of extra security for fans. He once stopped off at the Daytona 500 and the metal detectors through which every fan had to pass left thousands outside in line when the green flag fell; he didn’t attend many sporting events after that.

But something remarkable has happened with these occupants of the White House: Neither President Obama nor first lady Michelle appear to give a damn about perception. They won the White House and, by God, they’re going to enjoy their time there, no matter the cost. And who cares what you think, anyway?

How else to explain the nonstop vacations the pair keep taking during what Mr. Obama calls the “worst financial crisis since the Great Depression”? In 2013, the First Family has already enjoyed three vacations — that’s one a month. (Sorry, Joe America, you might have to forget your week at the beach again this year, but make sure you get those taxes in on time!)

The Obamas ended 2012 and kicked off 2013 in an $8 million, 6,000-square-foot house in Hawaii (they left well before Dec. 25, by the way). There, the president played five rounds of golf (breaking the 100-rounds-as-president threshold). Scarcely a month into Term 2, Mrs. Obama headed off for Aspen, taking along the couple’s daughters. Vice President Joseph R. Biden also hit the Colorado slopes. While the girls (and Joe) were gone, Mr. Obama nipped down to Florida for a four-day boys weekend of golf, teeing it up with his buddies — and Tiger Woods. He hit the links again this weekend, then dropped in for an NCAA tournament game in Washington.

Jumpin’ Joe, for his part, spent New Year’s in the Virgin Islands and popped off over the Easter weekend for a golf outing at the glorious Kiawah Island, S.C. (where rounds of golf on the spectacular Ocean Course run $353 — nearly $20 a hole). His third vacation of the year came the same week as reports that he and his entourage spent $460,000 for a single night in London and $585,000 for a night at a five-star hotel in Paris.

Then, last week, reports emerged that the Obama girls were kicking it in the Bahamas for spring break. Days later, a Colorado news station, KMTV, reported that the girls were now skiing in Sun Valley, Idaho. The White House flacks didn’t like that one bit.

Got Character?
Character is:

Trustworthiness

Be honest • Don’t deceive, cheat, or steal • Be reliable — do what you say you’ll do • Have the courage to do the right thing • Build a good reputation • Be loyal — stand by your family, friends, and country

Respect

Treat others with respect; follow the Golden Rule • Be tolerant and accepting of differences • Use good manners, not bad language • Be considerate of the feelings of others • Don’t threaten, hit or hurt anyone • Deal peacefully with anger, insults, and disagreements

Responsibility

Do what you are supposed to do • Plan ahead • Persevere: keep on trying! • Always do your best • Use self-control • Be self-disciplined • Think before you act — consider the consequences • Be accountable for your words, actions, and attitudes • Set a good example for others

Fairness

Play by the rules • Take turns and share • Be open-minded; listen to others • Don’t take advantage of others • Don’t blame others carelessly • Treat all people fairly

Caring

Be kind • Be compassionate and show you care • Express gratitude • Forgive others • Help people in need

Citizenship

Do your share to make your school and community better • Cooperate • Get involved in community affairs • Stay informed; vote • Be a good neighbor • Obey laws and rules • Respect authority • Protect the environment • Volunteer

Dr. Benjamin Carson

John's Hopkins Hospital Pediatric Neurosurgery Division Director

You Tube Video