A MUST SEE VIDEO!!!
This is the best anti-Obama video ever made!
From the Jewish Task Force
Just a Thought
Friday, July 27, 2012
Why Obama-Backed UN Treaties Can’t Trample Constitution
By Doug Book / The Western Center for Journalism
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s expected signing of the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty has once again raised the question of whether the terms of a treaty can take precedence over—even nullify—the rights acknowledged and secured by the Constitution of the United States.
But the Supreme Court has more than once decided against the propaganda of the new world order crowd. In the landmark case Reid v Covert, the Court ruled”…no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.” In short, as “[the Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty,” the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land, and treaties may neither supplant nor amend it.
However, treaty articles have been willfully applied in the U.S. regardless of constitutional requirements or Supreme Court decisions. A century ago, Theodore Roosevelt signed and implemented the terms of a treaty “..for two years before the Senate acted.” He later stated that he “…would have continued it until the end of [his] term, if necessary, without any action by Congress.” Roosevelt claimed, “the Constitution did not explicitly give me power to bring about the necessary agreement with Santo Domingo. But the Constitution did not forbid my doing what I did.” (3)
Would a re-elected Obama follow Roosevelt’s example by pressing the Arms Trade Treaty on the American public? Certainly, the Eric Holder Department of Justice would have no compunction about enforcing this latest of Obama’s unconstitutional schemes to undermine the 2nd Amendment. And how could the combined might and authority of the executive branch be prevented from exploiting the terms of this document in a federal assault on the right to keep and bear arms?
The Reid Court wrote that “…an international accord that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution.” But if Barack Obama was willing to inflict the unconstitutional terms of a treaty on the American people, he would certainly be willing to ignore any Court ruling that sought to prevent it.
Though Congress has the authority to nullify a treaty legislatively and federal courts have the power to overturn any unconstitutional terms, the American public has learned that neither of these institutions can be trusted with the defense of the Constitution or the rights it secures. Should Barack Obama win re-election, it will be up to the people to defend their 2nd Amendment rights. And that could make for a very messy affair.
Democrats Just Voted Against Small Business
By: Fritz Pfister
However there was good news on July 25th when Democrats heard the call; we must do something to help the private sector create jobs.
So every single Democratic senator, excluding the retiring Lieberman, and Webb, voted to raise taxes on small businesses, all but guaranteeing to slow the economy further. It passed Harry Reid’s senate 51-48.
Please don’t fall for the Democrat’s outright deception that this won’t impact 97% of small businesses.
Although technically correct when you exclude the millions of Mom and Pop shops, the three percent that would be impacted represent tens of thousands with millions of employees. Somebody’s not going to be hiring when their tax bill goes up.
Why was this good news? Just as with Obama’s Freudian moment when he told the truth about how he feels about business, ‘you didn’t make that happen’, ‘you didn’t build that’; every Democratic senator just showed people they side with Obama’s top down authoritarian government philosophy. Jobs be damned, small businesses be damned, we place party over small businesses.
All in the name of taxing the rich which will help how? It will be as negligible as a five hundred pound man losing an ounce. If you are foolish enough to believe this new found revenue would go to pay down the debt.
Now we can have our moment of truth in America. Obama proves he doesn’t care for capitalism in Osawatomie when denying America’s history when he said ‘free market economies don’t work and never have.’
Guess it was government all along who invented, invested, risked, created the highest standard of living in world history? A totally preposterous claim, and asinine expectation that people would believe such notions.
After all there are roads and bridges in Mexico. Wonder why so many want to flee such government largesse?
Obama proves in his latest non-teleprompter moment of truth he doesn’t believe in the individual, or God given unalienable rights with his collectivist speech.
Obama: “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business–you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the internet so that all the companies could make money off the internet.
The speech Obama is desperately trying to walk back. It shows his ideology to be counter what most Americans have been taught. Excepting only those who have believed their liberal indoctrination in public schools, universities, and mass media.
That we are unique individuals, with souls, hopes, dreams, and aspirations. In America you have the equal opportunity to achieve those aspirations if you are willing to work. That America acknowledges that all men were created equal with unalienable God given rights that the government was formed to protect.
Until Obama. The collectivist’s wealth redistribution philosophy cannot succeed if the individual has a right to their property, their labor, their earnings. How can the government take lawfully earned property as the citizen pursues their dreams?
You just witnessed it in the U.S. Senate. Every Democrat running for reelection voted in lock step with Obama’s anti-business, anti-capitalist, and anti-individual agenda in favor of the all powerful authoritarian state.
Fortunately the house will kill the senate’s attack on small business and individual liberty.
So this week we finally have good news. The distinction between Romney and Obama has been made crystal clear.
People will either vote to empower an authoritarian central state under Obama and a ruling elite, or they will vote for Romney who will begin the process of returning America to being, well, America.
Not a moment too soon for the housing market. After last week’s giddy liberal press reporting an increase in single family permits to the most since 2010 the air was let out of the balloon this week when reporting new home sales fell the most in over a year in June. Existing home sales also fell.
Obama is now on the campaign trail telling America his plan worked. Really?
Mr. President America will let you know on November 6th if they believe your plan worked, if they believe in your authoritarian top down government, and if they want to reelect the goose stepping Democrats to the senate.
Napolitano: ‘Historically’ DHS Hasn’t Vetted U.S. Citizens Against No-Fly List Before They Take Flight Lessons
Posted by: Robert Spencer / Jihad Watch
Oh, well, then, we should never ever vet them! "Napolitano: ‘Historically’ DHS Hasn’t Vetted U.S. Citizens Against No-Fly List Before They Take Flight Lessons," by Edwin Mora for CNS News, July 25 (thanks to Ron):
(CNSNews.com) -- Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told lawmakers today that, historically, her department has chosen not to vet U.S. citizens against the no-fly list before they take flight lessons at American flight-training schools because the law that deals with screening such people is unclear.
However, when asked to comment on a Tranportation Security Administration (TSA) official who said that U.S. citizens on the no-fly list are not vetted prior to taking flight lessons, Napolitano said, back on July 19, that the official may not be aware of all the security precautions in place to stop a no-fly list person from getting a pilot’s license.
Maintained by the U.S. government’s Terrorist Screening Center (TSC), the no-fly list is comprised of individuals who are not allowed to board a commercial aircraft for travel in and out of the United States. The list, created in response to the 9/11 attacks, contains about 10,000 names, including that of U.S. citizens.
At a hearing today of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the ranking-member of the committee, asked Napolitano, “Last week, we were told that American citizens can be trained to fly planes and not be vetted against the no-fly list. We were told that foreigners are vetted through a robust process -- that would only start once they are cleared. The question was whether or not a process can be put where anyone, before they’re admitted into a flight school, would be vetted and the testimony from the department at that time was it couldn’t be done. Have you looked at that since that testimony was presented to this committee?”
“I have,” said Napolitano.
Rep. Thompson then asked, “What is your position on it?”
Napolitano said, “Well, the answer is yes, there’s a distinction between U.S. citizens and foreign persons who are seeking to get flight training. With respect to U.S. citizens who may be on one of our watch-lists, they’re a variety of ways that we can and do keep abreast of their activities.”
“I don’t want to go into those in open setting, but the law is somewhat unclear as to whether we can vet a U.S. citizen prior to their application for certification from the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration],” said Napolitano.
“So the department historically has taken the position that we cannot formally vet them, any U.S. citizen before that application,” she said.
Later, a ranking committee member said, “Right now, you also admit that that’s a problem,” in reference to the non-formal vetting of U.S. citizens on the no-fly list who want to attend flight school.
Napolitano said, “It can be a gap, but, again, let me just say it can be a gap that would be easily filled a number of ways and those for whom we actually have watch-list information, there’s a variety of ways we receive information about possible flight school training, but it would be nice to tidy up the law a little bit.”...Yes, it would be so very nice!
Landmark case: Government argues that Islam is political
Pamela Geller has the amazing story of today's hearing on our AFDI lawsuit against Detroit SMART transit:
What began as a clear first amendment issue has exploded into a landmark case regarding the the status of Islam as a political entity. Today the Detroit Transit Authority (SMART), a government entity, argued before the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals that our "Leaving Islam" ad was political because Islam is political. At least two of the three judges seemed to go along.
If the Court rules against us, it will be ruling that Islam is political and that Sharia is a political program -- something that other government agencies have strenuously denied. If that happens, will Islam and Sharia deserve the protection of a religion?
The case was argued today before 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Judges Raymond Kethledge, John Marshall Rogers and Algenon L. Marbley. Chris Hildebrand, the lawyer for Detroit SMART, began by referring to and based his whole argument on our recent victory over the New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority in another First Amendment case about a completely different ad (a pro-Israel ad). Hildebrand argued that the Judge in that case, Paul Engelmayer, had said that that ad was political, and thus that the MTA had to accept it in accord with their guidelines. Hildebrand asserted that our "Leaving Islam?" bus ad, which Detroit SMART rejected, was also political, and thus was rightly rejected by SMART, which (in contrast to the MTA) does not take political ads. His client, said Hildebrand, does not reject ads because they're provocative (as he claimed that ours was), or controversial, but because they're political, and SMART does not and will not take political positions.
Judge Rogers then told him that he had gotten SMART into a "blurry area" to be making a distinction between the political and religious. Hildebrand countered that while the ad may be anti-Islam, anti-Muslim, and anti-Sharia (actually it was designed wholly and solely to offer help to people whose lives were threatened), it was also political. Judge Marbley then pointed out that an imam, who would issue a fatwa (referring to the part of our ad that asked, "Is your family threatening you? Is there a fatwa on your head?") was not an elected official.
Hildebrand then dropped the bomb that has extraordinary implications for the debate about anti-Sharia laws and the status of Islam in the United States: he said that yes, imams have a religious function, but they also "control Sharia law," and Sharia is political. Marbley said that that might be so in Iran, but not in Detroit, where they had a purely religious function.
Hildebrand then dug in even deeper, saying that imams in Dearborn deal with Sharia on both a religious and political basis. When Marbley then asked him how our ad was different from one that SMART accepted from an atheist group, calling on people to become atheists, Hildebrand said that it differed because Islam is not only religious, but also a "political series of laws."
Marbley then pointed out that the same thing could be said about the Catholic Church, since the Vatican was a political entity, and that could be used to rule out advertising from Catholic groups. Hildebrand then argued that our ad was both religious and political, and that the reference to a fatwa made it primarily political and not religious -- which would only be true if Sharia itself is primarily political and not religious.
Judge Kethledge seemed to go along with this argument, telling our own lawyer, Robert Muise (who ably argued for our side), that Sharia is "arguably" political as well as religious. Judge Rogers then outrageously compared our ad to an ad repeating a vile and disgusting blood libel against the Jews as part of Jewish law (which it most certainly is not, but the death penalty for apostasy most certainly is part of the sharia) -- showing the truth of his and Marbley's admission that they knew next to nothing about Islam (or Jewish law). Clearly they were unaware of Islam's death penalty for apostasy. If they did, they would never have said that our public service ad constituted "scorn and ridicule."
Kethledge clearly had his mind made up already, getting testy with Muise and helping Hildebrand with his case, inviting him when he returned to the stand to explain why our ad -- designed to save lives -- constituted "scorn and ridicule" of Muslims and thus was also disallowed on those grounds according to SMART's guidelines. This entangled SMART in a self-contradiction: Hildebrand said that they didn't disallow our ad because it was "controversial" but also that our ad constituted "scorn and ridicule" -- but none of the judges seemed to notice and certainly no one challenged Hildebrand on this. Hildebrand did not, and could not, explain why our ad constituted scorn and ridicule, and instead simply kept asserting that it did. He did not argue his case persuasively, but with Kethledge and also Rogers so clearly on his side, he had a clear advantage.
If SMART wins, however, the implications for the status of Islam and Sharia as political will be enormous. Incalculable. SMART may end up winning the battle for Sharia in the U.S., but losing the war.
Obama plans massive 2nd-term amnesty for illegals
Program would immediately register new Americans to vote
There are also designs to remove the caps on H-1B visas and green cards, a move that would bring in an untold number of new immigrants.
The schemes and many more are documented in the soon-to-be-released book “Fool Me Twice: Obama’s Shocking Plans for the Next Four Years Exposed.”
The book, by New York Times bestselling authors Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott, uncovers the template for Obama’s next four years – the actual, extensive plans created by Obama’s own top advisers and progressive strategists.
The second-term amnesty plans come in the form of interagency directives, legislative attempts and a series of executive orders similar to Obama’s June 2012 order to stop deporting young illegal immigrants who entered the United States as children if they meet certain requirements.
One section of “Fool Me Twice” documents how key progressive groups, including the Center for American Progress, helped to craft the dictates placed in the 645-page “Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America’s Security and Prosperity Act of 2009.”
The act, introduced Dec. 15, 2009, by Reps. Solomon Ortiz, D-Texas, and Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., with 91 original co-sponsors, has yet to pass.
The bill’s provisions, however, form the generalized basis for the progressive organizations’ specific policy reports and recommendations on how Obama should approach the issue of amnesty, including during a second term. These same organizations were instrumental in helping to craft Obama’s first-term policies on immigration reform, Klein and Elliott show.
Specific amnesty plans documented in “Fool Me Twice” include a call for new restrictions placed on apprehending illegal aliens who are members of a newly defined “vulnerable population.”
The “vulnerable population” definition includes “individuals who provide financial, physical and other direct support to their minor children, parents or other dependents”—in other words, most illegal aliens inside the U.S.
See the “Fool Me Twice” trailer: http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/obama-plans-massive-2nd-term-amnesty-order-for-illegals/
Also grouped into the “vulnerable population” definition are “individuals who have been determined by a medically trained professional to have medical or mental health needs.” The specific mental or health needs are not defined.
Progressive policy reports delivered to the White House, mirrored by directives in the amnesty bill, invent a new class of illegals – those from “community-based” and “faith-based” organizations.
The amnesty plan would make it illegal to apprehend “undocumented” persons in the “premises or in the immediate vicinity of a childcare provider; a school; a legal-service provider; a federal court or state court proceeding; an administrative proceeding; a funeral home; a cemetery; a college, university, or community services agency; a social service agency; a hospital or emergency care center; a health care clinic; a place of worship; a day care center; a head start center; a school bus stop; a recreation center; a mental health facility; and a community center.”
The plans also prohibit the apprehension of pregnant or disabled illegals.
Unrestricted visas, green cards
Other second-term progressive immigration plans documented in “Fool Me Twice” call for more immigrants to enter the U.S. legally.
The Center for American Progress, called the “idea center” of the Obama White House, highlighted those plans in a January 2012 report, “Immigration for Innovation: How to Attract the World’s Best Talent While Ensuring America Remains the Land of Opportunity for All.”
The center’s recommendations include eliminating the cap on the number of the H-1B visas provided to foreigners.
H-1B is the most widely used high-skilled immigration classification for temporary workers. Currently, the system is regulated by a congressionally established annual cap set at about 85,000 H-1B visas per year.
The CAP report also states the country isn’t giving out enough green cards. Currently, about 140,000 employment-based permanent visas, or “green cards,” are available each year. CAP asks the White House to remove the cap on those highly restricted visas.
The 2009 amnesty bill that “Fool Me Twice” shows forms the basis for future legislative and executive policies, makes precisely the same CAP arguments for lifting the cap on visas in a section titled “Visa Reform.”
The bill’s solution, however, is to take the regulation of legal immigration away from Congress and vest it in an agency within the executive branch. The so-called Commission on Immigration and Labor Markets would establish “employment-based immigration policies that promote America’s economic growth and competitiveness while minimizing job displacement, wage depression and unauthorized employment in the United States.”
The executive branch, under the plan, would determine the number of new immigrants, as well as the people to whom visas would be issued.
Register new legals as voters.
“Fool Me Twice” documents specific, second-term progressive plans for government agencies to immediately register as voters the new Americans who would receive amnesty.
One such plan is outlined in a 32-page report from the progressive think tank Demos, “From Citizenship to Voting: Improving Registration for New Americans.”
Demos, like CAP, has been highly influential in crafting White House policy.
This particular Demos report was authored by Tova Andrea Wang, a senior fellow at both Demos and a group called the Century Foundation, which works closely with the Center for American Progress.
The Demos report calls for the United States Citizenship and Immigrant Services, the USCIS, to fully implement a new policy to ensure “new Americans” are provided with a voter registration application at all administrative naturalization ceremonies.
Ultimately, USCIS should be designated as a full voter registration agency under the National Voter Registration Act so that every newly naturalized American is automatically given the opportunity to register to vote.
The report also calls for state and local elections officials to be proactive in registering new citizens to vote by reaching out to their communities through every possible means.
Klein and Elliott explain how they documented Obama’s second-term blueprint on amnesty.
The president’s first-term signature policies, including the “stimulus,” defense initiatives and Obamacare, were crafted over years by key progressive think tanks and activists, usually first promoted in extensive research and policy papers, the authors document.
Some first-term policies were even recycled and modified from older legislative attempts that had previously been pushed by progressive Democrats, the authors show. Klein and Elliott, for example, documented the way in which progressive legislation and research papers that traced back to 2002 and, in some cases even to the 1990s, eventually made their way into what became Obama’s health care bill.
The Center for American Progress and Demos are two of more than a dozen key progressive groups behind some of Obama’s first term agenda. These same progressive groups and key activists have been hard at work mapping out secondterm recommendations for Obama.
CAP is run by John Podesta, a former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton who was co-chairman of President Obama’s 2008 White House transition team.
Podesta and CAP have had heavy influence on the crafting of White House policy. CAP routinely releases policy reports that are reportedly used in the formulation of Obama administration policy.
A Time magazine article profiled the influence of Podesta’s Center for American Progress in the formation of the Obama administration, stating that “not since the Heritage Foundation helped guide Ronald Reagan’s transition in 1981 has a single outside group held so much sway.”
The article branded the CAP as the “idea factory” of the Obama administration.
Several former Obama administration officials have joined CAP. Donald Berwick, who served as head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services until last December, just joined the liberal think tank when he stepped down.
Former EPA Commissioner Carol Browner is a CAP distinguished senior fellow, as is Van Jones, Obama’s former “green” jobs czar who resigned in 2009 after it was exposed he founded a communist revolutionary organization and implied the Bush administration may have been involved in the 9/11 attacks.
Sen. Tom Daschle, Obama’s first choice as secretary of health and human services, is a CAP alumnus.
Slated for release Aug. 7 by WND Books, “Fool Me Twice: Obama’s Shocking Plans for the Next Four Years Exposed.” unveils all the main areas of Obama’s second-term domestic policy onslaught – jobs, wages, health care, immigration “overhaul,” electoral “reform,” national energy policy, Pentagon plans and much more.
“Just as ‘Unfit for Command’ provided the margin of defeat for John Kerry in 2004, ‘Fool Me Twice’ will ensure Obama serves only one term,” said WND Books publisher Joseph Farah.
Just as in 2008, when Obama concealed his true presidential plans behind the rhetoric of ending partisan differences and cutting the federal deficit, his 2012 re-election theme of creating jobs conceals far more than it reveals about his true agenda for a second term.
Most conservative books about Obama focus on his radical background and what he has done until now. A small number of ambitious projects attempt to show what America may look like after four more years of Obama based on generalities and what the president has already done.
While many are expressing general concerns over Obama’s future ambitions, “Fool Me Twice” lays bare the devastating details and consequences of a second Obama term as president.
The book is based on exhaustive research into Obama’s upcoming detailed presidential plans and policies, as well as the specific second-term recommendations of major “progressive” groups behind Obama and the Democratic leadership – the organizations that help craft legislation and set the political and rhetorical agenda for the president and his allies.
Here are a few highlights of dozens and dozens of second-term plans uncovered in “Fool Me Twice”:
- Government-funded, neighborhood-based programs to better integrate the newly amnestied immigrants into society, including education centers and health care centers. A “federal solution” to ensure that the amnestied immigrants are treated “equitably” across the United States.
- The recreation of a 21st century version of FDR’s Works Progress Administration program within the Department of Labor that would oversee a massive new bureaucracy and millions of new federal jobs.
- Specific plans for a National Infrastructure Bank.This entity would “evaluate and finance infrastructure projects of substantial regional and national importance” and would finance “transportation infrastructure, housing, energy, telecommunications, drinking water, wastewater, and other infrastructures.”
- Wresting control of the military budget from Congress by attempting to place an ”independent panel” in charge of military spending while slashing the defense budget in shocking ways.
- The vastly reduced resources of the U.S. Armed Forces will be spread even thinner by using them to combat “global warming,” fight global poverty, remedy “injustice,” bolster the United Nations and step up use of “peacekeeping” deployments.
- A new “green” stimulus program and the founding of a federal “green” bank or “Energy Independence Trust,” which would borrow from the federal treasury to provide low-cost financing to private-sector investments in “clean energy.”
- Detailed plans to enact single-payer health care legislation controlled by the federal government.
His previous books include “Red Army,” “The Manchurian President,” “The Late Great State of Israel” and “Schmoozing with Terrorists.”
Brenda J. Elliott is an award-winning historian, researcher and New York Times bestselling author. She is the blogger who created RezkoWatch, The Real Barack Obama, RBO and RBO2. She has appeared on hundreds of radio shows, contributed to numerous investigative articles and publications and is the co-author of “Red Army” and “The Manchurian President”.
A racist lives in the White House
By: Diane Sori
Thanks to Barack Hussein Obama our nation, where the black/white color lines were starting to blur, is now more divided then ever not along black/white lines but along black VERSES white lines.
Very sad and very dangerous indeed, and all because Obama became a president NOT of all the people but just the people whose votes he could buy with freebies, handouts, and welfare checks. Unfortunately most of them are blacks and other minorities.
It started in 2004 at the Democratic National Convention when Obama, at the Clinton’s insistence, gave the keynote speech. That one speech catapulted this unknown senator into the national limelight. But few blacks believed that Obama’s sudden rise to fame meant the days of racism were over. If anything, they feared a backlash of racism against them NOT realizing that this one man would be the catalyst to actually set race relations back decades and bring to the forefront all the old hatreds we thought long gone.
Remember after 9/11 the all-out patriotism that swept across America, patriotism so strong that people of all colors thought our country might have finally left the racial divide behind. But then Katrina happened and the racial divide again reared its ugly head with pictures out of New Orleans showing that inequalities still exist. Inequalities that were once carefully hidden away and not spoken of, now were being exposed by the media as they laid the ground for things to come.
Now let’s fast forward to Obama’s usurping of the presidency in 2008 and make NO mistake...usurp he did. With the media so gung-ho for America to have its first black president, they anointed him to that office even before the first vote was cast. The media created the Obama myth; the media manufactured, fed into and encouraged the hype; and the media bought the election for a man ill equipped to handle so important a job.
And most importantly, the media did NOT vet him nor allow him to be vetted or worse...they did vet him and helped cover-up what was found as America having its first black president superseded all (even though Barack Hussein Obama is technically NOT America’s first black president but is America’s first bi-racial/mixed race president).
Also remember the media did NOT report until it was too late to intercede on the dead voting, the multiple votes cast by the same person, the ILLEGALS voting, the voter intimidation by the New Black Panthers and Acorn, the list of voting atrocities is long but it didn’t matter to the media as America having its first pseudo black president trumped all.
The media created the Obama myth about a man who was anything but the moderate post racial, post radical individual he tried to portray himself to be. The media covered up the fact that, to put it bluntly, Barack Hussein Obama hates white people especially wealthy white people. And the media knew this and yet this was the man they wanted to be president, this was the man they paraded around as the savior of us all.
But as much as the media tries to cover up the fact that Obama himself hates whites, they aren't as successful with his wife, Mrs. "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country..." Michelle Obama, a Black Liberation Theologist of the first degree,who hates whites even more than Obama does. Her actions and words even the media can't mask.
And now as this election season gears up to be one of the dirtiest on record, Obama himself tries in every way possible to open up the old wounds as he feeds the hatred with his own special brand of vitriol.
One case in point, “If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin.” With that one statement Obama inserted himself right in the middle of a case that he had NO business inserting himself into at all. And tell me why when the New Black Panthers and Hollywood’s Spike Lee very publicly declared that they wanted to find and kill George Zimmerman did Obama NOT step in and open his BIG mouth then.
Let’s cut to the chase here and tell it like it is...it was because Trayvon Martin was black and George Zimmerman was white.
And even after this happened Obama still had the nerve to say that it was "absolutely imperative" that all aspects of the incident be fully vetted at every level of government.
Tell me why what should have been a local incident has to be fully vetted at every level of government, especially with those words coming from a man who wasn’t vetted at all. But I know why...he needs to play the race card for after all it’s all he’s got as he can’t run a successful campaign based on his miserable presidential record.
And let’s not forget all the years Obama sat in Reverend Wright’s G-D America church and listened to that disgrace of a clergyman preach the mantra of black victimization and national conspiracy on the part of whites to keep black people down.
Then there's Obama playing the race card against Arizona's non-racial-profiling law, Obama's saying Israel is suspicious of him because of his middle name (when in reality it’s because of his outright hatred of Israel and the Jewish people who are not only for the most part white but also are the only people in the Middle East who are not his muslim brethren), his newest Executive Order where he calls for favoritism to be given to black students in relation to college scholarships, the increase in unreported or under reported by the media violence of blacks against whites, the list of Obama’s overt racism goes on and on.
Is Obama deliberately trying to ignite a race war before the election as some keep saying...personally, I don’t believe so, because even he knows that is one war he will NOT win, but I do believe he is trying to play the infamous race card in a last ditch attempt to try to save his flailing re-election bid.
And even with all this, Barack Hussein Obama remains the media’s darling and for the life of me I can’t understand why. What does the media get for kowtowing to an overt racist; what do they get for helping promote his special brand of racial hatred; what do they get by promoting a man who so hates this country...don’t they realize that after he uses them he will toss them out like yesterday’s news.
If anybody knows, please tell me because I just don’t get it.