Tag Archives: obama

Obama and the Commoners

Screen Shot 2015-01-24 at 9.42.44 AMIf you read this blog or follow me on twitter or on facebook, then you know that I am generally NO FAN of president Obama … so it may seem a little strange that I’m actually siding with the same person that I consistently call a moron.

The recent Obama Interviews on Youtube have generated a lot of buzz with the mainstream “conservatives” out there. Of course, most of these “conservatives” are really Republicans using conservative as a buzz-word to broaden their base. In truth, mainstream Republicans and “conservatives” are NOT for smaller government. Sure – they may claim they are for smaller government, but they also support such massive intrusions on our liberties such as The Patriot Act.

con·serv·a·tive  /kənˈsərvətiv/: a person who is averse to increases in governmental power, influence, and regulation. This includes especially the federal level, but also the state and local levels.


But I digress – let’s get back to Obama and Youtube.

He certainly is NOT a king.

Conservatives and Republicans have consistently beat the drum that “Obama is not a King!!” Well, then you idiots need to remember your own drumbeat. He certainly is NOT a king. Conducting Youtube interviews with videobloggers is fine. As a matter of fact I respect that.

Conducting Youtube interviews with videobloggers is fine.

Does that mean I agree with the interviews? No. Does that mean I liked all the questions? No. Am I agreeing with Obama? Hell no.

Oh – but they are not “real reporters”. They don’t “fact check” anything. /sigh

Do I need to remind anyone of how effectively silly those arguments are? Sorry – but while “mainstream” journalists may be “educated” and may be “trained”, that certainly does not mean they are flawless and unbiased. Need I mention Dan Rather and the Killian Documents? Ok – what about Fox’s recent stupid comment about No-Go Zones in Paris?

My point is simple. The internet has already drastically changed the way we both distribute and receive information. It is the “great equalizer”. Obama is NOT a king and the POTUS absolutely should spend time “with the commoners.” Get off your hypocritical high-horses Republicans – this is another example of why I only vote Republican because it is the lesser of 2 evils.

Give me common interviews and information all day long. I’m fine with the unfiltered.

Preaching RUN to the Choir

Runaway Slave is every bit as edgy and as good a documentary as the trailer makes it out to be. The Rev. C. L. Bryant is every bit as down-to-earth as he seems in the movie. So what is wrong? Why aren’t black Americans flocking to see it?

To answer those questions, we need to start with what is right about the movie.

Bryant does a masterful job of uncovering the progressive spin that constantly tries to portray conservatives as white racists. Pointed on-the-street interviews with black marchers demonstrates that like most of the progressive mindset, they just march lock-step with a political line. Revealing the history of the last 100 years of the progressive movement should be enough to open the eyes of anyone and make them take notice.

In my opinion the problem is that the white masters of the progressive movement and the race-hustlers in the black community are going to do everything they can to repress it.

For example, Calvin Lester wouldn’t even respond to my challenge to go see the movie? Why? To ignore the facts and history, means you can continue to keep your base stirred up. It gives you a certain sense of power and leadership. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have made their fortunes doing this very thing.

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste…the opportunity to do things you could not do before.” — Rahm Emanuel

To be fair, Rahm was speaking about perceived energy and economic policy failures. However, what he stated goes to the core foundation of the progressive movement. With a crisis, you can rally people and influence them. People tend to become vulnerable, especially when they are uninformed. The perceived crisis is the oppression of black Americans by the white man. Without this crisis the black masters have no power.

If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill gods who do not belong to the black community. — Dr. James Cone, Black Power and Black Theology


That is black theology or black liberation theology at its core, and that is very dangerous. This is being taught at the spiritual level in many black churches and community meetings. It is hard core racism. It is the very essence of a self-fulfilling prophesy. It is a serious crisis.

The only way in which your repentance, your forgiveness can be authentic, your reception of it can be authentic, your repentance can be authentic, is that you give back what you took — and white people took a lot from black people. — Dr. James Cone, Black Power and Black Theology

Remember Reverend Jeremiah Wright? One of his biggest influencers was Dr. James Cone.

Of course, most liberals would immediately try to dismiss the Wright controversy as it relates to Obama, but the fact is that Wright had a huge influence over the course of 20 years of Obama sitting in his church. Hmmm. Have you noticed that in the last couple of years, Wright has basically been removed from the spotlight? That is because progressives and the race-hustlers don’t want the dirty big secret of black liberation theology to get out.

Now, has Obama don anything overtly racist as it relates to black liberation theology? Not unless you count the Cambridge Police incident. That was a shining example of black power trying to spotlight a “white man keeping a black man down.” And you might want to count Obama’s comments about Trayvonn Martin: “…he would look like my son.”

But Obama doesn’t have to outwardly project black liberation theology. As long as his is at the top of the pyramid, then he can put others in positions of power while the race-hustlers do the ground work for the progressives.

So what is wrong? Why aren’t black Americans flocking to see “Runaway Slave”?

Ignorance is bliss. As long as the leaders of the progressive movements and the leaders of the black liberation theology and the leaders of race-hustling can ignore the movie and the facts, they can keep the good crisis going…and stay in power.

And therein lies the problem.  Right now, the contents of the movie are seen by a lot of conservatives and white Americans. The key is figuring out how to get black Americans in the theater.


Other Videos to watch:


Obama’s Arms Trade Treaty and Gun Rights

heller dissent scotus 2nd amendment gun controlMany of you may be wondering about the Arms Trade Treaty. I’m sure a lot of you have read emails purporting that the UN (United Nations) would be able to completely circumvent the 2nd Amendment and take all of our guns away. So what is the truth about this possible treaty?

Well, first let’s do a little background looking. This particular type of treaty faced opposition from the Bush administration. Why? There are some provisions within the ATT that can lead to a backdoor around our 2nd Amendment rights.

However, the Obama Administration did a complete reversal of several longstanding Bush positions within the UN, including abortion funding and others. Why?  The Progressive movement is counter to most of our core beliefs, but Obama ran on Hope and Change and was elected. While he has publicly stated that he supports the 2nd Amendment, Obama has also made it well known that he is actually against an individual’s right to keep and bear arms.

FACT: As an Illinois Senator, Barack Obama opposed SB 2165. This law (passed 38 -20) – Public Act 093-1048 – allows an Illinois resident to use a weapon in self-defense even if there is a gun-ban in effect in the municipality.

Barack Obama opposed a bill/law that allows a person the right to self-defense.

The law stems from a case where Hale DeMar, a resident of Wilmette, was arrested for misdemeanor violations after shooting a burglar in the leg and shoulder – who had broken into his home twice. The prosecutors for Cook County dropped all charges. After the Illinois Senate passed the bill, Governor Blagojevich vetoed. The Illinois Senate voted 40-18 to override the veto, and again Obama voted against the bill. The Illinois House voted 85-30 to override the veto.

Now think about that for a second. Not only is any municipality’s ban on handguns counter to the 2nd Amendment and to both the Heller and McDonald cases, but it is counter to your right to self-defense. In Illinois, municipalities could actually ban handguns and effectively neuter your ability to defend yourself, your family, and your property…and Barack Obama supported the ability of the government to decide when you can defend yourself.

FACT: Both Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan stated during Senate confirmation hearings that they supported the 2nd Amendment. Kagan had difficulty answering questions about inalienable rights, and Sotomayor voted in dissent on the McDonald v Chicago case, which basically said that the 2nd Amendment applies to states.

Let’s start with Kagan. If you watch her response to Sen. Coburn, it is very telling. She skirts around the question of whether she believes in the 2nd Amendment.

…I very much appreciate how deeply important the right to bear arms is to millions of Americans, and I accept Heller…” — Elena Kagan

Kagan “appreciates” how important it is? She “accepts” Heller? The right to keep and bear arms is not something you appreciate. The God-given right to life and the right to defend oneself through arms is NOT something you just “appreciate”.

When Sotomayor voted against McDonald, she sided with the liberal side of the court.

In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense. There has been, and is, no consensus that the right is, or was, ‘fundamental.’ — Justice Stephen Breyer writing for the dissent

As a matter of fact, Sotomayor has stated that the 2nd Amendment applies only to federal government. By that standard, then freedom of speech in the 1st Amendment would not apply to states. Thus, we could be unreasonably restricted by a state government from speaking out publicly, or we could only protest on federal property? That simply doesn’t make sense – unless you are someone who is firmly against the 2nd Amendment.

“The Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right.” —OPINION OF THE COURT, INCLUDING JUDGE SOTOMAYOR, MALONEY V. CUOMO (2009)

“the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.” — Sonia Sotomayor – U.S. v. Sanchez-Villar

“The majority’s decision threatens severely to limit the ability of more knowledgeable, democratically elected officials to deal with gun-related problems.” — retired justice David Souter, Heller Decision dissent

As many of you know, both the Heller and McDonald decisions were decided 5-4. That means we are potentially 1 vote away from losing our 2nd Amendment rights – or at least relegating them totally to federal control.

It is very telling to read the dissent in the Heller decision. In a few paragraphs, the entire liberal progressive view is spelled out – that individuals do not have the individual right to self-defense. Thus the state must protect us. Most of the dissent is dissecting the words of the 2nd Amendment, while oddly leaving out the context of known quotations from the founders.

Barack Obama does not need to introduce legislation to implement gun control. He has the United States Supreme Court.

FACT: The Obama Administration blocked the importation of M1 Garand and M1 Carbine rifles in 2010 as “…a threat to the public safety in the U.S.”

The ATF thinks they would be a threat to public safety even though every purchase would have to go through an ATF licensed dealer with the buyer subjected to an FBI instant background check? Huh?

If you are not familiar with this, the South Korean government had a stockpile of M1’s that were approved for sale and then subsequently denied by the Obama State Department. Why?

Apparently, the ATF is worried about an increase in imported firearms, ease of conversion to automatic, and the M1 Carbine fully automatic being used in crimes. None of that makes any sense. Who cares if there is an increase in legally imported firearms? The ATF states that the M1 Garands are unlikely to be used at crime scenes. They are big and bulky and only hold 8 rounds. They are NOT conducive to what most criminals want to use.

More to the point they publicly stated “…ATF is specifically prohibited from maintaining any form of registry.” So there you have it. The main problem is that they can’t figure out how to legally keep a registry on these imported firearms.

This is simply gun control without legislation. In other words, the Obama administration completely bypassed Congress and refused to allow the legal importation. I believe it was initially approved because the Obama administration thought they could somehow track these through a registry and then use them to somehow inflate crime statistics. After all, this took place around the same time frame as Fast & Furious.

You can read more about this over at  WND and David Codrea’s article.

 FACT: Obama supports (a) ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons (b) increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms

Per the 1998 National Political Awareness Test, Barack Obama wants to ban the vast majority of firearms and weapons, and he wants to increase the difficulty in possessing firearms. Now, one can argue that he has changed his mind since answering that legislative test. However, I don’t think so. When you combine his other actions, such as Sotomayor and Kagan nominations, plus his comments to Sarah Brady (of the former Handgun Control, Inc), he definitely has a deep-rooted progressive belief that individuals do not have a right to self-defense nor arms.

Obama claims “As a general principle, I believe the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms.” However, it’s important to read the words carefully. He believes the Constitution grants (confers) the right. This is another prime example of a progressive mincing words.

According to our founders beliefs and those of all conservatives, we have certain rights from God. Included first is LIFE and LIBERTY. We can’t have either without the right to defend ourselves from harm or submission. Harm and submission can not only come from other individuals but also from governments. In both cases, taking up arms in defense is a basic fundamental right.

FACT: During the 2008 Democratic Primary Debate in Philadelphia, Barack Obama said states or local governments can constrain the exercise of the right to bear arms.

Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms?

A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

When asked if he still favors licensing and registration, he skirted the question with his “common sense approach” answer.

FACT: Obama believes that the firerarms listed in the AWB (Assault Weapons Ban) are only designed to kill people – per the Illinois Senate debate Oct. 21, 2004.

OBAMA: Let’s be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.

Of course, we all know that the assault weapons ban DID NOTHING to slow down crime. It was a red herring to test the waters and see if a gun ban would make it to the public. Fortunately, violent crime has continued to decrease while gun sales and possession continue to go up along with concealed carry permits.


So what does all of this have to do with the Arms Trade Treaty? Well, if you look at the pattern of Obama, he would much rather circumvent Congress whenever possible. In this case the treaty must be ratified by the Senate, and it might possibly get the votes to do it. After all, the Progressives still control the Senate.

Would the ATT mean an immediate surrender of our arms as individuals? Most likely not. There would be nothing short of a second Revolutionary War. However, it would be another small side step toward the goal of disarming the citizenry. Combine that with the potential changes to the Supreme Court in the next 4 years, and we are looking at a recipe for disaster with the 2nd Amendment.

I know a lot of people who are dismayed at Mitt Romney. I also know quite a few people who are lamenting the loss of Ron Paul as a candidate. You can count me in both camps. However, anyone…let me repeat: ANYONE who stays home this November or who votes for Obama is a complete moron.

However, anyone…let me repeat: ANYONE who stays home this November or who votes for Obama is a complete moron.

This presidential election is all about judicial picks – and our 2nd Amendment rights stand in the balance.

We have made great strides in our 2nd Amendment rights over the decade. We MUST keep that up.

Calories In Calories out

Many of you may not know this, but the Obamacare bill also has $15 Billion dollars wrapped around for obesity issues. So the questions become these: (1) Do we have an obesity epidemic and (2) Is government the solution?

My wife Genia had struggled with her weight for the last several years. Like many Americans, especially women, she had tried various types of diets. Sometimes these resulted in temporary weight loss, but they always resulted in the weight coming back. Plus, none of them allowed her to eat what she really liked. Finally, in frustration, she decided to listen to me.

Weight loss or gain has a simple solution: Calories Intake vs Calories Output.

If you are purely concerned about weight, then it doesn’t really matter what type of foods you eat. What matters is counting calories. This has been known forever, but with the “health food industry” in full swing, we have been conditioned to forget that. We have been taught that you must use fitness programs, visit expensive dietary clinics, and so on – ad nauseam.

Once Genia started counting calories and burning calories, the weight dropped quickly. She is in much better shape, feels better, and can eat what she wants in the right proportions. For instance, if she wants to eat a big plate of spaghetti, then fine. She knows she has to walk or jog or exercise more to burn the extra calories.

It is working so well that she got her good friend and neighbor to try the same thing. Jasmine had struggled somewhat with weight loss too. Guess what? Same results. Both of them will now get in the pool with their bikinis on – without being embarrassed. I have to admit that I’m thrilled too. I’ve always thought Genia was very sexy – but now even more so.

Twinkie Diet Link 

What does this have to do with politics? Well, if you subscribe to the quasi-socialist model permeating our country, then you would think that government is the only thing that can fix our obesity problem which has magically appeared only in the last few years. Oddly, the first childhood obesity program was started in the 1930’s by Dr. Hilde Bruch in New York in the 1930’s. She observed a lot of “really fat” kids.

“..really fat ones, not only in clinics, but on the streets and subways, and in schools.” Dr. Hilde Bruch – New York – The Great Depression

Now the federal government has teamed up with HBO to produce the documentary “The Weight of the Nation” which argues for…wait for it…government intervention!

I don’t think our government representatives are typically a model of good health…Just look at Al Gore.

Interestingly, according one MIT trained mathematician, farming policy changes in the 1970s may be partially responsible. This makes sense when you think about it. We have over-produced which has driven the cost of food downward on average. When did the explosion of fast-food take place? In the 1970s and 19080s – and look where we are now.

When there is more food available, we tend to eat more. Yesterday, I posted an article about EBT and crawfish. This is purely anecdotal, but if you go to any grocery store around the 1st of the month and watch the EBT purchasers, guess what? The vast majority of them are not starving whatsoever. All you have to do is look at the waist-lines.

Another trend that has probably contributed is the changing role of labor in our workforce. According to the study, the daily expenditure for work-related activity has dropped nearly 100 calories per day since 1960.

On the whole, we are NOT a starving nation. Do we have an obesity epidemic? I’m not sure I’d call it an epidemic, but we are obviously more comfortable with more inches around the waist. If you want to lose some pounds – calories in vs calories out.