Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Michele Obama and Barack's Demands

On the way home from dinner this evening, I was listening to the Mark Levin talk radio show. He shared an audio clip of Michele Obama, apparently speaking to the minions of cult members that are following her husband and his Soviet Socialist Republik ambitions of "change" for this country.

I need to go on a search to find her exact words. It was unbelievable people!! She was saying things like, "you will work for Obama," and "you will not go back to your unproductive, uninvolved lives." Levin stated that it sounded like the socialist activist Angela Davis of the 1960's!!!

I just listened to the downloaded copy of today's show and then converted the exact quote from the audio taped segment which was broadcast just 15 minutes ago.

I suggest that everyone reading here listen to Mark's broadcast...he sees right through the deceptions of that man!

Here is what Michele Obama said in the audio clip:

...and Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism, that you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolationism. That you come out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual - uninvolved, uninformed...


Mark then asks if it was a clip from Angela Davis! Sure sounded like her...doesn't it?

Sheesh!!

Boy...is our country in trouble if Obama gets into office...

*******

Update: 2/21/08

Read this article.

Now, compare what Mrs. Obama said in that quote with what Dr. Rossiter states in the article:

Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by the two major candidates for the Democratic Party presidential nomination can only be understood as a psychological disorder.

"A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do," he says. "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do."

Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

* creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;

* satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;

* augmenting primitive feelings of envy;

* rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.

"The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."

I rest my case!!

19 comments:

Matt W. said...

Wow, what a truly frightening thing to hear from the wife of a Presidential Candidate. Obviously he agrees with this sentiment, otherwise, as outrageous as it is, he would have no choice but to publicly part ways with her, and take the lumps that come with it.

For just a moment there I thought I was reading the Communist Manifesto...

MB said...

I haven't listened to the audio, nor do I know in what context these things were said. Is it possible that she's calling folks to action? I mean, can't we agree that we need people to be more involved in our nation's process?

Christinewjc said...

Matt,

It is like the Communist Manifesto! That is what is so alarming about these two!

Obama puts forth a false image of peace, change, hope etc. in a false-messiah-like mesmerize the masses style. Yet, his wife says things that can't possibly be misinterpreted as nothing more than their desire for power and a dictatorship over the people!

This sentence is most egregious:

Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual - uninvolved, uninformed...

Could you imagine if Laura Bush stood up and said that to an audience today? The media would absolutely blast her!!!

Yet, the false prophet's wife gets a pass...

Christinewjc said...

MB,

Like I shared with Matt, this sentence is very disturbing:

Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual - uninvolved, uninformed...

Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual???

That is a scary statement. It reeks of a dictatorship-like attitude!

Again, what if Laura Bush or Cindy McCain stood up and said that to a crowd of people? They would be blasted!!

Of course, those women would never say such a thing!

Michael Savage has stated, "Liberalism is a mental disorder."

Now, a prominent psychiatrist concludes the same thing!

Excerpt:

Read this article.

Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by the two major candidates for the Democratic Party presidential nomination can only be understood as a psychological disorder.

"A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do," he says. "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do."

Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;

augmenting primitive feelings of envy;

rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.
"The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."

John said...

Several years after a Federally funded study found that conservatism was a mental disorder a Right Wing psychiatrist has released a book, timed for the election cycle, claiming the same things about Liberals. Are we to believe that this is a coincidence?
Little known shrink and political hack Dr. Lyle Rossiter has released a new book entitled "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness" that is designed to feed the red meat hunger of Right Wing ideologues at a time when the Conservative movement is on the ropes after seven years of incompetence and corruption under George W. Bush.

Most of its claims are not so subtle reversals of the conclusions reached by four distinguished scholars that were funded by the US Government (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/13/usa.redbox) in a study to discover the roots of conservatism.

The report "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition" cost $1.2 million and was supervised by the National Foundation as well as the National Institutes of Health. It found that conservatism is essentially a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".

In an article published in the highly respected peer reviewed scholarly journal "Psychological Bulletin" the authors state:

"This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes."

Among the sufferers of this heart-breaking malady the researchers studied President George W. Bush and found him to be a "textbook case" of the madness. Among the early warning signs that he exhibits is "his preference for moral certainty and frequently expressed dislike of nuance." The scientists believe that it was Bush's aversion to shades of gray and the need for "closure" that led him to ignore intelligence that contradicted his beliefs about Iraq's non existent WMD's.

At the time that this report came out conservatives were outraged and dismissed the whole thing as merely the opinion of the scientists involved. It is highly amusing now to watch conservatives fall all over themselves to tout Dr. Rossiter unscientific and undocumented political scree simply because it gives them comfort in the face of their impending humiliation at the polls come November.

MB said...

Okay, really. I can, indeed, hear Laura or Cindy saying such a thing. Come on - it's not like he's going to go knock on doors and demand anyone to do anything. She's just saying that he could be a leader that motivates people to action...I really cannot see the evil in her statement.

John said...

A psychological disorder?

Here are a few of the things accomplished by those of us with this psychological disorder.

Consider me proud!

Interstate Highway System era: 1950's-present
Proposed by Roosevelt and erected by Eisenhower (a Republican), the Interstate system was a big government project. As much as anything else in the post WWII era, the Interstate is responsible for tremendous economic growth, prosperity, and has spawned an entire culture.

GI Bill era: 1950's
This act of Congress enabled millions upon millions of Americans to get college educations, something that most Americans had never had the opportunity to do previously. An entire generation of leaders, scientists, and business people owe their education to the GI Bill.

Labor Laws era: 1930's-present
An end to child labor, 40 hour work weeks, the right of employees to collectively bargain, overtime pay, workplace safety, all of the things we take for granted today are thanks to liberal laws passed in the first half of this century. It was the conservatives who fought tooth and nail against the end of sweatshops and exploitation.

Marshall Plan era: late 1940's-1950's
Foreign aid is a popular scapegoat these days. Those who would cut it should look back at the Marshall Plan, which rebuilt Europe, and is the major reason that Communism never made it past East Berlin.

Environmental Laws era: 1970's-present
The environment has gotten much better in the last 30 years thanks to liberals. Bald Eagles fly once again thanks to endangered species laws, most rivers and lakes are clean again due to anti-pollution laws, and frequent smog days are a thing of the past in most big American cities.

Food safety laws era: 1910's-present
Ever read Sinclair's "The Jungle?" That's what things were really like before food purity laws were on the books. Today cases of food poisoning are rare, and consumers know that whatever they buy is safe to eat.

Workplace safety laws era: 1930's-present
Long hours in unsafe conditions are much rarer today than in the past. Tragedies such as the Triangle Shirtwaist fire and child labor have been eliminated by liberal and progressive legislation.


Social Security era: 1930's-1970's
This program has provided three generations of Americans retirement benefits, and nearly eliminated poverty among the elderly. The program is weakening now, but for 50 years it did its job to a T.

Economic Growth era: 1950's-1960's
Liberalism and economic prosperity go hand-in-hand. Unlike the pseudo-boom of the 1980's, the 1950's and 1960's were a period of sustained and real growth for all sectors of the economy and all social classes. Taxes were fair, government worked, and America prospered under both Democratic and Republican administrations

Space Program era: 1950's-present
It was Kennedy who challenged us to make it to the moon, and it is under his and Johnson's administrations that the space program took off, with numerous benefits to American industry and peoples' standard of living, not to mention national pride. If you are reading this on a computer, thank the space program and the liberals who got it going.

Peace corps era: 1960's-present
Kennedy inspired thousands of Americans to ask what they could do for their country, and the Peace Corps is his most visible and effective legacy

Civil rights movement era: 1950's-present
Liberal ideals drove the biggest change in American society since the Civil War, the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. All Americans who believe in freedom and opportunity cannot help but be inspired by the valiant struggles of MLK and others. Also recall if you will that the major opponents of civil rights were conservatives.

The fight against Totalitarianism era: always
World War II was fought by all Americans; liberals and conservatives fought together the evil of Nazism. The ideal we fought for was freedom and the dignity of the individual against totalitarianism. Under the leadership of Roosevelt and Truman, we won. But the battle is never over, so we must remain vigilant.

The Internet era: 1960's-present
Not a liberal program per se, but rather a government one, which many equate as the same thing. The internet is a good example of what a government program can do when allowed to work.

The Tennessee Valley project era: 1930's
The Depression-era government program bought electricity to thousands of impoverished families in Appalachia, prevented floods, and created thousands of new jobs.

Women's right to vote era: 1920's-present
Before 1920, half of America's population could not exercise the essential duty of citizenship.

Universal Public Education era: 1890's-present
The reason America is so strong economically is because we have a well-educated citizenry. Public schooling is the true melting pot of America, where every student, regardless of economic background can be taught the basics of citizenship. It is no coincidence that in the last 20 years, as conservatives have greatly weakened the public school system, that American students have scored lower on tests and our civic society has started to unravel.

National Weather Service era: 1930's-present
This is one of those things you never think about, but you are glad its there. Far from just forecasting the weather, the NWS also provides vital data to pilots and sailors, and the NWS satellites and observation posts provide the raw data that all other weather forecasting services (private ones too!) depend on.

Scientific Research era: 1940's-present
Much of the great discoveries in science have come about through grants from the government. This is not to say that scientific genius depends on Washington, but the fact remains that pure science is expensive, and private industry will often not fund experiments which don't have a direct commercial potential. From Salk's polio vaccine to todays Human Genome Project and Hubble Space Telescope, the government is an important partner in scientific discovery.

Product Labeling/Truth in Advertising Laws
era: 1910's-present
"We take it for granted that if a claim is made publicly for a product, it's reasonable to assume it's true. Plus, every time we check the ingredients on a can or package of food, we should mentally call down blessings on the liberals who passed the necessary legislation over the anguished howls of the conservatives, who were convinced such info would be prohibitively expensive, and too big a burden on business."

Public Health era: 1910's-present
Government funded water and sewage systems are an important part of modernity. In addition, organizations such as the National Institute of Health and the Center for Disease Control play an important part in maintaining the national health and preventing epidemics through research, vaccination programs, etc.

Morrill Land Grant Act era: late 1800's
This act is the reason why nearly every state in the Union has a large public university. These centers of learning have educated untold millions of Americans. If you went to a school with a state name in it, then you were helped by liberalism.

Rural Electrification era: 1930's-1960's
This allowed remote, rural areas of the country the basic convinience of electricity. I am sure that those of us using computers on the internet, sitting in our air conditioned homes, under our electric lights consider electricity a basic necessity - one that the pure market would never have found profitable to provide to isolated farming communities.

Public Universities era: 1890's-present day
Put a college education within the reach of nearly every American. In addition to education, many of these institutions have played key roles in all kinds of scientific research and been a strong influence on our entire society.

Bank Deposit Insurance era: 1930's-present day
About 1934, as part of extensive New Deal banking legislation, Congress created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to provide federal insurance for bank deposits. This was instrumental in restoring confidence in our nation's banks, and remains so to this day.

Earned Income Tax Credit era: 1970's-present day
Reduces the tax burden for working families who make under $28,500.00 You have to earn income to get it. It is not a handout. It's a great incentive for families to stay off welfare. But the atmosphere has changed in Washington, and Republicans had to find a way to pay for their capital-gains tax cut, and EITC was their ticket to success. So, the Republicans voted to cut this program by $29 billion over a certain time frame. Well guess what? They just raised the taxes on lower income working families.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
era: 1940's-present day
The world's foremost authority and defense against infectious disease and epidemic is a department of the United States government.

Family and Medical Leave Act
era: 1993-present day
This is a program which mandates that you have the right to job leave to take care of sick family members, or to have a child. Many conservatives were opposed to this valuable piece of legislation. Perhaps they were opposed to family values?

Consumer Product Safety Commission
era: 1972-present day
These guys regulate consumer products for safety. Everything from sharp (and edible) baby toys to flammable pjamas have been taken off the market due to the work of this commission.

Public Broadcasting
era: 1930's-present day
Millions of our children have learned from shows like Sesame Street, 3-2-1 Contact, and Mister Rogers (and so many more). Millions of adults continue to learn from shows like Nova. Also, the best broadcast journalism is by far National Public Radio. PBS and NPR have served to enrich our national culture.

Americans With Disabilities Act
era: 1990-present day
Civil rights for disabled citizens. It is fair, just, and it is the law of the land. Credit where credit is due, former Senator Bob Dole helped push this through, a rare nod in favor of liberalism from Mr. Dole.

This is not to say that Liberalism is perfect. Far from it. Like any ideology, it must be constantly on guard for signs of internal decay, and must embrace change in order to remain relevant in a changing world.

Christinewjc said...

Well John...perhaps we could play the "dueling psychologist/psychiatrist" game and trade their opinions ad nauseum.

I can cite Michael Savage's book Liberalism is a Mental Disorder and then you can cite your next author. Round and round we go!

Ha! I liked what I just read at the Amazon site:

Homeland security: "We need more Patton and less patent leather. . .Real homeland security begins when we arrest, interrogate, jail, or deport known operatives within our own borders. . .One dirty bomb can ruin your whole day."

I liked this review:

Savage is the Thomas Payne of the 21st century!!!!!, April 12, 2005
By Richard D. Cappetto (Moodus, CT United States) - See all my reviews


Michael Savage's new BOOK "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder," is a wonderful and important read. It is the third book in a trilogy of books, that I liken to Thomas Payne's common sense, which are warning of the dangers of tyranny in Payne's time and of extreme liberalism in our time. Savage's goal is to wake up all of the American People, or at least enough of them to stop the insanity of the extreme lefties who have infiltrated both our main political parties and dominate most Interests groups in the USA (like the ACLU, etc.,). In this Book Savage set's out to show and to prove that Liberalism is a mental disorder and I must say he proves his case by a long shot. Savage accomplishes this feat by laying out extremely important issues and problems facing The USA (Such as the War On terror, the War in Iraq, Border security and the alien invasion in our country; And the Attack on our businesses especially small businesses by the radical lawyers, courts, environmentalists, etc.,) And he shows how liberal solutions are absolutely insane. He also provides the solutions (read the book). Savage also shows how these Ideal and ideas of liberalism have taken complete control of the democrat party and are in much control of the republican party as well. Savage outlines how we can take back our country. besides the fact this series of Books by Savage are very important if we are to survive as a nation, and they are an engaging and entertaining read; So you will enjoy reading them and more so in learning from them.


This portion from the first review is quite good too. Notice that Dr. Savage is an actual scientist!

The new spin this time takes his assault on liberalism to its ultimate and logical conclusion, asserting that extreme liberalism is in fact a mental disease--one in which logic no longer prevails yet emotion runs rampant. The useful morons, as he calls them, flock like lemmings behind ideas that simply cannot work. He goes on to prove his points by citing hundreds of specific examples based upon remarkably well-founded research (the guy is an actual scientist after all). It's nice to see a little substance behind the political commentary.

This part accurately describes the Obama cult followers:

extreme liberalism is in fact a mental disease--one in which logic no longer prevails yet emotion runs rampant. The useful morons, as he calls them, flock like lemmings behind ideas that simply cannot work.

Yep...

Christinewjc said...

MB: "Okay, really. I can, indeed, hear Laura or Cindy saying such a thing."

I completely disagree!! They are women who have demonstrated throughout their lives that they are not about taking away a person's right to think and do things according to their own free will. Michele likes to dictate such things to the followers of her husband's campaign. What makes anyone think that once they get into power (and THAT'S what it's REALLY ALL ABOUT!) they would change their tune?

MB: "Come on - it's not like he's going to go knock on doors and demand anyone to do anything. She's just saying that he could be a leader that motivates people to action...I really cannot see the evil in her statement."

There is an old saying..."never say never." Michele made that faux pas, as well as many other blunders that lead me to believe that the Obama agenda is, quite clearly, a Marxist style movement.

John said...

There is an old saying..."never say never." Michele made that faux pas, as well as many other blunders that lead me to believe that the Obama agenda is, quite clearly, a Marxist style movement.


And this leads me to believe that the you are, quite clearly
off your rocker....stick to your bible verses...PLEASE!

Christinewjc said...

John,

There is a difference between policies that both liberals (classical) and conservatives can come to terms with in the political world.

Michael Savage has decried the morphing of classical liberalism (I disagree with you but would fight to the death for your right to say it) to what is essentially neo-liberalism (I will shout you down so that no one will hear what you have to say), characteristic of 21st century liberal politics.

Plus, it is the far left neo-liberals who are doing great damage to the moral fabric of this nation.

At least you gave some credit to conservatives for some of those accomplishments that you listed.

I would have to disagree on this one, though:

Civil rights movement era: 1950's-present
Liberal ideals drove the biggest change in American society since the Civil War, the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. All Americans who believe in freedom and opportunity cannot help but be inspired by the valiant struggles of MLK and others. Also recall if you will that the major opponents of civil rights were conservatives.


It was the Republican party that originally fought for the civil rights movement. Ask Condi Rice.

The public schools are now a bastion of immoral sexual indoctrination, thanks to the far left socialists who are running the show. There is now a huge exodus from the public schools because parents are fed up with the relentless push to brainwash children rather than stick to the educational subjects that are vital for their futures.

Also, even though the Social Security Act was hailed as a good idea, it is now in severe danger of bankruptcy. Part of the problem is that the liberals worked to get Roe vs. Wade passes in the courts and now there are 51,714,665 (and counting) dead babies who did not grow up to keep the Social Security program going.

Talk about shooting oneself in one's own foot...

Yep...far left liberalism has that terrible legacy to live with. Too bad those children weren't given the opportunity to live.

John said...

From Allen W. Smith, who holds a Ph.D. degree in economics from Indiana University, is Professor of Economics Emeritus, Eastern Illinois University.

"Social Security faces a major problem beginning in 2018, but it is not the problem that Bush, Greenspan and their supporters would have you believe.

The problem is that every penny of the $1.5 trillion in Social Security surplus, generated by the 1983 payroll tax hike, has been "borrowed" and spent (embezzled) by the federal government. This misuse of Social Security funds, that has been going on under both Democrats and Republicans ever since the surpluses began to show up in the 1980s, is in my opinion the greatest fraud ever perpetrated against the American people by their government.

The baby boomers are not the cause of the Social Security problem. Alan Greenspan and company saw to it that the baby boomers would pay enough taxes to pay the retirement cost of the preceding generation, plus enough additional taxes to prepay the cost of their own retirement. If the government had not looted the money, there would be enough assets in the trust fund to pay full benefits until at least 2042. In a speech on the Senate floor on October 9, 1990, Senator Harry Reid referred to the misuse of Social Security money as "embezzlement" and "thievery." The late Senator Heinz, a Republican from Pennsylvania, also used the word "embezzlement" to describe what was taking place. Senators Heinz, Reid, Hollings, and Moynihan were among those honest members of Congress who tried to stop the looting when it first started under President George H.W. Bush. Senator Moynihan even introduced legislation that would have repealed the 1983 payroll tax increase to keep the surplus out of Bush's hands.

Having researched Social Security funding for the past five years, and having published two books on the subject, I know that the American people are being deceived and misled by their government with regard to Social Security."

And when you say such things as this..

"the liberals worked to get Roe vs. Wade passes in the courts and now there are 51,714,665 (and counting) dead babies who did not grow up to keep the Social Security program going."

It just tells me that the far right fringe is equally as dangerous, if not more so, than the far left

MB said...

"Michele likes to dictate such things to the followers of her husband's campaign."

Just because she encourages people to act and be involved in the politics of the day? Really? You consider that to be Marxist and dictatorial? I see a strong woman working to empower people.

Are you automatically opposed to anything-Obama because you're opposed to the idea of a liberal president? I have to admit that while I have very few things for which George Bush and I agree, I can at least look at things objectively and sort through issues before making a judgment...

Christinewjc said...

John,

So, what you are telling me is that the loss of 51 million potential employees (plus all the children that they might have had) paying into the FICA fund would not have made any difference whatsoever?

I am not claiming that it is the only reason why SS is such a mess. What I am saying is that 35 years of baby killing has had its consequences upon the financial burdens of that program.

Christinewjc said...

MB,

It is the entire package deal that the Obamas are selling that I disagree with.

For example. My husband happens to be a successful businessman. He worked extremely hard (from, btw, an impoverished childhood) to get to where he is. The rate at which the Democrats want to tax people like him would probably force him to work ten more years until he could even consider retiring.

The Obamas want to tax Americans and send 835 billion dollars to Africa. They want universal healthcare. Everything that they want to do will require taxing people to death and giving it to government programs.

I totally disagree with their kind of economics.

Also, we, as an American family want to have the opportunity to generously donate to causes that we want to support; not what government bureaucrats would choose to support with the extra tax dollars they want to take away from wage earners.

Speaking of healthcare, my son just purchased a policy that costs $85.00 a month. There is affordable health care alternatives out there. "Free" health care costs someone, somewhere, money. There is no such thing as free health care.

People should be responsible for their own choice of healthcare and policies of coverage.

The people on the low income brackets are covered by medicare, medicaid, the prescription benefit (to President Bush's credit), and the fact that we have the best health care system (though, not perfect) in the world.

When people have medical-related money problems, their church communities often come to the rescue. We are a very generous nation...both to each other as well as to other nations.

People who have socialized health care systems (like Canada) come here for surgeries because the wait is so long in their country!

When I visited British Columbia, I spoke with some people and asked them questions about it. Most were very honest and said that the U.S. is far better. The additional sales tax added on to product purchases to subsidize their health care system causes a kind of backlash from visitors and tourists. Many wait till they return to the States (or their country) to buy the same item cheaper!

These are only a fraction of the policies and plans that liberal Democrats want to impose upon our nation.

I have looked at most of the policies of both of the Democratic presidential candidates and my judgment is that most, if not all of them are wrong for our nation.

MB said...

I thought we were talking about how outrageous (in your opinion) Michelle Obama's calls to action are? I don't think it makes good sense to call someone to task for something so benign as what she said...because you don't like "the whole package." Again, while I'm not crazy about Bush, I look at things with a discerning eye and try not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

mike rucker said...

(heavy, heavy sigh)

who are we to believe any more?

bob dylan sang, "if you want somebody you can trust - trust yourself."

i trust myself to know that a statement like "Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual - uninvolved, uninformed..." had absolutely nothing to do with any 'communist manifesto', but everything to do with saying 'apathy, in the years ahead, needs to be seen as a four-letter word.'

i trust myself to know that those who would try to twist his words know they are, in fact, unfairly twisting his words, believing those kinds of things really aren't that big of a deal.

i trust myself to know that it's harder to think of real solutions, and apply yourself to being a part of those solutions, and to allow eveyone to have input into those solutions, than it is to throw hysterical accusations here and there to end discussion, pass the buck, and make sure that certain people won't have input into those solutions.

i trust myself to know that even those i'm talking about know what they're doing, and continue to do it in spite of what's true and what isn't.

and so i trust myself to take everything they say with a grain of salt.

in God we trust. all others pay cash.

mike rucker
http://mikerucker.wordpress.com

Christinewjc said...

MB and Mike,

I think that I have run across a blog post that might help explain why the kind of "leading" that the Obamas are doing is so dangerous.

I was posting a reply to a blogger name Heather Anastasia on Pastor Miles' blog. I happened to glance at her blog tonight and read this:

Excerpt:

I know it sounds arrogant to equate 95% of the population with sheep, but now I have genuine scientific validation.

"Results from a study at the University of Leeds show that it takes a minority of just five per cent to influence a crowd’s direction – and that the other 95 per cent follow without realising it."

Basically, they sent a crowd of people wandering through a building. They gave a small number of people in the group detailed instructions on where to go, but no one was allowed to communicate with anyone else. And the whole group followed the 'informed individuals' without even realizing they were doing it.

What's even more interesting is that, the larger the group; the fewer 'informed individuals' you need to lead the herd.


This is what I see happening with many of the people who are blindly following after Obama...without truly thinking things through for themselves.

The few people that I have read about online who broke free of the Obama cult spell, have shared how dangerous such a mentality can truly be.

The two of you, of course, do not appear to be the type to follow blindly along like the Obamamania crowd. That is to your credit.

But those who are under the spell of this hyped-up, celebrity- styled-motivational-speaker-without-substance-messiah-like- preacher and presidential wanna-be, seem to be so deeply under the spell of his deceptions that no matter what others might tell them is "wrong with this picture," they will ignore it and keep following.

Just sayin...

Christinewjc said...

John,

Just received this via email and thought I would share it with you since you claim to be such an expert on the history of the Social Security program:

Your Social Security


Just in case some of you didn't know this.


It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your kids.

Here is a little history lesson on what's what.


Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA)Program. He promised:


1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,


2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,


3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes
each year,


4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,


5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.


Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away" -- you may be interested in the following:


Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust Fund" and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?


A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.


Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?


A: The Democratic Party.


Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?


A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President


Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to
immigrants?


AND MY FAVORITE:


A: That's right!


Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this
country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments!

The Democratic Party gave these payments to them,even though they never paid a dime into it!


Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn
around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!


And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!


If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn't so.


But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?


AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!


A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.

[With thanks to Salt-n-Light for sending that report via email]