Monday, August 31, 2009

Socialist Abyss?

That is what Sean Hannity just said on his radio show. Obama is dragging this nation down into a "Socialist Abyss." My answer: NOT IF THE AMERICAN PATRIOTS OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC CAN HELP AVOID IT!!!

Here is a copy of Glenn Beck's latest email. Lots of links to videos to check out!


August 31, 2009

On Today’s Program

Marxists everywhere

It seems now, more than ever, it's cool to be a Marxist. And not just in Berkeley, California, oh no, the trend is hot in Washington DC. Previously, if a congressman or senator came out and professed their Marxism, they'd get lumped in with that crazy socialist from Vermont. (Note: go to site for Transcript, Insider Audio)

Obama approval lowest ever

Not only is Congress coming off a telling poll that reported 57% of Americans would vote ALL of Congress out, while only 25% would keep them -- President Obama is suffering as well. His latest Presidential tracking poll has him at 46% approval, by far his lowest ever. America wanted change, but it's safe to say America didn't think the change it voted for included Marxism. Check out the POLL.

9/12 SATURDAY: If you haven't made plans to head down to DC and let your politicians know you WILL vote them out if they don't stop the nonsense, get involved! Find out how you can get there by visiting the 912 Project site and the meet-up site. Where will Glenn be on 9/12? Find out here.

Czar Power

Previous Presidents have all had Czars (most of the time they call them 'advisors') but Obama is taking the Czar thing to a whole new level. Apparently he thought to fill a 'czar' post there should be actual communist viewpoints involved. It's quite an amazing thing to listen to the rundown of the viewpoints Obama's current Czars believe -- considering they are 'advising' the President on a frequent basis. Here are a few of the most notable -- get to know them, because chances are you are going to be dealing with one of their crazy policies sooner rather than later. Glenn talks about Obama's Czars in the latest Beck Talks video blog. ( WATCH)

The New Republic: America's future RECAPAll last week on radio and TV Glenn asked the tough questions because our republic is being transformed before our very eyes. Here is the ENTIRE RECAP of last week’s shows -- the monologues, the questions, the amazing interview with Rush Limbaugh and more. Please, read it and pass it around to all of your friends. These questions need to be asked and answered. Get started!TV Tonight: Marxist Revolution -- it's here, the Czars and the power structure are in place, but does America know it? Tonight with Glenn Beck at 5pm only on the Fox News Channel!

Hat Tip:

Glenn Beck.com

Also see:

A Call to Action: The Glenn Beck blog

17 comments:

GMpilot said...

*sigh* It's depressing to see a man's breakdown in public.
We already know Beck can't spell "oligarchy" (leaving out the "Y" was legit, but not omitting the "c"). We already know he misquotes Teddy Roosevelt. That was apparent even before Olbermann smacked him down on MSNBC. But you seem determined to outdo him, Christine!

How in the nine planets can you dare to try and teach your audience politics and history when you don't even have a firm grip on them yourself?

"Previous Presidents have all had Czars (most of the time they call them 'advisors') but Obama is taking the Czar thing to a whole new level. Apparently he thought to fill a 'czar' post there should be actual communist viewpoints involved."

Now listen carefully, 'cause there'll be a quiz later:
"Czar" and "Communist" are incompatible. The Russian Revolution of Feb. 1917 forced the Czar to abdicate. But Kerensky's government (a republican one, by the way) was weak and disordered; its ideas failed to take hold, and there were still many who were loyal to the monarchy (mostly the nobles). Lenin and the Bolsheviks were far better organized--and they promised order, a trick all authoritarian types use. The Republicans merely overthrew and confined the Czar; the Bolsheviks murdered them, in November 1917.
They wound up replacing one Czar with a thousand commissars.

The title czar of anything in the US government was originally used in 1973, under Nixon. I think the use of such a title tells us more about Nixon than even Watergate.

What did the original Czars have? Absolute authority, for one. Do any of ours have that? No. All are accountable to someone: in the end, us.

"TV Tonight: Marxist Revolution -- it's here, the Czars and the power structure are in place, but does America know it?"

If Beck's grasp of politics is as faulty as your own of history--as you've already demonstrated elsewhere--I'll not waste my time. But circumstances may change that.
So..."Socialist Abyss?" No.

madmath1 said...

GM, you're a hyprocrite. You say the word czar says more about Nixon than Watergate. What about Obama who has, last I checked, nearly THREE DOZEN! Though your history lesson about the Czars of Russia was illuminating, you should check with a dictionary as well because Czar has two definition with the other being Someone with a great deal of power or influence which is how it's being used here and by conservatives.

The other statement you have is wrong is that they don't have unlimited power. That's true. . . for now. If Obama has anything to say, it won't stay that way. They have the President's ear and so far he's following everything they're advising. There's also evidence they're writing the bills that are proving to be extremely unpopular and having the Administration on the defensive, something Obama isn't used to.

The third, and the one you are completely wrong on, is that eventually the Czars answers to us. No, they only answer to the President. If you have a historical evidence of a cabinet member being voted out, which requires senate confirmation so the people have a voice in their placement. Worse, these Czars aren't even confirmed by the Senate, so they are absolute in their power that they don't even have to listen to be the people, much less answer to them.

GM, you're history maybe accurate, but your logic sure needs work.

Christinewjc said...

Thanks madmath 1. I appreciate your comment that exposes GM's hypocrisy. I often get tired of discrediting his drivel.

What bothers me most about his unwillingness to see Obama and his czar-thugs as dangerous for our country is that GM has told me he was previously in the military. Don't military members take an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic?

Obama's "friendships" with communists like Chavez and Muslim dictators like Ahmadinejad (actually, Mahmoud is just a puppet of the mullahs) is truly frightening.

Obama's actions to take down our American Constitutional Republic is so obvious!! Hundreds of thousands of Americans have now awoken to this fact - and they are angry and protesting. I have seen many more "Impeach Obama" signs at rallies. Informed people are on to Obama's traitors-to-our-country appointments and treasonous activities. I pray that he will be removed without any bloodshed. But the thugs he has working for him will probably start a "crisis" (manufactured, of course) and cause a civil war here. It's a very scary time.

Christinewjc said...

Wow! Another great article:

A Place to Ask Questions To Get the Right Answers -

Being Born Subject to a Foreign Power, Obama Cannot be President and Military Commander

GMpilot said...

Hey, madmath1.

If you're going to throw the word Czar (with a capital C) around, you should realize that it applies only to the Russian rulers, and there was only one of them at any given time. Since this isn't Russia, and whatever czars we have number more than one, the word should be used with a small c. Glenn Beck may not realize that, Christine may not realize that, but you might. So I'll let you tell them.

"The other statement you have is wrong is that they don't have unlimited power. That's true. . . for now."
Well, if it's true now, then the statement isn't wrong, is it? When it changes--if it changes--then it will be wrong. You'd better make certain your own logic isn't faulty before you criticize someone else's.

Yes, the czars are ultimately responsible to us! Even though we did not appoint them, we elected the people who DID. (They used to teach such stuff in Civics classes.) Remember Michael Brown, the head of FEMA? How long after Hurricane Katrina did Brown keep his post? In his case, at least, your description was dead-on: "...these Czars aren't even confirmed by the Senate, so they are absolute in their power that they don't even have to listen to be the people, much less answer to them."
Too bad your memory doesn't seem to reach that far back.

Thanks for playing. I hope we meet again.

GMpilot said...

Well yes, Christine, I did take such an oath. But you forgot the rest: after "foreign and domestic" comes "to bear true faith and allegiance to the same, and to obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice." So, what's your point?

I think of certain past Presidents as thugs, just as you do with this one. I have strongly disagreed with many of their policies (as I sometimes do with this one). But that's life. As you said to someone in another post, "That was then. This is now. Get over it!" Why can't you follow your own advice?

The fact that you describe Obama's "friendships" with Chavez and Ahmadinejad in quotation marks implies that even you don't believe it. The former has only allies of convenience, and the latter hasn't even got that. The manufactured crises you predict have already happened--after 9/11/01, I expected a series of endless emergencies during the last Administration--and we got them. The so-called 'Patriot' Act, the creation of a government branch that hadn't existed before, directives that have the weight of law without actually being law, the suspension of certain rights, both here and in Occupied Iraq...weren't you questioning everything then? If not, why not?
Your moral cowardice is even greater than my supposed 'hypocrisy'.

As for starting a civil war...is it Obama or the Democrats talking about that, or some secession-claiming Neanderthals in Austin, shouting "I hate the United States!"? Maybe they should secede, and establish their new country with the help of Mr. Ahmadinejad! (Of course, that border fence we're building would then have to include Texas, too.)
But that's a far cry from the 'socialist abyss' you think we're heading into.

Christinewjc said...

GM,

You already know that I appreciate your service to our country.

I understand that no military member is going to agree with any president 100% of the time. However, this situation is very different. If Obama was not eligible (which is true IF HIS FATHER WAS OBAMA SR.), in the first place, then our Constitution tells us that every policy and order he has given is not valid.

Doesn't it bother you that he has not released his vital records? You had to do so to be in the military, right?

Notice the order of allegiance in the oath you took.

1. To uphold the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

2. to bear true faith and allegiance to the same

THEN comes the part to obey orders:

3. and to obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice


1. If Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen as is required for POTUS in Article II Section 1 clause 5 of our Constitution, then following such a person is not upholding the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

2. If Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen as is required for POTUS in Article II Section 1 clause 5 of our Constitution, then he is not bearing true faith and allegiance to the same.

Doesn't the rest become very complicated and reaches the level of a Constitutional crisis for not only the military members but every American as well?

What is the difference between the terms "allegiance" and "obey orders"? Which is stronger?

Our pledge of allegiance does not include obeying orders of a president:

"I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America. And to the Republic, for which is stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

What does our flag stand for? Our Constitutional Republic and We The People - that's what.

Maybe it doesn't faze you, but it is extremely suspect that Obama has not revealed the following:

What is Obama & cohorts keeping silent about?

All of this:

Mr. Barack Hussein Obama -

The American People want to know, who sent you?


Obama has lived for 48 years without leaving any footprints -- none! There is no Obama documentation -- no records -- no paper trail -- none -- this can't be an accident.

Original, vault copy birth certificate -- Not released

Certificate of Live Birth -- Released -- Counterfeit

Obama/Dunham marriage license -- Not released

Soetoro/Dunham marriage license -- Not released

Soetoro adoption records -- Not released

Fransiskus Assisi School School application -- Released

Punahou School records -- Not released

Selective Service Registration -- Released -- Counterfeit

Occidental College records -- Not released

Passport (Pakistan) -- Not released

Columbia College records -- Not released

Columbia thesis -- Not released

Harvard College records -- Not released

Harvard Law Review articles -- None (maybe 1, unsigned?)

Baptism certificate -- None

Medical records -- Not released

Illinois State Senate records -- None

Illinois State Senate schedule -- Lost

Law practice client list -- Not released

University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None


What's more, are you comfortable with the Communists czars appointed by Obama - who only answer to him? Have you studied up on these radicals - like Van Jones, Cass Sunstein, the other convict guy - Jeff Jones, and Mark Lloyd?

There was a time (before Clinton removed it) when all Congressmen and Senators had to include an answer to the question, "Are you, or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?"

Another great legacy of Billy Boy...WA is now filled with Socialists, Marxists, Communists who would love to take down our Constitutional Republic and destroy Capitalism. Just ask Maxine Waters!

GMpilot said...

CJW: "Doesn't it bother you that he has not released his vital records? You had to do so to be in the military, right?"

No. I am a Vietnam-era vet. The only documents I remember providing was a police record (I had none), and my "Notification of Birth Registration" for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. That particular piece of paper declared that a COB in my name had been filed in Harrisburg, at the Office for the Registration of Vital Statistics, and gave the registry number I'd been given. It was most certainly NOT a birth certificate, but it did say where the certificate was. It declared the date and the location of my birth. On the back was a declaration that the Notification be well-maintained, because school authorities could use it in order to confirm my age "for all purposes connected with employment or school attendance".
That was all I had to declare my citizenship, but they accepted it anyway. In 1970, military recruiters were happy to see any warm body walk freely through their doors.

I did not, in fact, see my birth certificate until decades later, when I applied for a passport. It is before me as I write, and the fine print on it says:

This is to certify that this is a true copy of the record which is on file in the Pennsylvania Department of Health, in accordance with Act 66, P.L. 304, approved by the General assembly, June 29, 1953.

In short, what I have is a certified copy, authorized by the Commonwealth, of my own birth certificate. Since it is illegal to scan or photograph this document, I cannot even show it to you here, were I so inclined. I suppose you'll now say I'm not a natural-born citizen, either!

(More below: evidently my reply is too long.)

GMpilot said...

"1. If Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen as is required for POTUS in Article II Section 1 clause 5 of our Constitution, then following such a person is not upholding the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

True, AFAIK.

"2. If Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen as is required for POTUS in Article II Section 1 clause 5 of our Constitution, then he is not bearing true faith and allegiance to the same."

Also true.

However: the fact remains that all you (or rather, whomever you're quoting) has provided nothing. You say, "Obama hasn't provided this!" Well, it's up to you to show why he hasn't. You're claiming that he's not entitled to the position he holds, so it's up to you to produce evidence to support that. So far, you haven't. Joe Farah is willing to pay a whole bunch of money to anyone who can provide the wedge he's looking for, and so far, no one's come forth to claim it. Is everyone so intimidated by Obama's 'thugs' that no one is willing to talk? Even the old USSR wasn't screwed down that tight!

Do you truly believe that that the DoJ, the Secret Service, the Department of Education and any other Federal agency that could access Obama's past did not do so? That whole dismal list of "not released" records you want--he is under no obligation to release them to the public, and certainly not to any two-bit rabble-rouser. WND doesn't have any documentation, but neither does, say, Huffington Post.
Some of the papers demanded are just silly. No baptism certificate? Ha! I don't have one, either. Anyway, I always thought Christians, especially Protestant evangelical types such as yourself, thought that was a personal matter between you and your god. Unless, of course, you think God won't let you into heaven if you don't have the right papers!

"Doesn't the rest become very complicated and reaches the level of a Constitutional crisis for not only the military members but every American as well?"

Complicated, yes. Constitutional crisis? That seems to be what you guys want! A Constitutional crisis might possibly boil over into an insurrection (not a civil war), opening the door for the dissolution of the United States. There's so much anti-government sentiment generated by this bogus controversy that it could develop into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

"Our pledge of allegiance does not include obeying orders of a president:..."

No, it doesn't, because the President does not issue orders to civilians, only to the military. Capiche?

"There was a time (before Clinton removed it) when all Congressmen and Senators had to include an answer to the question, "Are you, or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?"

When I joined the service, I was asked if I had ever associated with, among others, the SDS or the Black Panthers. They don't ask that question now, because those groups have long since ceased to be relevant. My friend Malik might have been taken for either one in those days, though.

"...WA is now filled with Socialists, Marxists, Communists who would love to take down our Constitutional Republic and destroy Capitalism."

Given the recent revelations of the C Street Club, Washington is also filled with Dominionists, Secessionists, and other wackos who would also destroy the Republic, and capitalism as well. I for one do not wish to see the values of "The Family" become family values.

Gary Baker said...

GM,

"The so-called 'Patriot' Act, the creation of a government branch that hadn't existed before, directives that have the weight of law without actually being law, the suspension of certain rights, both here and in Occupied Iraq...weren't you questioning everything then? If not, why not?"

I guess by the use of quotations you don't really believe it was called the Patriot Act.

As a matter of fact, I was questioning the suspension of some rights here. Not in occupied Iraq, of course, since they rapidly achieved more rights than many of them had ever known. However, I digress...

I questioned, and more than that, many people questioned and investigated and the courts issued rulings. We can argue weather or not proper verdicts were issued, but at least there was an attempt to examine the issues. Compare that with the Democrats suppressing Republican speech to their constituents using the Franking office. No investigation, no resolution. Holder being presented with a video tape of clear voter intimidation. No investigation, no prosecution. Union thugs smashing constituents into walls at townhall meetings. No investigations or prosecutions, at least as far as I've been able to find out. Obama supporters faking hate crimes. Not hearing much about that. Obama overriding the separation of powers to take charge of bankruptcy procedures. No investigation. There's lots more stuff, but you get the idea. Lots of nice little fascist going ons, but you wouldn't know it from the DOJ, ABC, CNN, NBC, etc. I recall the left being very upset that the Bush administration was taping some phone calls of suspected terrorists. Now, Congress is pushing a plan that gives the government virtually carte blanche on private information, as well as unprecedented control of business in the private sector. You can point back at Bush all you want, but that doesn't change what's going on right now. Given a choice between any President and the Constitution, I know which side I'm on.

GMpilot said...

So do I, Mr. Baker. So do I. Presidents come and go, but the Constitution endures.

But as for the "now", I've never witnessed such underhanded attempts to overturn an election as I've seen in the past eight months.

All I'm saying to Christine and the other residents of Birthastan is this: provide supporting evidence instead of over-the-top accusations, and then we'll talk.

Gary Baker said...

GM,

"I've never witnessed such underhanded attempts to overturn an election as I've seen in the past eight months."

We have different standards for such things. Personally, I believe that Mr. Gore's attempt to sue to have only highly democrat districts recounted in the 2000 election is worse, especially when you consider that many leftist maintain to this day that Bush stole the election despite the fact that several newspapers (not conservative) performed independent recounts and Bush won them all. For some reason, the mainstream media never was too keen on distributing that bit of information.

Personally, I don't know whether Obama meets the definition of "native born" or not. I haven't felt called to get into the mix, and I don't think that it's going to go anywhere anyway. I do disagree with your statement that Obama is under no obligation to prove anything, that those doubting are obligated to prove that he is not. For starters, it's very difficult to prove a negative. From a historical standpoint, I have never applied for a job where it was not my responsibility to prove that I met the requirements. Then again this is government, and things often work strangely.

Christinewjc said...

GM,

How can anyone provide "supporting evidence" if the defendant refuses to show his bonafide documents? It has been reported that he has spent well over 1.4 million dollars to a lawyer group to prevent the release of his vault-length COLB in front of a judge in a court of law. Does that look like a person who has nothing to hide?

Another question.

If George W. Bush had done the same thing that Obama is currently doing - hiding all pertinent records that might reveal something that would disqualify him from the presidency - would you be O.K. with that?

P.S. That Van Jones who was hired by Obama as the Green Jobs Czar is quite the upstanding citizen - isn't he?
Ugh.......

GMpilot said...

How about evidence of the 1.4 million bucks spent to conceal the facts, then? Just for a start.

How do you know how much money has been spent? Do you know the identity of the law firm? (There is such a thing as the freedom of Information Act, you know; that much should be accessible.)

Or are you pulling all this out of Orly Taitz's ass?

You birthers are making these accusations, so the burden of proof is on you. Provide it, or go home.

"If George W. Bush had done the same thing that Obama is currently doing - hiding all pertinent records that might reveal something that would disqualify him from the presidency - would you be O.K. with that?"

I seem to recall there WAS such a thing in '04, regarding his military record, i.e. his flying hours, and other inconsistencies. It wasn't anything to disqualify him from the presidency, but there did appear to be a rush to quell any doubts. AFAIK, only CBS dared touch it, and they got squashed. Look it up.

...So Alberto Gonzales was a paragon of integrity?
We could trade comparisons all year...let's just concentrate on whether Obama is or isn't, okay?

GMpilot said...

You are of course free to disagree, Mr. Baker...with birthers, Democrats, myself, anything you wish.
I have heard of a number of things that Obama is or alleged to be: an Arab, a Muslim, a Kenyan, an Indonesian, a socialist, a communist, A. Hitler, a friend of terrorists. There has been, to date, little to no evidence to support any of these claims. Christine will likely claim it's all "hyperbole".

I have never applied for a job where it was not my responsibility to prove that I met the requirements, either. In addition, I, a mere citizen from Philadelphia, was thoroughly investigated by the authorities at least twice; once when I joined the service, and again a few years later to obtain a security clearance. It just seems odd to me that a US senator (and Presidential candidate) would not have received the same treatment I did, and odder still that the inhabitants of Birthastan had not considered this.

Gary Baker said...

"AFAIK, only CBS dared touch it, and they got squashed. Look it up. "

No need to look it up, really. I remember the incident quite well. Dan Rather used a single document as the primary piece of a story on 60 minutes which was designed to show that Bush was AWOL from his guard unit. The controversy came about when it was noted that the type font used for the document was not in use until after the date on the memo. When pressed about the inconsistency, Dan Rather said that he had taken the document to an expert prior to the airing of the show and the expert reported that it was impossible to verify whether or not the document was authentic. Despite this, the piece was aired without the accompanying doubts of the expert. In short, an attempt to use the weight of 60 Minutes to give credibility to a story supported by no evidence. The nicest thing one could possibly saw about it was that it was shoddy journalism. Despite this, and other charges that were revealed as false, and that Bush's statement for volunteering for combat missions was on record, the story that Bush was a National Guard Deserter got a great deal of play and traction. No, it was not an attempt to disqualify him from the Presidency. That was made through several lawsuits filed and lost, not dismissed, by Gore and company. These accusations were designed to paint Bush as a coward and criminal. Any implication that Bush received any form of lighter treatment than Obama is quiet laughable.

Christinewjc said...

What's more, it was recently revealed that George W. Bush volunteered to fly planes in the Vietnam era, but was turned down because he didn't have enough flight experience at the time.

The Lamestream media viciously attacked President Bush for 8 years. Now, with the Thug-Master in office, people are waking up to the fact that Bush was a far better CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC president.