Obama: 'Judge me by the people who surround me'

page: 3
39
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Parallex
 


Yea, yea, I hear that all the time, "It's all revelant", "Communism was never given a chance", "it's no different than any other form of government", "Joe Stalin was not a good example of communism". Yack-de-yack. Almost all of it comes from the college types who learn it from their liberal professors.

Nothing will awaken you more than listening to someone who has been there and came to this country and started their own business. They do not take the freedoms this country has for granted, and they don't mind getting in your face and telling you.

We still don't know how many of his own people Joe Stalin murdered. The estimate ranges from 50 million to 95 million. Many were killed simply because they knew how to read and write. To know anything other than what you were programmed to know makes you enemy of the state. This same thing was repeated in Communist China.

The Communist don’t mind killing millions of people, you have no individuality under communist rule. Your just a number, and like any numbers, it’s nothing to delete a bunch of numbers with zeros behind it.

If there was anything worthwhile while about that scum bag political system, you would see people trying to climb over the fence trying to join it. Instead you see people willing to risk everything trying to get away from it. Remember the Berlin wall, all those people shot and killed trying to escape communism? If there ever was/is such a thing as a Satan, he invented it.You think Communism is OK? Me, I like being an individual who can freely express myself without worrying about being in some Gulag because of my beliefs.




posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 02:02 AM
link   
Communism sounded good to some people but in practice....







posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 05:18 AM
link   
You know, as stated numerous times by numerous people, Obama is telling us that he's basically a Red Flag waving Terrorist who will give a Lawyer to a Rat (aren't they the same?) and I'd have to agree with all of you.

I'm an Australian, and I live in Sydney. I was listening to a Radio station (Radio 2GB, streaming online) the other night, and they played a 'Pledge' audio track that apparently the American Government would love to give to the School Kids.

At the end of the ranting Idiots, some fool says "I Pledge to serve Obama."

I was stunned. Aren't Politicians Public Servants? Servants? SERVANTS?

This Obama weirdo (and that's all he is) would love nothing better than for the whole world to bow down to him, and indeed, I can see my Prime Minister Kevin Rudd (another pathetic excuse for a Man, all he wants is the top U.N seat) wanting to follow in his foot steps, because Obama is some sort of Celebrity.

So he's black. So what? He's a novelty, and that's why he's doing such a good job at preparing to hurt a lot of people.

So, PLEASE, judge this SERVANT of the PUBLIC, and not by the company he keeps. That's just his own little Nazi way of saying "Don't blame me, it was my friends. I have spoken!"

If I can help, even in the Country I live in, don't be afraid to contact me, okay?

Your Brother in Australia, your Brother in this War.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   
The truth is Obama is a radical leftist. This was obvious before he was elected.

Obama is surrounded by radicals because he agrees with them. He said in a 2001 radio interview that the Constitution was fundamentally flawed because it restrained government and didn't talk about redistribution of wealth.

Obama is a radical, left wing, community organizer who got elected because of Bush.

If Bush wasn't so bad, people would not have been blinded to Obama's radical ties and ideology. All Obama had to say was, I'm not Bush.

These Czars are troubling because we don't know the vetting process. We also need to know how much they get paid and how much power they have.

This is why Democrat Robert Byrd complained about them.

Obama knows many of these czars are too radical to go through any type of confirmation hearing.

Obama called for a civilian force just as well funded and just as strong as our military. When he said this, I knew I couldn't vote for him. Things like this are very troubling to me. Why would Obama want something like this? We have the F.B.I., C.I.A., the military, national guard, homeland security and more. Of course he wasn't asked about this by the so called media. Obama wants to fund an army of community organizers like Acorn. Could you imagine these thugs running around the streets with weapons like they have in the military?

Obama is very radical.

[edit on 5-9-2009 by Matrix Rising]



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Obama is very radical.


The leaders of the time sought to silence Jesus Christ.
He was thought to be a blasphemer and a radical in his day.
There are those today who know his way, and others who merely know their own.

The sky is falling!

You have nothing to fear, but those of men, who seek to strike fear into the hearts of mankind.

Peace will prevail. Iniquity will perish.

Peace



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by HIFIGUY

The leaders of the time sought to silence Jesus Christ.


You guys thinking Obama is the messiah is getting old.

Jesus had the 7 disciples, Obama has the 57 Czars...1 from every state!



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
You guys thinking Obama is the messiah is getting old.

Jesus had the 7 disciples, Obama has the 57 Czars...1 from every state!


Your inferring that we say he is could be considered irreverent.

There are many that recognize the way of a caring heart, and others that only see the way of their own. A tree will be known by its fruit, and when this President reaches out to the poor and the lesser advantaged, he is doing what some only hope to achieve in their life.

Peace



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by HIFIGUY

Your inferring that we say he is could be considered irreverent.

There are many that recognize the way of a caring heart, and others that only see the way of their own. A tree will be known by its fruit, and when this President reaches out to the poor and the lesser advantaged, he is doing what some only hope to achieve in their life.

Peace



I don't recognize this in Obama. If he cared for the poor, he would want them to better themselves. But for every poor person that betters themselves and gets dependent from the government, that is one less vote Obama can count on.

It's one thing to say you care. But not one Obama policy has shown me that he does.

Also if Obama cared about the poor, why did he let his half brother in Kenya live in squalor, and his own illegal alien aunt live in a housing project? It's much different helping people with your own money than the taxpayers money.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
Also if Obama cared about the poor, why did he let his half brother in Kenya live in squalor, and his own illegal alien aunt live in a housing project? It's much different helping people with your own money than the taxpayers money.


It says in scripture: Tim 6:8


And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.


Consider your national highways, and many programs that help the nation and the world wide. Think with a compassionate heart and open eyes in ways that you would treat your own children, but look beyond your own family and immediate friends for what credit is that to you?

Many who are poor and live a meager life are much happier than you.

Peace



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 04:12 AM
link   
It's not just Rezko, Wright, Flagler, et al. The policies of his "czars" bears out everything some people have been saying about Obama since 2008.

NONE of these people are confirmed by Congress, yet have power equivalent to Cabinet positions.

Read his books!

Van Jones is just the most visible target. I hate to repeat some of your OP, but I've been collecting info on many associates, and wanted to "flesh out" some of what we've seen since even before he took office.

Carol Browner, Climate Czar, formerly of Socialist International, supporter of “global governance,” was a leader of the socialist group’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for “global governance” and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.

Cass Sunstein, Regulatory czar, has proposed bans on hunting and eating meat. He believes animals have a right to an attorney and to sue you in court. He advocates a ”Fairness Doctrine” for the Internet, and believes: “ There is no liberty without dependency. That is why we should celebrate tax day.”

John Holdren, Presidential Science Advisor, advocates America’s “de-industrialization.” He says: ”[L]aws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

“The need for DE-development presents our economists with a major challenge. They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.”

“A transnational ‘Planetary Regime’ should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.”

Mark Lloyd, FCC Diversity czar, wants to enforce “localism” with fines and fees, then turn over the funds to public broadcasting., where opinions and news are more “progressive friendly.” In other words, the Fairness Doctrine” will be used to politically monitor and punish broadcasters whose views don’t reflect those of the administration.

Ezekiel Emmanuel, Health Care czar, is a proponent of the “complete lives” regime. That is, that health care resources should be allocated by age and to “productive” Americans. He has advised the President that: “This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”

(Can anyone say"death panels?")

Daniel Chu, Energy Secretary, has “nightmares about coal.” He advocates that Americans pay “European prices” for gasoline and energy.

Bill Ayers, Weather Underground bomber, cop killer, and Acorn activist. He says: ”I don’t regret setting bombs, I feel we didn’t do enough.”

Jeff Jones, Weather Underground co-founder, with Ayers. The Apollo Alliance, under Jeff and Van Jones created Barack Obama’s stimulus bill that absolutely no one in Congress read, but Obama swore that if it wasn’t passed immediately, the world would end.

Here’s what Jeff Jones KNOWS about Obama’s agenda:

“He is setting Clinton up to be the face of his effort to end the Iraq war. He is going to sucessfully extort concessions from Detroit. He will convince Congress to pass a major stimulus package.

These various initiatives, which will collectively set the nation on a path towards redistributing financial resources downward, are presented as unconnected pieces of legislation but actually they are interlocking components of Obama's coherent multi-layered agenda. His centrist appointments are a smokescreen; they co-opt the moderate center. Even Lenin would be impressed!

Van Jones, communist and founder of STORM, whose philosophy says: “All of STORMS members developed a basic understanding of and commitment to Revolutionary Marxist Policies with a particular emphases on the historical experiences of 3rd world communist movements.”


Look what you've done to my Country!

jw



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by RRconservative
 


How about that Cass Sunstein? What a great frined we have in our "Regulatory Czar!"



"There is no reason to believe that in the face of statutory ambiguity, the meaning of federal law should be settled by the inclinations and predispositions of federal judges. The outcome should instead depend on the commitments and beliefs of the President and those who operate under him."


This statement was the central thesis of Sunstein's 2006 Yale Law School paper, "Beyond Marbury: The Executive's Power to Say What the Law Is."

The interpretation of federal law should be made not by judges but by the beliefs and commitments of the U.S. president and those around him, according to President Obama's regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein.


jw





new topics
top topics
 
39
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join