Archive for the ‘Arrest Obama for treason’ Category

Articles: Ten Indications That Obama Is Scared.


Ten Indications That Obama Is Scared

By Kevin Jackson


Obama is not the cool, calm, and collected guy that he portrays publicly; he’s far from it.  Obama is described privately as a thin-skinned hot-head when it comes to questioning his policies, or anything else, for that matter.

Though there has been a slight shift upward in Obama’s poll numbers, Obama knows the real temperature of the American people.  Here are 10 indicators as to why Obama will have sleepless nights leading up to the election of 2012:

  1. Obama started African Americans for Obama.  When blacks supposedly voted at 95 percent for Obama in the last election, one has to question his motives in starting this group.  The answer is that Obama’s poll numbers among blacks have fallen back to their lowest point, a clear sign that Obama is feeling the pressure.  If Obama loses his street cred amongst blacks, he will likely be abandoned by other groups. Obama must have the “race” element in 2012, even though the black vote will be much less significant in 2012.  By the way, how would the media have covered “White Americans for McCain?”

  2. Obama started a Spanish-language website.  Now, most people would call this clever; however, this move could backfire and is a pure sign that Obama knows he is in trouble.  A country that requires you to know English should not have a sitting president with a Spanish-language website.  It would seem to be pandering to the massive non-English-speaking population of Latinos.  Obama has not chosen to pander to any other potential immigrant voting bloc, which could have many Africans up in arms.  Why not develop a website in Swahili or Bantu?  Asians, Jews, and many other ethnic groups might wonder what Obama’s obsession is with blacks and Latinos, while forsaking them.  This could lead to the logic that the president is supposed to be the president of all Americans.

  3. Obama’s energy policy is pure comedy.  When Obama took office, gasoline averaged $1.89.  Gasoline is now at its highest point in history, averaging $3.65 a gallon — and it’s getting higher.  When gas crested at $3 a gallon under Bush, Democrats were quick to put Bush in cahoots with the oil companies.  Obama and other Democrats are blaming Wall Street, offering that high gas prices are “bringing families closer together” or that high gas prices are “saving lives.”  Nice try.  The problem with gas prices is that they affect the lower end of the food chain the most.  Poor people have to plan trips to the supermarket or buy gas in parts of a gallon.  “I’ll have ½ a gallon.”  Obama touts green energy, but he has not had a single successful example where his policy has worked, and despite the Truth Teams, Obama has wasted billions on “green” energy while people are suffering from a lack of “black” energy — oil and coal.

  4. Obama now supports super-PACs.  Aside from the multitude of flip-flops or blatant “untruths,” Obama has now decided that for the good of the country, he must embrace the idea of “buying his next election.”  I suggest that Obama has forgotten that he bought his first election, and that took everything he had, despite a weakening economy, hatred of Bush, and a less than stellar Republican candidate.  Obama vowed to raise $1B in order to fight the right, and his newfound support of super-PACs only proves that he’s panicked about raising money and about what he will have to spend to put the genie — his record — back in the bottle.

  5. Obama has feigned shifting right.  When a bona fide socialist begins talk of shifting right, you know he’s panicked.  Obama no more believes in the private-sector solutions for the economy than he believes that Rosie O’Donnell would skip a meal.  Yet he is suddenly offering to cut business taxes.  Welcome to Panderville.  Many of Obama’s panic moves will showcase the complete hypocrisy of what he campaigned on or truly believes, and how far he is willing to go to remain in power.

  6. Obama began the Truth Teams, dismantling Attack Watch.  Renaming Attack Watch is like renaming the Department of War the Defense Department.  Attack Watch was a dismal failure, because the truth is not an attack.  Renaming Attack Watch “Truth Team” now allows Obama to stamp out the truth wherever it may occur.  Obama is deathly afraid of the unvarnished truth.  The Truth Team’s assignment is to varnish it.  So now Obama was for Keystone XL and the 20,000 jobs that it didn’t create.  High gas prices are good for the economy in the form of higher revenues and more lives saved, due to less driving.  Welfare is good for the economy, actually generating $1.85 return for every $1 spent.  That’s the truth, and they’re sticking with it.

  7. Obama is changing his slogan.  Realizing that “Yes We Can” has turned into “Well, I Thought We Could,” and that “hope and change” now applies to getting rid of him, Obama must adjust his catchphrases.  Obama’s handlers are testing various new sayings, but the bad news is that nothing is sticking.  The new phrases being tested are “Winning the Future,” “Greater Together,” and “We Don’t Quit,” and Obama has begun lacing these in his speeches, but none are resonating, which is why Obama is panicking.

  8. Obama’s foreign policy strategy is in shambles.  Generally when a president has such a weak domestic agenda, he may be able to recover based on decent foreign policy.  This is not the case with Obama.  Obama’s foreign policy has made America weak and the laughingstock of the world.  It was said when Obama was elected that the world would love us, which has proven simply not the case.  Obama has revealed himself to be much worse than Bush in foreign policy, and he has created havoc all over North Africa and the Middle East.  China and Russia are positioning to remove the dollar as the international monetary standard, which would devastate the U.S. economy.  Their recent decision not to support the U.S. in the U.N. with respect to Syria proves that the Obama administration is not taken seriously.  Foreign policy will be a huge influence on Obama’s re-election chances, which is why he will try about anything to shore things up before November.

  9. Obama is talking tough.  As the saying goes, the shallower the stream, the louder the babble.  Most people recognize that the bigmouth at the bar is far from the toughest, yet Obama all but guaranteed that he will serve “five more years” while on a Spanish-language radio program.  It is difficult to balance tough talk with “It’s Bush’s fault.”  Further, Obama’s constant and incessant apologies (and bowing) don’t jibe with the tough talk.  Again, this is a strategy that will likely backfire for Obama, as most people have begun to realize that the tough talker is generally weak, and Obama is no exception.

  10. There is no real improvement in any sector in America.  Obama’s biggest problem is that the economy is being held together with paperclips and Band-Aids.  The fragile nature of things does not bode well, so even the slightest uptick in inflation will wreak havoc on the deficit.  The prospect for jobs will not improve between now and the election, so the media is the only potential distraction from real unemployment north of 15 percent.  Another budget crisis is looming, and most of Obama’s policies are under attack in multiple states.

Obama has much to be concerned about, despite being “The Money-Giver” to the poor.  Americans have reached the end, and words just won’t cut it.  Further, Americans have tired of style and want substance.  I believe that the new bumper stickers might be “You Had Your Chance!”

Read more:


Articles: Early Obama Letter Confirms Inability to Write.


Early Obama Letter Confirms Inability to Write

By Jack Cashill

On November 16, 1990, Barack Obama, then president of the Harvard Law Review, published a letter in the Harvard Law Record, an independent Harvard Law School newspaper, championing affirmative action.

Although a paragraph from this letter was excerpted in David Remnick’s biography of Obama, The Bridge, I had not seen the letter in its entirety before this week.  Not surprisingly, it confirms everything I know about Barack Obama, the writer and thinker.

Obama was prompted to write by an earlier letter from a Mr. Jim Chen that criticized Harvard Law Review’s affirmative action policies.  Specifically, Chen had argued that affirmative action stigmatized its presumed beneficiaries.

The response is classic Obama: patronizing, dishonest, syntactically muddled, and grammatically challenged.  In the very first sentence Obama leads with his signature failing, one on full display in his earlier published work: his inability to make subject and predicate agree.

“Since the merits of the Law Review’s selection policy has been the subject of commentary for the last three issues,” wrote Obama, “I’d like to take the time to clarify exactly how our selection process works.”

If Obama were as smart as a fifth-grader, he would know, of course, that “merits … have.”  Were there such a thing as a literary Darwin Award, Obama could have won it on this on one sentence alone.  He had vindicated Chen in his first ten words.

Although the letter is fewer than a thousand words long, Obama repeats the subject-predicate error at least two more times.  In one sentence, he seemingly cannot make up his mind as to which verb option is correct so he tries both: “Approximately half of this first batch is chosen … the other half are selected … “

Another distinctive Obama flaw is to allow a string of words to float in space.  Please note the unanchored phrase in italics at the end of this sentence:

“No editors on the Review will ever know whether any given editor was selected on the basis of grades, writing competition, or affirmative action, and no editors who were selected with affirmative action in mind.”  Huh?

The next lengthy sentence highlights a few superficial style flaws and a much deeper flaw in Obama’s political philosophy.

I would therefore agree with the suggestion that in the future, our concern in this area is most appropriately directed at any employer who would even insinuate that someone with Mr. Chen’s extraordinary record of academic success might be somehow unqualified for work in a corporate law firm, or that such success might be somehow undeserved.

Obama would finish his acclaimed memoir, Dreams from My Father, about four years later.  Prior to Dreams, and for the nine years following, everything Obama wrote was, like the above sentence, an uninspired assemblage of words with a nearly random application of commas and tenses.

Unaided, Obama tends to the awkward, passive, and verbose.  The phrase “our concern in this area is most appropriately directed at any employer” would more profitably read, “we should focus on the employer.” “Concern” is simply the wrong word.

Scarier than Obama’s style, however, is his thinking.  A neophyte race-hustler after his three years in Chicago, Obama is keen to browbeat those who would “even insinuate” that affirmative action rewards the undeserving, results in inappropriate job placements, or stigmatizes its presumed beneficiaries.

In the case of Michelle Obama, affirmative action did all three.  The partners at Sidley Austin learned this the hard way.  In 1988, they hired her out of Harvard Law under the impression that the degree meant something.  It did not.  By 1991, Michelle was working in the public sector as an assistant to the mayor.  By 1993, she had given up her law license.

Had the partners investigated Michelle’s background, they would have foreseen the disaster to come.  Sympathetic biographer Liza Mundy writes, “Michelle frequently deplores the modern reliance on test scores, describing herself as a person who did not test well.”

She did not write well, either.  Mundy charitably describes her senior thesis at Princeton as “dense and turgid.”  The less charitable Christopher Hitchens observes, “To describe [the thesis] as hard to read would be a mistake; the thesis cannot be ‘read’ at all, in the strict sense of the verb.  This is because it wasn’t written in any known language.” 

Michelle had to have been as anxious at Harvard Law as Bart Simpson was at Genius School.  Almost assuredly, the gap between her writing and that of her highly talented colleagues marked her as an affirmative action admission, and the profs finessed her through. 

In a similar vein, Barack Obama was named an editor of the Harvard Law Review.  Although his description of the Law Review’s selection process defies easy comprehension, apparently, after the best candidates are chosen, there remains “a pool of qualified candidates whose grades or writing competition scores do not significantly differ.”  These sound like the kids at Lake Woebegone, all above average.  Out of this pool, Obama continues, “the Selection Committee may take race or physical handicap into account.” 

To his credit, Obama concedes that he “may have benefited from the Law Review’s affirmative action policy.”  This did not strike him as unusual as he “undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action programs during my academic career.”

On the basis of his being elected president of Law Review — a popularity contest — Obama was awarded a six-figure contract to write a book.  To this point, he had not shown a hint of promise as a writer, but Simon & Schuster, like Sidley Austin, took the Harvard credential seriously.  It should not have.  For three years Obama floundered as badly as Michelle had at Sidley Austin.  Simon & Schuster finally pulled the contract.

Then Obama found his muse — right in the neighborhood, as it turns out!  And promptly, without further ado, the awkward, passive, ungrammatical Obama, a man who had not written one inspired sentence in his whole life, published what Time Magazine called “the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician.”

To question the nature of that production, I have learned, is to risk the abuse promised to Mr. Chen’s theoretical employer.  After all, who would challenge Obama’s obvious talent — or that of any affirmative action beneficiary — but those blinded by what Obama calls “deep-rooted ignorance and bias”?

What else could it be?

Editor’s Note: Both Barack and Michelle Obama are incredibly stupid people and they know it.  They’re running scared that they will soon be discovered and thrown “under the bus.”  (Oh, wait!  They’ve already been discovered–and ‘uncovered’–now, it’s just a matter of time before their communist “handlers” throw them under the bus for the ‘useful idiots’ they were…)

Secret Service ‘aware’ of Ted Nugent’s anti-Obama comments at National Rifle Association’s convention – NY Daily News.


Secret Service ‘aware’ of Ted Nugent’s anti-Obama comments at National Rifle Association’s convention

‘If Barack Obama becomes the president in November again, I will be dead or in jail’

Comments (292)

Published: Tuesday, April 17, 2012, 10:51 AM
Updated: Tuesday, April 17, 2012, 7:28 PM


	Musician Ted Nugent stumped for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney at the NRA convention over the weekend.

Randy Snyder/Getty Images

Musician Ted Nugent stumped for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney at the NRA convention over the weekend.

The Secret Service is reportedly “aware” of Republican rocker Ted Nugent‘s anti-Obama rant last weekend.

After Nugent went off on the president at the National Rifle Association’s convention over the weekend, a spokesperson for the Secret Service told it will conduct an “appropriate follow up.”

Speaking at the convention, Nugent said the government is “wiping its a— with the Constitution,” and suggested he’d rather be dead than suffer four more years under the Obama administration.

“If Barack Obama becomes the President in November again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year,” Nugent said, urging each person to get a “couple of thousand” people to cast their ballot for Mitt Romney.

“If you can’t galvanize and promote and recruit people to vote for Mitt Romney, we’re done,” Nugent said, at one point adding, “We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November. Any questions?”

The gun enthusiast officially endorsed Romney last month on Twitter after “a long heart-and-soul conversation.”

The wild rant against the President is not Nugent’s first.

The ’70s guitarist — who once considered running for governor of Michigan — complained during a concert that “Obama’s a piece of sh—, and I told him to suck on my machine gun.” He has also called now Secretary of State Hillary Clinton a “worthless b—.”