Obama’s Tyrannical Rule
February 7, 2013
Please read this terrific article written by one of my best and most loyal readers, Maureen Crowley.
Mr. Speaker, I turn to you today because I’m not alone in feeling that the Republicans in the House are what stands between the American people and absolute, unbridled tyranny. I’ve tried to instill a sense of unity in our party, because parsing out establishment, evangelicals, the Tea Party, and moderates, will, if you’ll pardon the pun, mean a house divided. The Dems stick together, often shamelessly, but they are usually united. I was happy to hear Marco Rubio go on Rush, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and Mark Levin’s shows. We hope he sticks with reform being contingent on border security, because we don’t need any more branch offices of Hezbollah in San Diego, among other outrages. But I do have a suggestion. And that is attach and release. In other words, a simplified tax form in which wages immediately begin to go toward fence building. And I agree with Charles Krauthammer: a simple fence is all you need. I can’t help but notice the way the Dems make a soup out of all their bloated agencies. Example: they think the Environmental Protection Agency should intervene in ammunition shell casings that are deemed harmful to the environment. And they’re doing expanded stuff with Health and Human Services, too, as they yank freedoms at an unprecedented rate.
I say use a positive synergy, instead of their twisted nonsense. Think outside the box —, incorporate tax reform and run a campaign on the obliteration of the IRS. Bring Steve Forbes on board to institute a flat tax or something comparable. The Progressive existing tax destroys successful job creators. The message has to get out that Obamacare means the Internal Revenue Service comes after its opponents. You can do immigration, tax reform, and enhanced personal freedoms all in one. And I was glad Marco Rubio believes in basic entrepreneurially-oriented conservatism as does Paul Ryan, as the way out of poverty. It’s also significant that Sen. Rubio’s family fled a Communist regime, as we see our country turning into a dictatorship with each passing day. Immigration reform is a risky thing, no question. Americans worry about the repercussions of welcoming so many people, not knowing who truly wants citizenship, and who wants to continue to live off the government. Let’s remember the hospitals that have gone out of business, as well as the opportunity to go back to talk of tort reform, competition, etc.
With a 3/5 majority of Republican governors, the state exchanges might not fly after all. And what about the $20,000 per family sticker shock? You can easily do better than that. Mid-term voting in 2014 will be very significant. In the meantime, no more Romneys. Please, get a good passionate candidate for Massachusetts — someone fiery with straight-talking eloquence, a winning smile, and easily visible courage of convictions. And their campaign should mention what the idiot Elizabeth Warren started, the “You didn’t build that,” insanity. Also, we need Carl Rove throwing his weight around and dividing the party like a moose needs a hat rack. He’s going to push former Gov. Jeb Bush who would lose to Hillary, IMHO. Levin went off on him recently, big time. There’s so much that can be done to save this country. Energy is huge. In 2013 the technologies are state of the art. I’m aware that a guy at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue wants to appoint someone from North Dakota for a position —I don—t remember what. But he needs to be kept away from the prosperity of that booming state, because of his leftist, useless obsession with green energy. I’m in favor of what doesn’t pollute and what the people want, but that whole taxpayer waste to creating so-called green jobs was a horrible point in our history.
I have to talk more about Benghazi. I found the article I was looking for which echoes what I’ve been saying. Hearsay is hearsay, I get that. But intuition tells you who the commenting fakes are and who is sincere. Here’s the piece I am referring to: “Benghazi a Botched MB Kidnapping To Trade Blind Sheik for Ambassador.” America watched in disbelief as Barack Obama tried to tell the American people that the attack on the Libyan consulate on September 11 was the result of an amateurish, anti-Muslim video that had been on YouTube for three months with barely 300 views. Then suddenly the administration announced that it was, yes, a terrorist attack, but that it was the intelligence community that had fed them bad information, even though we knew our intelligence community had known it was an al-Qaida linked attack within 24 hours. Why the equivocation? Why the lies? None of it made sense until now.
Obama throwing long-time ally Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak under the bus for the Muslim Brotherhood makes sense. All the White House contacts with Muslim Brotherhood front groups like CAIR and ISNA; all the changes that CAIR and ISNA made to the training manuals that our intelligence community uses now are evident.
Kevin DuJan, a political analyst and radio and TV host, wrote an article and appeared on radio on October 8 putting forth a theory that the attack of the Libyan consulate was tied neither to a video or terrorism but a botched kidnapping of Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Barack Obama had arranged with the Muslim Brotherhood to kidnap the ambassador, and through Obama’s supposed affinity with the Muslim world, Obama would save the day and get the ambassador released. But the Muslim Brotherhood wanted something in return. . . their beloved Blind Sheik. Unbelievable? Western Journalism broke the news that a source connected to the White House had stated that the murder of Stevens and the other Americans was a botched kidnapping linked to one Barack Hussein Obama. And here’s the post that really blew me away:
The post was originally posted by Rob McEwen: “Normally I’d blow off articles like this as hearsay and consider stuff like this to be almost like tabloid trash.” For example, many people believe all sorts of bad things about Sara Palin which really aren’t true because they took hearsay to levels it shouldn’t have been taken to. However I’m finding this article to be very believable, given what I know about Obama. For example, try to explain ObamaShopped.com …that one will blow people’s minds!
I have a personal friend whose close relative is serving as a Marine in The Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST). FAST is assigned the responsibility of going to hot spots and securing American installations (such as embassies) from attack. This is their primary job and they are good at it. And they are already forward deployed around the world for quick deployment, on a moment’s notice, to any hotspot desired. They can get there and have a location fully secured and protected within hours. Here is the shocking part. My friend told me that he or she (trying to protect my source), was told the day before the Benghazi attack that they were being ordered to deploy to Benghazi. Then, just before they were to leave they received a call from high up to stand down and not deploy. When the attacks occurred in Benghazi the next day, they were literally sitting around playing cards. Then, of course, they did get that deployment until the following day. Their original deployment order would have had that embassy easily secured prior to the attack! I conclude that the military was initially told to deploy before the attack because someone high up in Washington had inside information. That means that they can’t claim they were blindsided. Even if this article is wrong, that indicates some level of incompetence or poor judgment for this deployment to have been cancelled.
Economically we are a house of cards. But we can’t fear the market forces of a true correction. All the tarps and bailouts falsely got us going, and because of all that and the stimulus program, we’re looking at almost 17 trillion worth of debt. Never mind the kids and grandkids, we’ll be picking through garbage cans like the Greeks in no time! Meanwhile, you know who hops on the plane as we fearfully await total government control. If he isn’t stopped within the laws of the United States, you and I will only know America as a memory. And finally, please read Bob Grant’s post from January 11, 2013 from BobGrantOnline.com: http://www.bobgrantonline.com/archive/2013/bifur.cfm Bob and I love this country, even though he’s not the Paul Ryan fan that I am.
In closing, do you want to win elections? Listen to Bob Grant, the founder of talk radio, which, thanks to him, means true expression of the First Amendment. Without him, there would be no Hannity, no Rush, no Levin. You want to lose elections? Listen to Colin Powell and Karl Rove.
Prayers for our troops,