Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘President Obama’

Monitor: ISIS Controls More than Half of Syria


waving flagby Edwin Mora21 May 2015Washington, D.C.

Heavy clashes between the two sides resulted in the death of at least 100 Assad regime fighters, said the Observatory, which monitors the Syrian war through a network of sources on the ground.

In a rare public appearance on May 6, Assad admitted for the first time that his regime had suffered a spate of military defeats at the hands of Syrian rebels including ISIS.

U.S. Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged on May 7 that Syrian rebel factions had made recent gains against Assad and suggested that the dictator should consider negotiating peace. “The capture of Palmyra is the first time ISIS has taken control of a city directly from the Syrian army and allied forces, which have already lost ground in the northwest and south to other insurgent groups in recent weeks,” notes Al Arabiya News.

Gen. Jack Keane, former Vice Chief of Staff for the Army, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday that the U.S. was losing the war against ISIS, prompting criticism towards President Obama’s anti-ISIS strategy. Keane himself said Obama’s efforts to fight ISIS are “fundamentally flawed.”

On March 11, Secretary of State John Kerry told lawmakers that ISIL’s momentum has been diminished.”Liberalism a mental disorder 2

Palmyra is home to a UNESCO World Heritage site that includes colonnaded streets, temples, and a theatre that have stood for nearly 2,000 years. The ancient sites are at risk of being looted and destroyed if they have not been already.

On Thursday, the White House press secretary described ISIS’s seizure of Palmyra as a “setback” for the U.S.-led campaign against ISIS. He added that President Obama disagrees with Republicans urging the deployment of U.S. ground troops to combat ISIS.muslim-obama

The global community must respond to ISIS, said French President Francois Hollande on Thursday. “We have to act because there is a threat against these monuments which are part of humankind’s inheritance and at the same time we must act against Daesh,” declared Hollande, referring to ISIS by its Arabic name.

The Iraqi city of Ramadi, the capital of the country’s largest province Anbar, has also fallen to ISIS.

freedom combo 2

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


Iraq Legacy


Glenn Beck: ‘Prepare for all-out war’


Posted By Cheryl Chumley On 05/19/2015

Article reblogged from WND: http://www.wnd.com

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/glenn-beck-prepare-for-all-out-war/ 

against America

Glenn Beck

Former Fox News host-turned-media-giant Glenn Beck issued a dire warning to America, telling citizens to be on guard and prepare – all-out war is coming. “I would suggest that you prepare for all-out war,” he said in a recent broadcast, Raw Story reported. “War unlike we’ve ever seen in our lifetime because that’s what I believe is coming, unfortunately. I’m hoping that there’s a way to put this genie back into the bottle, but I don’t see it.”war drums

Beck said he feared “losing our country” and said another Sept. 11-type attack would prove a devastation to the nation, Mediaite reported.

“We talk about World War II, where they did shock and awe,” Beck’s co-host Stu Burguiere said. “Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of civilians died. It was not a pretty picture. And obviously war is hell, but is there any way that America — with the backbone we have today, with the 99 percenters and Occupy Wall Street as part of this country, with all that — they are going to accept a war effort like that?” 

Beck said the next truly devastating terrorist attack will be perpetrated by “home-grown” terrorists, and “they will be in multiple cities, so you won’t know” what to expect next.

He said, in context of discussing the ISIS vow to harm the president and raise the terrorist flag over the White House: “Did you see what ISIS came out and said? That ISIS, their number one goal now is to hit America and kill the president. I cannot imagine. That would change perspectives entirely.’

“We got the Patriot Act the last time. Can you even imagine what the Department of Homeland Security would do if they, God forbid, hurt the president?”muslim-obama

Beck also said a different president – a Republican chief – would prove the better defender of America in a coming all-out war.

“We would bomb the snot out of them, if you had a Republican,” he said. “If we had President Barack Obama, I think we would just go on some apology tour. But if we had some economic collapse where people were frightened – really, truly frightened – and then on top of it we had some really bad terrorist attack, I think we would.”was


 

Ann Coulter Letter: “Knowing What We Know Now, Would You Say Jeb Bush Is Retarded?”


waving flagWritten by Ann Coulter  | 

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://humanevents.com/2015/05/20/knowing-what-we-know-now-would-you-say-jeb-bush-is-retarded/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Knowing What We Know Now, Would You Say Jeb Bush Is Retarded?

Was Jeb Bush too busy watching telenovelas during his brother’s presidency to remember the Iraq War?

We went to war at such breakneck speed after 9/11, that, before the invasion, I was able to write approximately 30 columns about it, give five dozen speeches on it, discuss it on TV a hundred times and read 1,089 New York Times editorials denouncing the “rush to war.” 

So I remember the arguments.

Contrary to the fairy tale the left has told itself since Obama truculently gave away America’s victory in Iraq, our argument wasn’t that we had to invade Iraq because of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. And the left’s argument certainly was not: “He doesn’t have any WMDs!”

Our argument was: There were lots of reasons to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and none to keep him.

Indeed, after Bush’s State of the Union address laying out the case for war with Iraq, The New York Times complained that he had given too many reasons: “Even the rationale for war seems to change from day to day. Mr. Bush ticked off a litany of accusations against Iraq in his State of the Union address …” (New York Times, Feb. 2, 2003)

Among the reasons we invaded Iraq were:

(1) Saddam had given shelter to terrorists who killed Americans. After 9/11, it was time for him to pay the price:

– The mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking, Abu Abbas, who murdered a wheelchair-bound American citizen, Leon Klinghoffer, then forced the passengers to throw his body overboard, was living happily in Iraq. (Captured by U.S. forces in Baghdad less than a month after our invasion.)

– The terrorist who orchestrated the murder of American diplomat Laurence Foley in October 2002, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, also took refuge in Saddam’s Iraq. (Killed by U.S. forces in Iraq on June 7, 2006.)

– The one terrorist behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing who got away, Abdul Rahman Yasin, fled to Iraq, where he was given money and lived without fear of being extradited to the United States. (Whereabouts unknown. Possibly being groomed for a prime-time show on MSNBC.)

– Czech intelligence reported that Mohammed Atta, 9/11 mastermind, met with Iraqi agents in Prague shortly before the attack.

We’re not supposed to mention the Prague meeting on penalty of liberals yelling at us. Apparently, our CIA discounts that report. On the other hand, the CIA didn’t see the 1993 World Trade Center bombing coming, didn’t see 9/11 coming, didn’t see the Fort Hood massacre coming and didn’t see the Times Square bombing coming. No one tell liberals, but our CIA knows NOTHING — although they’re pretty sure something bad happened at Pearl Harbor a while back.

(2) Saddam had attempted to assassinate a former president of the United States. Liberals complained that it was a family feud because that president happened to be Bush’s father, but, again, he was also a FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. (Does being a relative of the president make you fair game for assassination attempts? Bill Clinton, please pick up the white courtesy phone.)

(3) Saddam not only had WMDs, he had used them — far more prodigiously than Syria’s Bashar al-Assad did when Obama masterfully backed down from his “red line” threat if Assad ever used chemical weapons. (Assad’s WMDs killed about a thousand civilians — 350 according to French intelligence, which is a lot better than ours. Saddam’s WMDs killed an estimated 100,000 civilians. That’s according to everyone — the United Nations, Human Rights Watch and Clinton-era ambassador Peter Galbraith.)

(4) We needed to smash some Muslim strongman after the 9/11 attack, and Saddam was as good as any other — at least as good as the Taliban primitives who had allowed Osama bin Laden to pitch his tent in their godforsaken country.

It worked: Moammar Gadhafi, terrified that Bush would attack Libya next, invited U.N. inspectors in, gave up his WMDs, and paid the families of his Lockerbie bombing victims $8 million apiece.

(5) Saddam had committed atrocities on a far greater scale than our current bogeyman, ISIS. He tortured and murdered tens of thousands of Iraqis — removing their teeth with pliers, applying electric shocks to men’s genitals, drilling holes in their ankles and forcing them to watch as their wives were raped — as reported by USA Today, among others. There was no risk that we were accidentally taking out the Arab George Washington.

(6) Saddam was a dangerous and disruptive force in a crucial oil-producing region of the world. We need oil. Why not go to war for oil?

(7) The Iraqi people were a relatively sane, civilized and educated populace with a monstrous ruler. Removing that leader would provide a golden opportunity for an actual functioning Arab democracy — an Arab Israel.

That worked, too. In under two years, Iraqis were waving their purple fingers to symbolize having voted in their first democratic election. A few years after that, young Iranians were demanding their own democracy in another good people/bad rulers country.

But then an innocent 26-year-old girl, Neda, was gunned down in Tehran by the Iranian military. President Obama responded forcefully by going out for an ice cream cone. And thus ended the democratic movement in the Muslim world.

The least important reason to invade Iraq — the one that was tacked on for the sole purpose of taunting liberals over their goofy reverence for the United Nations — was that Saddam had refused to allow U.N. weapons inspectors in, leaving the strong impression that Iraq was chock-a-bloc with WMDs. It was the equivalent of asking where the feminists were when we invaded Afghanistan — although technically, we didn’t invade because the Taliban were mean to women.

In fact, the only time The New York Times got testy with Saddam was after the “powerful case” made by Secretary of State Colin Powell, “that Saddam Hussein stands in defiance of Security Council resolutions.” (Who cares?)

Liberals didn’t mind Saddam’s sheltering terrorists, using poison gas, invading his neighbors or attempting to assassinate a former U.S. president. But Saddam had disrespected the U.N.!

Far from claiming that estimates of Saddam’s WMDs were overblown, liberals cited those very WMDs to warn America that any invasion would result in catastrophe for the Great Satan. Thus, for example:

– The New York Times cautioned in an editorial that an invasion might create chaotic conditions, allowing “terrorists to grab biological or chemical weapons.” (New York Times, Feb. 2, 2003)

– Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg predicted that Saddam would “use poison gas against U.S. troops.” (Jane Sutton, “Pentagon Papers’ Ellsberg Sees Deja Vu in Iraq,” Reuters, Nov. 25, 2002)

– In the Chicago Tribune, Steve Chapman warned: “Once American troops set foot on Iraqi soil, they may be bombarded with poison gas.” (Steve Chapman, “What Could Go Wrong in the War With Iraq,” Chicago Tribune, Nov. 17, 2002)

– The Times’ Nicholas Kristof wrote that if we invaded Iraq, “Saddam may well launch missiles with chemical warheads at Tel Aviv.” (Nicholas Kristof, “Flirting With Disaster,” Feb. 14, 2003)

This is why all six of Jeb Bush’s answers to Fox News Channel’s Megyn Kelly — as well as Marco Rubio’s premeditated answer a week later — were ridiculous. It’s annoying enough having liberals invent these historical fantasies. Do our fearsome Republicans have to keep retelling them, too? If they don’t follow the news, can’t they read?

Kelly asked Bush: “Knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion?”

The correct answer is:

Now that we know that a half-century of Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act would result in a country where a man like Barack Obama could be elected president, and then, purely out of antipathy to America, would withdraw every last troop from Iraq, nullifying America’s victory and plunging the entire region into chaos, no, I would not bother removing dangerous despots in order to make America safer.

Instead, I would dedicate myself to overturning our immigration laws, ending the anchor-baby scam and building a triple-layer fence on the border, so that some future Republican president could invade Iraq without worrying about a foreign-elected president like Obama coming in and giving it away.

OARLogo Picture6

As ISIS Marches, Obama To Cite Global Warming As National Security Threat During Coast Guard Commencement


waving flagReported by Katie Pavlich Katie Pavlich | May 20, 2015

king-obama3In case you missed it over the weekend, the Islamic State took over another Iraqi city. This time it was Ramadi, a city in which Americans died to capture in the first place years ago and comes after the fall of Mosul. The next major city on the conquer list for ISIS is Baghdad, not to mention the fact Christians have been essentially eliminated from the country. Despite these developments, the White House is calling its strategy against “jayvee” ISIS an overall “success” and touting minimal airstrikes in the region.

Meanwhile, President Obama is focused on the national security threat of…global warming. What’s worse? He’ll be warning about global warming during a speech for the Coast Guard Academy’s commencement ceremony today.cause of death

President Barack Obama is framing the challenges of climate change as a matter of national security that threatens to aggravate poverty and political instability around the globe and jeopardize the readiness of U.S. forces.

“Make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country,” the president says in excerpts of a commencement address prepared for delivery Wednesday at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut. “And so we need to act and we need to act now.”

His speech to the cadets, by contrast, is focused on what the Obama administration says are immediate risks to national security, including contributing to more natural disasters that result in humanitarian crises and potential new flows of refugees. Further, the president sees climate change aggravating poverty and social tensions that can fuel instability and foster terrorist activity and other violence.  

Solid-Foundation-600-wLogo Settled-Science-600-LA Worship manditory OARLogo Picture6

Democrats’ ‘Progressive Agenda’ is Outright Communism


waving flagPosted by

URL Of the Original Posting Site: http://godfatherpolitics.com/22451/democrats-progressive-agenda-is-outright-communism/#dtl4wsSBLblhYjRB.

It must be so close they can taste it. 

It’s never been a secret that the Democrat agenda has been quietly driven by the philosophies of Karl Marx and every radical socialist who ever lit a fuse against the United States. With a long line of public figures who have idolized or modeled themselves after Alinsky, Mao, Lenin or Castro, the Democratic Party has been home to the despicably anti-American and their foolishly misguided followers.

Anybody who paid any attention to the party’s politics and had a modicum of historical knowledge could spot the connections. But leftists being leftists, the DP leadership has always tried to pretend otherwise because their hold on many of the low-information voters is all based on perceptions. Which is what makes it remarkable that the Progressive Agenda to Combat Income Inequality, a document put together by New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, so clearly patterns itself after Communist Party and Socialist Party doctrine.

Even more remarkable is that de Blasio and others are trying to make this the official Democratic Party platform for the 2016 presidential election. The Democrats are calling the Progressive Agenda their “Contract With America,” which is as frightening as it is insulting.Liberalism a mental disorder 2 Party of Deciet and lies

Newt Gingrich’s “Contract With America” was a stroke of political brilliance that helped pull together congressional conservatives to pass important legislation and help America get back on track.

The Progressive Agenda is aimed at turning us into something just shy of the Soviet Union.

All the hallmarks are there:

  • hike the minimum wage (c’mon, if it’s such a great idea, why not make it $100 per hour, guys?);
  • national paid family and sick leave;
  • pass laws to make it easier to force workers to unionize;
  • “immigration reform” to organize illegals;
  • refinance student debt;
  • expanding state brainwashing with mandatory pre-kindergarten, after-school and child-care programs;
  • increasing taxes on “the rich”; etc.Cloward Piven

De Blasio, who calls President Obama “too conservative” to lead a Progressive economic policy, said last week at the agenda’s rollout, “It’s time to take that energy and crystallize it into an agenda that will make a difference. We’ll be calling on leaders and candidates to address these issues, to stiffen their backbones, to be clear and to champion these progressive policies.”more evidence

Democrat officials had a variety of silly metaphors about cavalry and “meat on the bones” to use in praise of de Blasio’s manifesto. The most interesting remark, however, came from Rep. Charles Rangel, who talked about “revolution.”

Buzzword alert.

The Revolution, of course, was the crucible in which the United States was formed. But there’s a world of difference between the way the Founding Fathers meant it and the way modern Regressives mean it. 

  • The Founders meant to take back something that never belonged to the King in the first place: our independence.
  • Regressives mean to assert everyone’s dependence on government and take things from the public treasury that never have belonged to them. **Please see related historical record regarding this point**

To facilitate the fattening of their own purses, Progressive leaders will begin by taking away your rights. If you don’t believe that, then you are dangerously naive. Look at history. That’s always how “progressive revolutions” begin.

It’s already started here. Obama was the warmup act. Now we’ve got closet socialist Hillary, open socialist Bernie and B-string socialist Fauxcahontas (aka Elizabeth Warren), all eyeing the Oval Office. And leftists hope their Communist Manifesto, er, Progressive Agenda will pave the way.

Lurking in the background, supporting de Blasio’s agenda, is Dan Cantor, executive director of the Working Families Party and founder of the New Party. The openly socialist New Party, Chicago branch, once claimed a young Barack Obama as a member, something his flying monkeys have denied for years. De Blasio was executive director of the New Party’s New York branch.

The basis of his plan was a report by Nobel prize-winning Columbia University economist Joseph Stiglitz, who also held “teach-ins” at Occupy Wall Street. Stiglitz has accepted funding from billionaire George Soros, the ex-Nazi employee who helped fund Obama’s career and who has hosted fundraisers for Elizabeth Warren and donated to Hillary Clinton’s PAC. Stiglitz also sits on the boards of several Soros organizations, including one whose aim is to remake the global economy.

You start to see how the pieces fit together? Who says there aren’t any real-life conspiracies to destroy America? Oh, right, mostly the people involved in them.

waving flag**Related Historical Context**

Not Yours To Give

Davy Crockett on The Role Of Government

from: The Life of Colonel David Crockett

compiled by: Edward S. Elis (1884)

“Money with [Congressmen] is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”

Introductory note by Peter Kershaw:

Davy Crockett served four terms in the U.S. Congress from 1827-1835. In 1835 he joined the Whig Party and ran a failed attempt for the Presidency. Immediately thereafter he departed his native Tennessee for Texas to secure the independence of the “Texicans.” He lost his life at the battle of the Alamo and forever secured his legendary status in history as “king of the wild frontier.” The following story was recounted to Edward Elis by an unnamed Congressman who had served with Colonel Crockett in the U.S. House of Representatives.

…Crockett was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me. I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. It seemed to be that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make a speech in support of the bill. He commenced:

“Mr. Speaker — I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House; but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into argument to prove that Congress has no power under the Constitution to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money.’

“Mr. Speaker, I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.” He took his seat. Nobody replied.

The bill was put upon its passage, and instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as no doubt it would, but for that speech, it received but a few votes and was lost. Like many others, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move for a reconsideration the next day. Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table. I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what the devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied: “I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen.” I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:
“Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into the hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.’

“The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.’ “The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them. “So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence.’

“As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: ‘Don’t be in such a hurry my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted.’ He replied: “‘I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say.’

“I began: ‘Well, friend, I am one of those fortunate beings called candidates, and . . . .’

“‘ Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’

“This was a sockdolager (decisive argument: a decisive blow or argument)…. I begged him to tell me what was the matter.’

“‘Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. … But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.’

“‘I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.’

“‘No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?’

 “‘Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with.’

“‘Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?’ “Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said: “‘Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury; and, I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’

“‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he.

“‘If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other.’

“‘No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in Washington, who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.’ “I have given you,” continued Crockett, “an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:’

“‘So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.’

“I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in this district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:’

“‘Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I have ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.’ “The farmer laughingly replied: ‘Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than defeating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.’

“‘If I don’t,’ said I, ‘I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.’

“‘No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday seek. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’

“‘Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.’

“‘My name is Bunce.’

“‘Not Horatio Bunce?’

 “‘Yes.’

“‘Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go.’

“We shook hands and parted that day in gentlemanly friendship and amity.’ “It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met that man. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence, incorruptible integrity, and, for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.’

“At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with. In fact I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifest before.’

“Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached the home of Mr. Bunce, and under ordinary circumstances should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.’

“I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before.’

“I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him — no, that is not the word — I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will you sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.’ “But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand me there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted — at least, they all knew me.’

“In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying: “‘Fellow-citizens — I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.’

“I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying: “‘And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.’

“‘It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but my friend Horatio Bunce is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.’

“He came upon the stand and said: “‘Fellow-citizens — It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.’

“He went down, and there went up from the crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.’

“I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.’ “Now, sir,’ concluded Crockett, “you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed, and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.’

“There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a weeks’ pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men — men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased — a debt which could not be paid by money — and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation.’

“Yet not one of those Congressmen responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”

OARLogo Picture6

Christian Genocide in Full Swing – Where Are Obama and Our Leaders?


waving flagAuthored by avatar , on 15 May, 2015

Christian PersecutionThe global slaughter of Christians is growing in leaps and bounds at the hands of Muslims and their supporters. ISIS or ISIL and other murderous Islamic relatives consider the daily torture and murder jobs of Christians simply obeying Muhammad and their pagan god Allah. Sometimes they offer the victim before they are murdered, the 3 choices stated in Chapter 9 of the Koran – 1) Forcibly convert to Islam 2) Give them great amounts of money as a high tax to stay alive 2) or be killed. Many times they don’t even offer them those options. Instead they just cut right to the torture and murder part – slow and gruesome.

Each week I interview on my national radio show, experts who have tasted the real horror offered up by Islam and are involved with exposing and confronting the real Islamic agenda. It is most clear that there is a real Christian genocide happening all around the world. Ted and Whalid Shoebat  have long exposed the slaughterhouses in Syria, where Christians are kidnapped, tortured, hung by their feet like cows, then butchered.

This is a regular occurrence along with ISIS and Islamic rebels wiping out whole Christian neighborhoods and villages.

Not only has America and Obama not helped the victims or confronted the Islamic murderers, but instead, Obama has been complicit in creating ISIS – ISIL by sending them (through Lybia) thousands of lethal and high-end weapons and money.muslim-obama Islamapologist Obama Muslim collection

Not only did America, under Barack Obama’s leadership, weaponize the Islamic rebels, growing and creating ISIS and its offspring, but the weapons pathway and illegal activities lead to the murder of Ambassador Stevens and staff. We are still awaiting justice and untangling the cover up that has followed for many years now. I pray Rep. Trey Gowdy pushes through the wall on this investigation and gets it right.

The genocide is funded and organized all around the world. All through Africa, where villages are torched; young girls are captured and used as sex slaves, husbands and fathers are murdered in front of their families and torture and kidnappings are daily staples. Iraq is a growing horror show as well and once again Obama says nothing except for Christians to get off their ‘high horse’ and be ashamed because of our involvement in the Great Crusade over 600 years ago. I am ashamed all right…I’m ashamed that Christians took so long to rise up at the hands of Muslim aggression, torture and stealing of their land. Will today in America end up being another place in history where we were ‘too little – too late’?

Several have screamed very loud, making desperate appeals to stop the madness and get help from the US and our Government to save lives, but Obama is nowhere on this. He just looks the other way as hundreds of thousands of American citizens and Christians are murdered in the name of Allah and Muhammad. Obama has gone way behind being another Neville Chamberlain horror. Obama knows that the tortures and blood letting is happening all over to Christians and does nothing about it. Chamberlain could hardly believe Hitler would be capable of such evil so imposed denial on himself.

Sister Dian Momeka of the Dominican Sisters of Saint Catherine of Siena has spoken before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. She has described in Technicolor what is going on to Christians throughout Iraq. She describes it as mass genocide and has begged Obama and America for help. Her comments were covered in a Newsmax piece by Cathy Burke.

“As this horror spread throughout the Nineveh Plain, by Aug 6, 2014, Nineveh was emptied of Christians, and sadly, for the first time since the seventh century A.D., no church bells rang for Mass in the Plain of Nineveh,” she said, adding that since then, more than 120,000 people found themselves “displaced and homeless” in the Kurdistan region of Iraq. “The current persecution that our community is facing is the most brutal in our history.”

Cardinal Dolan and others have weighed in and warned Obama and America about our skewed lack of protection of Christians in the Mideast, yet nothing is done and Obama plays more golf.Break-Glass-600-wLogo Eye-balling-590-LI ISIS-Execution Lettermn-burn-590-LI Marthas-Fiddler Obama_Nero-2-330x189 unfit whatif World Crisis wraped up in himself

It appears as if by his brazen lack of action and even words against Christians, that Obama is in full support of the Islamic caliphate and murderous genocide of Christians worldwide. If he isn’t in support of this then he must do more than ‘sound bite’ theatre and brief empty statements reflecting no action.

We find ourselves in another Nazi Germany horror show of extermination again. This time it is the Christians and we have a President who not only looks the other way, he funds and weaponizes the murderous Islamic groups that are doing it all.

About the Author: Dr. Laurie Roth

avatarDr. Laurie Roth hosts a popular and growing national radio talk show called The Roth Show. It airs from 7-10pm PAC Mon-Friday http://www.therothshow.com. She is known as ‘The Annie Oakley of the Airwaves’ a name given her by her listeners and is also a regularly published commentator and speaker at conservative conferences. In 2010 Laurie was nominated for the Ronald Reagan Award by CPAC for breaking a national story on Obama and his many connections with William Ayers.

Join me for my live show each day from 10:00 AM – 1:00 PM PST. You can listen in at http://www.therothshow.com. When you are taken to http://www.usaradionetworks.com click on Channel 2 and you will be on board. Call in at: 1 877 999 7684.

OARLogo Picture6

Tag Cloud

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 506 other followers

%d bloggers like this: