Why I Do Not Like The Obama’s

Why I Do Not Like The Obama’s

By Mychal Massie on January 5, 2013 in Daily Rant

The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn’t like the Obama’s. Specifically I was asked: “I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama’s. It seems personal not policy related. You even dissed their Christmas family pic.” The truth is I do not like the Obama’s, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation.

I’ve made no secret of my contempt for the Obama’s. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don’t like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.

I don’t hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists; they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds; and, for those who are willing to admit same Michelle Obama’s raw contempt for white America is conspicuous.

I don’t hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same, Michelle Obama’s raw contempt for white America is conspicuous

.

I don’t like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress. I expect, no, I demand respect for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagan’s made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?

Presidents are politicians, and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie; but, even using that low standard, the Obama’s have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge, and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry, and they display an animus for civility.

I do not like them because they both display bigotry overtly: as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates when Obama accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly and as in her code speak pursuant to now being able to be proud of America. I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely; but he could rise to the highest, most powerful position in the world. Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same.

I have a saying, that “the only reason a person hides things is because they have something to hide.” No president in history has spent over a million dollars to keep his records and his past sealed. And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies. He lied about when and how they met; he lied about his mother’s death and problems with insurance; Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 in bank stocks they inherited from his family. Obama lied about his father’s military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nausea.

He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly radical, socialist academicians today. He has fought for abortion procedures and opposed rulings that protected women and children — that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel.

His wife treats being the First Lady as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements – he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.

I don’t like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.

Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin; it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their playing the race card.

It is my intention to do all within my ability to ensure their reign is one term. I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn, in the strongest possible terms, the media for refusing to investigate them as they did President Bush and President Clinton and for refusing to label the Obama’s for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.

As I wrote in a syndicated column titled “Nero In The White House” – “Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood…Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation, and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement – while America’s people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.” (WND.com; 8/8/11)

Oh, and as for it being personal, you tell me how you would feel if a senator from Illinois sent you a personally signed card, intended to intimidate you and your family because you had written a syndicated column titled “Darth Democrat” that was critical of him. (WND.com 11/16/04)

Does Birth by an illegal alien alone make one citizen?

Does Birth by an illegal alien alone make one citizen?

Reading a book on the Indian Wars and came across a reference to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Elk v. Wilkins from 1884

I pulled up the full text and found it interesting.

"The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393), and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 83 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306.

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared

Page 112 U. S. 102

to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations."

How does anyone explain the support The Hillary is getting in the face of facts that she is alone at the top as The Big Liar.

How does anyone explain the support The Hillary is getting in the face of facts that she is alone at the top as The Big Liar.

There is one quote that best defines the Clintons' philosophy on governing, it would be these recent words from Hillary: "I don't believe you change hearts. I believe you change laws, you change allocation of resources, you change the way systems operate." This is the re-warmed doctrine of Karl Marx and the mantra of today's Democratic Party statists.

1993: After the suicide of Hillary's longtime friend and White House counsel Vince Foster, files "disappear" from his office, impeding the investigation into his death — files that would most assuredly have shown the Clintons' fingerprints to be on various nefarious enterprises. (Sound familiar?)

1993-94: The Clintons' White House "security director," Craig Livingstone, a former bar bouncer and Clinton political hack, is caught with more than 900 classified FBI background files that he'd requested on leading Republicans from the Reagan and Bush administrations. Hillary lied in her testimony about the files.

1993-96: Hillary convenes illegal secret panels to create a socialized health care plan, which was exposed by Republican House investigators and subsequently went down in flames. Her ClintonCare proposal was thus shelved until Barack Obama became president, but she is without question the grande dame of what eventually became ObamaCare.

1993-97: The Clintons turn the IRS into their personal attack dog, and the agency went after every major conservative group in the nation, including The Heritage Foundation, the National Rifle Association, Concerned Women of America, the National Center for Public Policy Research, the American Policy Center, American Cause, Citizens for Honest Government, Progress and Freedom Foundation, and Citizens Against Government Waste. Not even conservative publications such as National Review and American Spectator were spared. In 1996, The Washington Times researched the targeting of these organizations and could not identify a single liberal advocacy organization that had been audited during Bill's first term. (Sound familiar?)
1994: Hillary's Rose Law Firm billing records related to the 1980s Whitewater Development bankruptcy mysteriously disappear — but then inexplicably reappear a year later after having been "scrubbed" of any incriminating evidence linking Hillary with key partners in that fraud. (Sound familiar?)


1995: Bill Clinton signs legislation making it easier for minority constituents with bad credit to obtain mortgages. His Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, rewrote the lending rules for the ill-conceived Community Reinvestment Act (which had been signed into law by none other than Jimmy Carter), opening the floodgates of Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association) and Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation) subprime loans. Clinton's legislation applied affirmative action to the lending industry, sowing the seeds for the massive deflation of home prices and for the near-total collapse of the American financial markets 10 years later. Bill Clinton admitted in 2008, "I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress ... to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." Indeed.

Democrat Rep. Artur Davis was a bit more direct: "Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues, I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In retrospect I should have heeded the [Republican] concerns in 2004. Frankly I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit that, when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong."
1995-96: Hillary confidant John Huang is appointed to the DNC and raised large illegal donations from foreign sources. (Sound familiar?) Charlie Trie also raised major illegal donations from foreign sources. His $450,000 contribution to Clinton's legal defense fund was a pass-through from Asian special interests. According to Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman, those interests included the Red Chinese government.

1996: The Clintons trade Commerce Department positions and Lincoln Bedroom lodging for big campaign donations. Then-Vice President Al Gore repeatedly and infamously insisted, "There is no controlling legal authority," after it was determined that the Clintons were operating a major fundraising call center in the White House.

1997: Six years into Bill Clinton's tenure of national security malfeasance, one of Osama bin Laden's well organized al-Qa'ida terrorist cells crafts a plan to settle into American suburbs and prepare a strike on our homeland. Four years had passed from the time of the first World Trade Center attack under Clinton's watch until preparations began for the devastating attacks of September 11, 2001. In 1988, the Clinton administration refused an FBI field agent's efforts to open a case file on Arab nationals who were, curiously, training to fly commercial aircraft, but not training for takeoffs or landings. The stated reason for the case file denial was to avoid the appearance of any presumption of an Islamic threat — precisely why, to this day, Democrats refuse to use the words "Islamic" and "terrorism" in the same context. During his eight years in office, Clinton had numerous opportunities to capture or kill bin Laden, but refused. Air Force Lt. Col. Robert Patterson, who carried the "nuclear football" codes for the Clinton administration, notes, "[W]e could have prevented the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, we could have prevented 9/11 and we could have prevented the bombings of the embassies in Africa if President Clinton had taken one of these opportunities. ... We had eight chances at least to either nab bin Laden or to kill him." Michael Scheuer, former CIA chief of the team responsible for hunting bin Laden, confirmed that prior to 9/11 SpecOps had two opportunities when Osama was literally in their sights, but Clinton pulled the plug on both operations.


1998: Bill Clinton is impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice after falsely insisting he "did not have sexual relations" with a 22-year-old female White House intern. Hillary had established a long record of defending her husband against charges ranging from sexual impropriety to rape (in order to ensure her own political aspirations), including but not limited to charges brought by Juanita Broaddrick, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones. Hillary perfected the practice of "blaming the victim," and she insisted that the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal was fabricated by a "vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president."
Americans learn a lot about DNA evidence, and the Clintons should be credited with the popularity of all the cold case and forensic file TV shows that followed. We also learned that, unlike Richard Nixon, who had the decency to resign instead of putting the nation through an impeachment proceeding, the Clintons knew that Senate Democrats would never join with Republicans to achieve the two-thirds majority vote required to convict the Philanderer in Chief.

2000: Bill Clinton issues executive pardons to big donors and other convicted felons, some doing time related to Clinton scandals. Recall that among all those last-minute political pardons, one was for his former CIA director, John Deutch, who, it was discovered in 1996, stored classified documents on an unsecure laptop at his residence.

2001: According to Hillary, she and Bill depart the White House "dead broke" after vandalizing the executive residence before the Bush family arrived and loading up $190,000 in gifts and furnishings. However penniless (despite six-figure taxpayer-funded salaries and an $8 million book deal), they managed to buy a Chappaqua, New York, country house for $1.7 million in 1999 in order to establish residency for Hillary's carpet-bagging Senate run in 2000. They also acquired a seven-bedroom house in DC for $2.85 million so Hillary would have a place to stay while the Senate was in session.

2001-2009: Bill and the then-junior senator from New York amass hundreds of millions of dollars in personal wealth from fees charged to those who were betting on Hillary's political future. What she did not amass, however, is any record of accomplishment as a senator — no piece of legislation was advanced under her name.

2009: After Hillary's unsuccessful 2008 presidential primary bid against Barack Obama, he hushes her up and keeps her close with an appointment as secretary of state, an office she held from 2009-2013. While Bill and their "family foundation" continued to amass millions in speaking fees and donations, Hillary compiled an even less impressive but much more lethal record as secretary of state than she had as a senator. She visited 112 countries, and, though she falsely claimed having been shot at by snipers in at least one of them, she can claim no treaty, no accord or even a meaningful summit success. Hillary does claim that she "restored America's reputation," but what she actually did was advance Obama's failed foreign policies to the extent that America now suffers its weakest world standing since the Jimmy Carter era.

2012: Hillary crafts and propagates the Benghazi cover-up after the death of four Americans, including our ambassador to Libya. She lied about the attack, claiming it was inspired by an obscure Internet video rather than a well-planned and executed al-Qa'ida assault on the anniversary of 9/11. She did so to protect Obama's 2012 election, thus ensuring her own 2016 ambitions. Recall that at that time Obama was continuously crowing about how al-Qa'ida was "on the run." Given that his domestic economic and social policies had been an abject failure, all he had to frame his 2012 campaign upon were the patently false claims of victory in Iraq and the defeat of al-Qa'ida.

2014: While Hillary was secretary of state, the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation took in hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign governments, corporations and individuals, who were currying favor with Hillary as secretary of state and as a potential future president. Peter Schweizer's book, "Clinton Cash," provides a sobering outline of the abuse.


2015: In March, Hillary admits that she illegally maintained a "private email server" for official State Department communications — in violation of federal law, and had failed to acknowledge those records in congressional testimony regarding the Benghazi attack and cover-up. In April, Clinton officially announces her presidential candidacy. But Clinton's self-spun web of lies about keeping her communications out of the public record may yet ensnare her, and end her 2016 presidential aspirations. It's not likely that she'll withdraw without a fight, but she is, clearly, in trouble. (Read our comprehensive account of Clinton's email cover-up lies.)

Science says parents of successful kids have these 9 things in common

Science says parents of successful kids have these 9 things in common

Any good parent wants their kids to stay out of trouble, do well in school, and go on to do awesome things as adults. And while there isn't a set recipe for raising successful children, psychology research has pointed to a handful of factors that predict success. Unsurprisingly, much of it comes down to the parents. Here's what parents of successful kids have in common:

 1. They teach their kids social skills.

Researchers from Pennsylvania State University and Duke University tracked more than 700 children from across the US between kindergarten and age 25 and found a significant correlation between their social skills as kindergartners and their success as adults two decades later.

The 20-year study showed that socially competent children who could cooperate with their peers without prompting, be helpful to others, understand their feelings, and resolve problems on their own, were far more likely to earn a college degree and have a full-time job by age 25 than those with limited social skills.

Those with limited social skills also had a higher chance of getting arrested, binge drinking, and applying for public housing.

"This study shows that helping children develop social and emotional skills is one of the most important things we can do to prepare them for a healthy future," said Kristin Schubert, program director at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which funded the research, in a release.

"From an early age, these skills can determine whether a child goes to college or prison, and whether they end up employed or addicted."

 2. They have high expectations.

Using data from a national survey of 6,600 children born in 2001, University of California at Los Angeles professor Neal Halfon and his colleagues discovered that the expectations parents hold for their kids have a huge effect on attainment. 

"Parents who saw college in their child's future seemed to manage their child toward that goal irrespective of their income and other assets," he said in a statement.

The finding came out in standardized tests: 57% of the kids who did the worst were expected to attend college by their parents, while 96% of the kids who did the best were expected to go to college.

This falls in line with another psych finding: the Pygmalion effect, which states "that what one person expects of another can come to serve as a self-fulfilling prophecy." 

In the case of kids, they live up to their parents' expectations.

3. The moms work.

According to research out of Harvard Business School, there are significant benefits for children growing up with mothers who work outside the home.

The study found daughters of working mothers went to school longer, were more likely to have a job in a supervisory role, and earned more money — 23% more compared to their peers who were raised by stay-at-home mothers.

The sons of working mothers also tended to pitch in more on household chores and childcare, the study found — they spent seven-and-a-half more hours a week on childcare and 25 more minutes on housework.

"Role modeling is a way of signaling what's appropriate in terms of how you behave, what you do, the activities you engage in, and what you believe," the study's lead author, Harvard Business School professor Kathleen L. McGinn, told Business Insider.

"There are very few things, that we know of, that have such a clear effect on gender inequality as being raised by a working mother," she told Working Knowledge.

4. They have a higher socioeconomic status.

Tragically, one-fifth of American children grow up in poverty, a situation that severely limits their potential.

It's getting more extreme. According to Stanford University researcher Sean Reardon, the achievement gap between high- and low-income families "is roughly 30% to 40% larger among children born in 2001 than among those born 25 years earlier." 

As "Drive" author Dan Pink has noted, the higher the income for the parents, the higher the SAT scores for the kids. "Absent comprehensive and expensive interventions, socioeconomic status is what drives much of educational attainment and performance," he wrote.

5. They've attained higher educational levels.

A 2014 study lead by University of Michigan psychologist Sandra Tang found that mothers who finished high school or college were more likely to raise kids that did the same. 

Pulling from a group of over 14,000 children who entered kindergarten in 1998 to 2007, the study found that children born to teen moms (18 years old or younger) were less likely to finish high school or go to college than their counterparts. 

Aspiration is at least partially responsible. In a 2009 longitudinal study of 856 people in semirural New York, Bowling Green State University psychologist Eric Dubow found that "parents' educational level when the child was 8 years old significantly predicted educational and occupational success for the child 40 years later."

6. They teach their kids math early on.

A 2007 meta-analysis of 35,000 preschoolers across the US, Canada, and England found that developing math skills early can turn into a huge advantage.

"The paramount importance of early math skills — of beginning school with a knowledge of numbers, number order, and other rudimentary math concepts — is one of the puzzles coming out of the study," coauthor and Northwestern University researcher Greg Duncan said in a press release. "Mastery of early math skills predicts not only future math achievement, it also predicts future reading achievement."

7. They develop a relationship with their kids.

A 2014 study of 243 people born into poverty found that children who received "sensitive caregiving" in their first three years not only did better in academic tests in childhood, but had healthier relationships and greater academic attainment in their 30s. 

As reported on PsyBlog, parents who are sensitive caregivers "resp

ond to their child's signals promptly and appropriately" and "provide a secure base" for children to explore the world.

"This suggests that investments in early parent-child relationships may result in long-term returns that accumulate across individuals' lives," coauthor and University of Minnesota psychologist Lee Raby said in an interview.

8. They're less stressed.

According to new research cited by Brigid Schulte at The Washington Post, the number of hours that moms spend with kids between ages 3 and 11 does little to predict the child's behavior, well-being, or achievement. 

What's more, the "intensive mothering" or "helicopter parenting" approach can backfire. 

"Mothers' stress, especially when mothers are stressed because of the juggling with work and trying to find time with kids, that may actually be affecting their kids poorly," study coauthor and Bowling Green State University sociologist Kei Nomaguchi told The Post.

Emotional contagion — or the psychological phenomenon where people "catch" feelings from one another like they would a cold — helps explain why. Research shows that if your friend is happy, that brightness will infect you; if she's sad, that gloominess will transfer as well. So if a parent is exhausted or frustrated, that emotional state could transfer to the kids.

9. They value effort over avoiding failure.

Where kids think success comes from also predicts their attainment. 

Over decades, Stanford University psychologist Carol Dweck has discovered that children (and adults) think about success in one of two ways. Over at the always-fantastic Brain Pickings, Maria Popova says they go a little something like this: 

A "fixed mindset" assumes that our character, intelligence, and creative ability are static givens that we can't change in any meaningful way, and success is the affirmation of that inherent intelligence, an assessment of how those givens measure up against an equally fixed standard; striving for success and avoiding failure at all costs become a way of maintaining the sense of being smart or skilled.

A "growth mindset," on the other hand, thrives on challenge and sees failure not as evidence of un-intelligence but as a heartening springboard for growth and for stretching our existing abilities. 

At the core is a distinction in the way you assume your will affects your ability, and it has a powerful effect on kids. If kids are told that they aced a test because of their innate intelligence that creates a "fixed" mindset. If they succeeded because of effort, that teaches a "growth" mindset.

Random Thoughts

Random Thoughts

By Thomas Sowell

Random thoughts on the passing scene:

Stupid people can cause problems, but it usually takes brilliant people to create a real catastrophe.

President Obama's "agreement" with Iran looks very much like "the emperor's new clothes." We are supposed to pretend that there is something there, when there is nothing there that will stop, or even slow down, Iran's development of a nuclear bomb.

The endlessly repeated argument that most Americans are the descendants of immigrants ignores the fact that most Americans are NOT the descendants of ILLEGAL immigrants. Millions of immigrants from Europe had to stop at Ellis Island, and had to meet medical and other criteria before being allowed to go any further.

Governor Bobby Jindal: "I realize that the best way to make news is to mention Donald Trump. ... So, I've decided to randomly put his name into my remarks at various points, thereby ensuring that the news media will cover what I have to say." Governor Jindal's outstanding record in Louisiana should have gotten him far more attention from the media than Trump's bombast.

In her latest book, "Adios, America!" Ann Coulter says, "if Romney had won 71 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2012, instead of 27 percent, he still would have lost. On the other hand, had he won just 4 percent more of the white vote, he would have won."

Despite an old saying that taxes are the price we pay for civilization, an absolute majority of the record-breaking tax money collected by the federal government today is simply transferred by politicians from people who are not likely to vote for them to people who are more likely to vote for them.

Do the people who are always demanding that there be more "training" for police ever say that the hoodlums that the police have to deal with should have had more training by their parents, instead of being allowed to grow wild, like weeds?

Europe is belatedly discovering how unbelievably stupid it was to import millions of people from cultures that despise Western values and which often promote hatred toward the people who have let them in.

There are so many conservative Republican candidates for the party's presidential nomination that they may once again split the conservative vote so many ways as to guarantee that the nomination will go to some mushy moderate.

Barack Obama wrote a book titled "The Audacity of Hope." His own career, however, might more accurately be titled "The Mendacity of Hype."

With all its staggering horrors and insanities, World War II may yet turn out to have been just a dress rehearsal for the ultimate catastrophe of a nuclear-armed terrorist nation like Iran. We seem oblivious to the possibility that we may be leaving our children and grandchildren at the mercy of people who have demonstrated repeatedly that they have no mercy.

No matter how many federal felony laws Hillary Clinton may have violated by using her own personal email account to do her work as Secretary of State, she is unlikely to face any legal consequences. President Obama can pardon her, as he can pardon Lois Lerner or the head of the Internal Revenue Service or others who may have violated federal laws during his administration.

When Jeb Bush allowed hecklers shouting "Black lives matter" to drive him off the stage in Las Vegas, he may have given us a clue as to what kind of president he would be. We ignored too many clues about Barack Obama before putting him in the White House. There is no excuse for ignoring clues about another candidate now. Can you imagine Ronald Reagan letting hecklers drive him off the stage?

Donald Trump has credited his political donations with getting Hillary Clinton to come to his wedding. What kind of man would want Hillary Clinton at his wedding, much less boast of having her there?

A salute to Bill O'Reilly for being one of the very few people in the media to talk plain common sense about the disintegration of the black family, and the resulting social problems that followed.

Ronald Reagan won two landslide victories with the help of "Reagan Democrats." These were voters who usually voted for Democrats but were now voting for Reagan. He got these voters by winning them over to his policy agenda -- not by adjusting his policy agenda to them, as the Republican establishment today seems to think is the way to expand their constituency.

Stop Grieving for the Present....

Stop Grieving for the Present....

by Glynda Linkous

My people wait for My justice, for My judgments on the nations. You long for your

(real) home and that is right.

My judgments will not be pleasant to see, but your understanding of what is taking 

place will help you in this. These things must be, for scripture must be fulfilled. The 

time of the end is at hand.

You do well to prepare for the lost who will seek Me in this time for they will be many,

and My people must be ready to receive them, to relay the gospel to them, to 

embrace them in My love.

Be about My business in the earth as you await the end, My children.

Why Obama and Hillary Must Stop Donald Trump at All Costs

Why Obama and Hillary Must Stop Donald Trump at All Costs

By Wayne Root

Someone is getting very nervous. Obama. Valerie Jarrett. Eric Holder. Hillary Clinton. Jon Corzine…to name just a few. And I know why.

I wrote a book entitled, “The Murder of the Middle Class” about the unholy conspiracy between big government, big business and big media. They all benefit by the billions from this partnership and it’s in all of their interests to protect one another. It’s one for all, and all for one.

It’s a heck of a filthy relationship that makes everyone filthy rich. Everyone except the American people. We get ripped off. We’re the patsies.

But for once, the powerful socialist cabal and the corrupt crony capitalists are scared. I’ve never seen them this outraged…this vicious…this motivated…this coordinated. NEVER in all my years in politics, have I seen anything like the way the mad dogs of hell have been unleashed on Donald Trump.

When white extremist David Dukes ran for Governor of Louisiana even he wasn’t treated with this kind of outrage, vitriol and disrespect. When a known fraud, scam artist and tax cheat like Al Sharpton ran for President, I never saw anything remotely close to this. The over-the-top reaction to Trump by politicians of both parties, the media and the biggest corporations of America has been so swift and insanely angry that it suggests they are all threatened and frightened like never before.

Why? Because David Duke was never going to win. Al Sharpton was never going to win. Ron Paul was never going to win. Ross Perot was never going to win as a third party candidate. None of those candidates had the billion dollars it takes to win the presidency. But Donald Trump can self fund that amount tomorrow…and still have another billion left over to pour into the last two week stretch run before election day.

No matter how much they say to the contrary, the media, business and political elite understand that Donald Trump is no joke and could actually win and upset their nice cozy apple cart.

It’s no coincidence that everyone has gotten together to destroy Donald. No this is a coordinated conspiracy led by President Barack Obama himself. Obama himself is making the phone calls and giving the orders- the ultimate intimidator who plays by the rules of Chicago thug politics.

Why is this so important to Obama? Because most of the other politicians are part of the “old boys club.” They talk big, but in the end they won’t change a thing. Why? Because they are all beholden to big money donors. They are all owned by lobbyists, unions, lawyers, gigantic environmental organizations, multi-national corporations like Big Pharma or Big Oil. Or they are owned lock stock and barrel by foreigners- like George Soros owns Obama, or foreign governments own Hillary with their Clinton Foundation donations.

These run-of-the-mill establishment politicians are all puppets owned by big money. But one man- and only one man- isn’t beholden to anyone. One man doesn’t need foreigners, or foreign governments, or George Soros, or the United Autoworkers, or the Teachers Union, or the SEIU, or the Bar Association to fund his campaign.

Billionaire tycoon and maverick Donald Trump doesn’t need anyone’s help. That means he doesn’t care what the media says. He doesn’t care what the corporate elites think. That makes him very dangerous to the entrenched interests. That makes Trump a huge threat. Trump can ruin everything for the bribed politicians and their spoiled slavemasters.

Don’t you ever wonder why the GOP has never tried to impeach Obama? Don’t you wonder why Boehner and McConnell talk a big game, but never actually try to stop Obama? Don’t you wonder why Congress holds the purse strings, yet they’ve never tried to defund Obamacare or Obama’s clearly illegal Executive Action on amnesty for illegal aliens? Bizarre, right? It defies logic, right?

Well first, I’d guess many key Republicans are being bribed. Secondly, I believe many key Republicans are being blackmailed. Whether they are having affairs…or secretly gay…or stealing taxpayer money…the NSA knows everything.

Ask former House Speaker Dennis Hastert about that. The government even knew he was withdrawing large sums of his own money, from his own bank account. Trust me- the NSA, SEC, IRS and all the other 3-letter government agencies are watching every Republican political leader. They know everything.

Thirdly, many Republicans are petrified of being called “racists.” So they are scared to ever criticize Obama, or call out his crimes, let alone demand his impeachment.

Fourth, why rock the boat? After defeat or retirement, if you’re a “good boy” you’ve got a $5 million dollar per year lobbying job waiting.

The big money interests have the system gamed. Win or lose…they win.

But Donald Trump doesn’t play by any of these rules. Trump breaks up this nice cozy relationship between big government, big media and big business. All the rules are out the window if Donald wins the presidency. The other politicians will protect Obama and his aides. But not Donald.

Remember Trump is the guy who publicly questioned Obama’s birth certificate. He questioned Obama’s college records and how a mediocre student got into an Ivy League university.

Now he’s doing something no Republican has the chutzpah to do- question our relationship with Mexico …question why the border is wide open…questioning why no wall has been built across the border…questioning if allowing millions of illegal aliens into America is in our best interests…questioning why so many illegal aliens commit violent crimes yet are not deported…questioning why our trade deals with Mexico, Russia and China are so bad.

Donald Trump has the audacity to ask out loud why American workers always get the short end of the stick? Good question.

I’m certain Trump will question what happened to the almost billion dollars given in a rigged no-bid contract to college friends of Michele Obama at foreign companies to build the defective Obamacare web sites. By the way that tab is now up to $5 billion.

Trump will ask if Obamacare’s architects can be charged with fraud for selling it by lying. He will ask if Obama himself committed fraud when he said, “If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it.”

Trump will investigate Obama’s widespread IRS conspiracy, not to mention Obama’s college records.

Trump will prosecute Hillary Clinton and Obama for fraud committed to cover-up Benghazi before the election.

How about the fraud committed by employees of the Labor Department when they made up dramatic job numbers in the last jobs report before the 2012 election.

Obama, the multi-national corporations and the media need to stop this. They recognize this could get out of control. If left unchecked telling the raw truth and asking questions everyone else is afraid to ask, Donald could wake a sleeping giant.

Trump’s election would be a nightmare. Obama has committed many crimes. No one else but Donald would dare to prosecute. Donald Trump will not hesitate. Once Donald gets in and gets a look at “the cooked books” and Obama’s records, the game is over. The gig is up. The goose is cooked.

Eric Holder could wind up in prison. Valerie Jarrett could wind up in prison. Obama bundler Jon Corzine could wind up in prison for losing $1.5 billion of customer money.

Hillary Clinton could wind up in jail for deleting 32,000 emails …or accepting bribes from foreign governments while Secretary of State …or for “misplacing” $6 billion as head of State Department …or for lying about Benghazi.

The entire upper level management of the IRS could wind up in prison. Obamacare will be defunded and dismantled. The Obama Crime Family will be prosecuted for crimes against the American people. And Obama himself could wind up ruined, his legacy in tatters.

Trump will investigate. Trump will prosecute. Trump will go after everyone involved…just for fun. That will all happen on Trump’s first day in the White House.

Who knows what Donald will do on day #2?

That’s why the dogs of hell have been unleashed on Donald Trump. That’s why we must all support Donald. This may be our only shot at saving America, uncovering the crimes committed against our nation and prosecuting all of those involved.