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 Obamas, 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 Obamas. 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 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 Reagans 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 he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to now being able too 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 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 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father’s military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nauseum.

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.

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 them 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)

The Susan B. Anthony List is set to launch ads in Missouri against Obama on abortion. The ads will feature a stunningly attractive young lady named Melissa Ohden speaking about Obama working to defeat legislation that would have made it illegal to kill children born alive despite being aborted. Ms. Ohden has a vested interest working to save aborted children who are born alive. She, herself, is a born alive, aborted baby.

Below is a syndicated column I wrote November 16, 2004, titled “Darth Democrat.” It also happens to be the column that caused Obama to try to intimidate me with his Chicago-style thuggery.

I repost it as a salute to Melissa Ohden, and every born alive, aborted child, and as a reminder of the evil Obama represents. It is also intended to serve as a reminder that there have been only a select few leaders of civilized countries who have sanctioned the murder of children–among them are Mao and Hitler.
*************
DARTH DEMOCRAT

He is eloquent, well spoken, with a membrane-thin veiled socialist agenda cloaked in flowery speech. But unlike Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn. – who had to be reminded by Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., that while congressional blacks were no longer relegated to ticket taker in a cloakroom, they had better not forget their place – Barack Obama, D-Ill., is just the kind of black man elite liberals can use.

But also unlike Ford, Barack Obama is much more appealing to blacks nationwide and thus much more formidable when you combine that with his ability to raise large contributions, his Muslim roots and education, his ability to rivet national audiences with his snake-charmer oratory skills and an appealing mien that connects well with liberal voters. Accordingly, Lord Obama could very easily morph into “Darth Democrat.”

It should be no surprise that he is from Illinois. Illinois has a long history (from Capone to Daley) of empowering the unsavory. This unsavory comes with a smooth veneer that reverberates a thirst for power.

He has presidential ambitions stitched into the very fabric of his being, and as a student of history he understands the danger of remaining a senator if he is to be successful with his ambitions.

Granted there are worse things than a black uber-liberal socialist Muslim, supposedly now Christian Democrat in the White House (unless your name happens to be Clinton). The question is: Who would want them visited upon this generation?


America is more ready than ever before to elect a black president, but this is not the one we want to break that unprecedented historical ground.

In a speech at his party’s national convention, he spoke of “work” that could be successfully completed through socialistic intervention and programming. He also bares the stripes of most uber liberals, i.e., the willingness to make it up as he goes along.

Speaking in a U.S. Senate debate (Oct. 26, 2004), Obama emphatically claimed responsibility for Illinois’ successful welfare reform. The truth – as written by Steve Stanek a year earlier – finds no relationship with his on the record accounts. With minimal investigation one finds he not only played no role in the Illinois reforms, but he was not even in office at the time. (Illinois leads the nation in welfare reform; Illinois Leader, Sept. 10 2003).

He is gifted at twisting his verbiage in such a way as to deform the truth. In his speech at the Democratic National Convention, he spoke of “… measuring up to the legacy of our forbearers.” While that may sound good, there is a discernable difference between “forbearers” and the Founding Fathers of our country.

Obama’s forbearers are Kenyan, and it is alleged his grandfather was a slave owner. His reference to “forbearers” had nothing to do with those who sacrificed their lives life to establish a free society based on equality.

His statements were code omitting same, referencing instead an Afro-centrism and Pan Africanism. It was a deliberate attack against the foundation of our country and what we represent.

Another trademark of uber-liberal socialists like Lord Obama is complete disregard for human life – especially the lives of the elderly, physically challenged and the unborn. Or in Obama’s case, even the “Live-born abortion victims.” He claimed his reason for not supporting SB1093, the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act,” was the measure didn’t include the “life and health of the mother” provision.

A question that begs an answer is where, exactly, does the threat to the mother lie in said infant protection? Interestingly enough, Obama refused to support two bans which did include exceptions for safety of the mother. So his refusal to support anti-partial-birth abortion bills HB382 and SB230 comes as no surprise.

He also refused to support SB1095, which creates a cause of action for harm or neglect that comes to a child “born-alive” after a labor-induced abortion. Add to that his “no” vote on SB1661, also part of the “Abortion Alive Protection Act,” which created the “Induced Birth Infant Liability Act.”

His positions on crime, sex education for grades K-5, homosexual marriage and taxes are out of the mainstream of the so-called liberal mainstream.

Obama embraces the darkest interests of the uber-liberal socialist. It can be argued there are worse things than a Clinton ticket in 2008 – and any ticket with Barack Obama on it is one of them.

Ya’ know, liberal extremists and their Mau-Mau warriors would be hysterical if they weren’t such insufferably predictable simpletons.

As I wrote in a recent syndicated piece “Leftists Are Intellectually Dishonest,” which posted on this site 28 August 2012:

The greatest threat to their goal of global conquest is persons of color whose minds are and/or have been liberated from the paralyzing shackles of their ideology. That is why they set upon conservatives of color with such rabid savagery. It must also be said that the reason persons of color display such raw hostility toward those of us who have not allowed our minds to be imprisoned in the inspissated mire of resentment – is because, although they will not admit it, they resent our being free of said shackles.

Which brings me to Obama. While he hates Jesse Jackson, and is willing to use Al Sharpton, he views persons of color as useful only to further his Neo-Leninist, anti-colonialist worldview.

And therein lies the intellectual dishonesty that suffocates those I labeled above as minions. They refuse to realize that they, like the persons of color who embrace victimology and despair, are guilty of perpetuating the very racism and conquest that they decry.

Obama has no loyalty to persons of color, despite what they absurdly have convinced themselves to believe. They are simply useful idiots in his grand plan. The leftist minions I address are nothing more than modern day slave hunters looking to keep persons of color on their ideological plantation.

The left has responded with their predictable, knee-jerk apoplexy of such brilliant and scholarly words of praise for the accomplishments of Americans like Utah Mayor Mia Love, by calling her “[a] dirty, worthless whore and house nigger.” On a hot mic, Yahoo News reporter David Chalian was heard to say the Romneys are “happy to have a party with black people drowning.” It was a reference to the Republican National Convention taking place during Hurricane Isaac.

I’m guessing he felt the same way pursuant to the attention Obama paid to the Gulf during the oil spill. And how Obama responded to the disasters in Joplin, Missouri, the Carolinas, and the other areas of the country. I’m guessing Chalian agreed with me when I criticized Obama for ignoring those who suffered through the horrific storms in the midwest. I’m guessing he disagreed with the people who cursed me, and called me sell out, for daring to make such criticisms. Of course, we know he did no such thing.

In her speech, Mayor Love, whose family emigrated from Haiti with only ten dollars, said: “President Obama’s version of America is a divided one–pitting us against each other based on our income level, gender, and social status. His policies have failed! We are not better off than we were 4 years ago, and no rhetoric, bumper stickers, or campaign ad can change that.”

And, almost on cue, Obama’s minions proved her words to be spot on. Unless, of course, their poisoned epithets are to be considered the fond words of endearment. The vitriol of these bitter people who cling to their hatred, and contempt for dignity, is matchless.

The liberal television networks refused to carry portions of the convention that had Americans of color speaking. Can there be any more unambiguous statement of what political party is responsible for that which Mayor Love said above?

If, as Obama said in his 2004 speech to the Democrat National Convention, he would take the bully-pulpit of his office and condemn the vile heterodoxy of his party and their minions. For those who do not remember that speech he said:

Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us — the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of “anything goes.” Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America — there’s the United States of America.

So the question that begs an answer is–was he lying when he uttered those words to thunderous applause? Because it appears he was just trying to convince voters that he was something other than he truly is. Specific to that question was his relationship at that time with Jeremiah Wright, who he said was, next to his wife, the person whose council he trusted most.

With that thought in mind, are we to believe he didn’t know of Jeremiah Wright’s contempt for America or are we to believe Wright woke one day and had an epiphany of creativeness and thought “g_d-damn America” would be a great line to include in his sermon? Are we to believe Obama didn’t know about his wife’s racially divisive viewpoints when she was at Princeton and Harvard? And if, as he told reporters, his wife and Jeremiah Wright were/are his two most trusted advisors, how could he not know of their racial prejudice?

Maybe someone should remind Obama and his minions as they are, en masse, using his campaign talking points of calling Republicans “angry and full of insults.”

Liberals are a dishonest, disingenuous lot and none more so than left-wing wacko minions who subscribe to a variant form of Neo-Leninism. What I find particularly insulting about them is their intellectual dishonesty when it comes to dealing with persons such as myself. I’m speaking of both the ruling elite of their Erebusic politics and their minions the next level down.

Out of their mouths they pretend to espouse concern for the individual (especially if the individual is a person of color and/or from some third world pissoir). But, while these persons are their greatest assets pursuant to accomplishing their goals, they are also cause for their greatest fear.

That fear is the liberation of the minds of those referenced above. The Neo-Leninists have been successful because they have been able to divide people based on skin color and because they have been able to portray themselves as the champions of oppressed persons of color worldwide.

But to accomplish that, it was necessary for them to have a beachhead to establish an anatomy of polarization, i.e., a great satan – and no country better served their need than America – and no single group of people fit better into their plans than Americans of color.

The authors of this evil and Barmecidal ideology hate America because America represents a freedom that has at its core a belief that God Himself has endowed us with inalienable rights.

America was identified as the enemy because America was God’s beacon of truth and freedom to the world. The first generation of freed slaves were singled out because they and their progeny could be inculcated with an inferiority mentality based on skin color and a belief that white America (white conservative America, specifically), had essentially robbed them of their birthright. They expanded that mentality to portray (white) America as the imperialist conqueror engaging in worldwide colonialism.

The greatest threat to their goal of global conquest is persons of color whose minds are and/or have been liberated from the paralyzing shackles of their ideology. That is why they set upon conservatives of color with such rabid savagery. It must also be said that the reason persons of color display such raw hostility toward those of us who have not allowed our minds to be imprisoned in the inspissated mire of resentment – is because, although they will not admit it, they resent our being free of said shackles.

Which brings me to Obama. While he hates Jesse Jackson, and is willing to use Al Sharpton, he views persons of color as useful only to further his Neo-Leninist, anti-colonialist worldview.

And therein lies the intellectual dishonesty that suffocates those I labeled above as minions. They refuse to realize that they, like the persons of color who embrace victimology and despair, are guilty of perpetuating the very racism and conquest that they decry.

Obama has no loyalty to persons of color, despite what they absurdly have convinced themselves to believe. They are simply useful idiots in his grand plan. The leftist minions I address are nothing more than modern day slave hunters looking to keep persons of color on their ideological plantation.

Obama has been anything but truthful about his real intentions, but for those who are willing to factually assess what he has done thus far, his intentions are crystal clear.

But, those leftists who believe themselves to be wise and all-knowing, have bought the Neo-Leninist lies that America is evil as they espouse views critical of our capitalist free-market economy and foment class warfare.

All of this being said, I believe Obama aspires to accomplish three primary objectives: fundamentally change America, collapse America’s economic system to the point that we fall under a world rule, and redistribute America’s wealth in the way and manner that pleases him, consistent with his Neo-Leninist philosophy.

What I’ve said may be difficult for some to believe, but that makes my assertions no less true. If one listens to what he says and observes what he does as being consistent with what he believes, it is there for all to see.

We have yet to witness the total reality of the road to ruin he has conspired to set us on. Specific to that point, I disagree with those who opine that four more years of Obama and we won’t have a country left. But I will say this without hesitation – four more years of Obama without a Congress willing to hold him in check and we’ll have an America we neither recognize nor like.

Mitt Romney is a big dude who has worked very hard for 65 years to achieve incredible wealth, raised a great family, comes from a great family, and has a wonderful wife who has overcome incredible adversity. He is accomplished, credentialed, trustworthy, confident, and has spun gold his entire professional life. That does not happen because he is Mr. Lucky; it happened because he is diligent and understands what it takes to make a profit, unlike the folks who have infiltrated Washington, DC over the past few decades and run the country into the gutter with unspeakable naivete.

When did this country make a U-Turn and decide a man of Mr. Romney’s stature was wrong?

As great CEO’s often do, they bring along a prodigy to follow in their footsteps. In order for one to do that they must feel comfortable in their own skin, have confidence in themselves, and have vision for whatever enterprise they run by picking and/or anointing a successor. That short description is what defines Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, and quite by accident, defines Mr. Obama.
Barack Obama picked Joe Biden.

Even after four years, anyone with a moral compass and two ounces of brains still says, “You gotta be kidding me.” Why is everyone afraid to call the vice president of the United States a kook? Have we completely and totally relinquished our rights to call a spade a spade because of what people might say about us? I think we have.

Joe Biden is a straight-up nut-ball, and I haven’t seen that explanation anywhere by anyone for any reason and can only surmise it is because it would reflect poorly on someone to say so. Well, guess what. I’m not that particular chicken. The man has been a heartbeat away from the presidency for four years, is going to remain so for another four years if Mr. Obama gets re-elected, and everyone remains mum.
Joe Biden’s past is littered with outré and freakish behavior and plagiarism and directly involved with the witch hunts involving Robert Bork and Judge Clarence Thomas, and we now are supposed to accept him as running mate once again for The Amateur, when in fact everyone slept through the fact that a modern-media poser selected a crackpot for a his vice president the first time around and now expects to be rewarded with another term?


OK. I’m going to de-café. My point is simple; executives are defined by those with whom they surround themselves, and Mr. Obama is going to try to re-up with arguably one of the biggest fools the country has ever known, and believes that will counter-act the powerhouse of Romney/Ryan.

What gives?

Why do you think Hillary Clinton gave him a “no-can-do?” Because she has an inborn political survival gene, along with her husband. I don’t have much good to say about either one of them, much less their hypocrisy, yet I know a couple pros when I see them, and they are professional politicians and Mr. Obama is not.

And Joe Biden is other-earthly. In fact, I’m still not sure what he is.

The questions I proffered in the following April 20, 2004, syndicated article, still await liberal response:

The reason in large part for America’s descent into the abyss of moral decadence lies not in the answers to the following questions, but rather what brave, constitutionally sound Americans propose to do in response to those answers.

Question: If God is so bad for public schools; if God is so intrusive; if the separation of church and state is as clear as some (insert lawyers and socialists) would have us believe – why did it take an atheist and a lawyer until 1962 to figure it out?

Question: If saying the Lord’s Prayer and /or observing moments of silence is so destructive to the psyche of school children and tantamount to sanctioning religion – why does the U.S. Congress employ a taxpayer-paid chaplain, i.e., preacher, to begin every session of Congress with prayer? (Note: This has continued uninterrupted since 1777.)

Question: If the Ten Commandments are so offensively discomforting so as to traumatize atheists, Muslims and the protectors of separation of church and state; if the U.S. Supreme Court has routinely ruled in support of said separation – why is there a mural atop the High Court building of the world’s lawgivers, facing Moses as he is holding the Ten Commandments?

Question: If the courts were just and fair in ruling against Judge Roy Moore of Alabama, in forcing the removal of a plaque engraved with said Commandments – why does the door leading to the U.S. Supreme Court courtroom have the Ten Commandments engraved on each? Why are the Ten Commandments displayed directly behind where the Supreme Court justices sit?

Question: If the separation of church and state, as the haters of God would have us believe, is so clearly defined – why is our entire system of jurisprudence based upon the Holy Bible, i.e., the Ten Commandments?

Question: If the “One nation under God” clause in the Pledge of Allegiance is a violation; if as has been suggested the atheists will seek to have “In God we trust” removed from all legal currency – how long before we can reasonably expect that system of laws that all modern governments are based on (save those of the autocrats) to be changed? And allowing that actually happens or is even suggested – what can we possibly base equitable law /jurisprudence on, save the very “Word of God” that atheists, activist courts and lawyers claim government must be separated from?

Question: If the framers of the Constitution actually intended, as the minions of evil argue, there be a separation of church and state as defined today – why does the Constitution acknowledge God, invoking the Person and Presence of God in protection, guidance, gratitude, favor and as Ruler of the universe over said governance?

Question: How could the framers of the U.S. Constitution and 50 state constitutions be so wrong in their verbiage that today the courts and learned lawyers (sarcasm intended) must correctly interpret what the framers knowingly wrote?

The visceral cacophony of the learned (sarcasm intended) dismiss the fact that Thomas Jefferson, our third president, wrote of building a wall of “separation between the church and state” in a letter of response to the Danbury Baptist Association, Jan. 1, 1802. His explanation being that if the government was prohibited from establishing a state religion and prohibited from ruling which religions were permissible, there would be a wall, if you will, “between church and state.”

While there exists disagreement as to the validity of our fourth president, James Madison, having said, “We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God,” no such argument exists pursuant to the Supreme Court in 1892 interpreting the First Amendment and the exception of Sundays in Article 1, Section 7 as evidence of America’s pervasive faith: “They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation.”

Jefferson wisely understood that, “To consider judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [was] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the deception of an oligarchy.”

Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa., in quoting the 16th president, Abraham Lincoln, said: “If the policy of the government … is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court … the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.”

Am I alone in questioning why it is perfectly permissible and the right of the immoral to murder their unborn children (aka their choice), but considered a heinous offense by religious zealots and the hardcore right to invoke the name of Him whom all shall stand before (believe it or not) one day?

The threat to our children’s future is not the insolvency of Social Security, health care or the environment – it is the systematic atheitizing of America. There still exists a choice: You can whine, sigh and complain while doing nothing, or you can start “Taking back America.”

Our forefathers threw tea overboard for less.

By now many of you have heard that Lance Armstrong, the once presumed greatest athlete of his generation, has ceased his legal battles against USADA (The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency) and WADA (The World Anti-Doping Agency), and their dogged pursuit of charges against him for allegedly (cough-cough) leading a sophisticated doping conspiracy throughout his fabled career.

In the face of what I’m sure his attorneys advised him were near insurmountable odds against him, Armstrong picked up the victim card and claimed he would no longer fight the charges because it was costing him too much money, etc., etc.  I’m betting his attorneys also told him the risk he was taking if he lied (or continued to lie) with the phalanx of witnesses USADA had prepared to testify against him.  

Last night, as his decision was being announced, Armstrong’s spin machine was already in high-gear.  They pointed to the fact that he had never tested positive.  But, hahaha, isn’t that the reason they have masking agents that mask a person’s cheating?  They said it was costing him too much money with no appreciable upside.  I think they meant it was going to cost him a ton of money and he was still going to be busted.

Which brings me to the Obamas and their law licenses.  Their sycophants are as quick to point out they voluntarily surrendered their law licenses.  And that’s true…sorta.  They voluntarily surrendered their law licenses like Armstrong voluntarily ended his fight against USADA/WADA, which resulted in his being stripped of his seven Tour De France titles, and Olympic titles, to mention only a few.  

Obama sycophants claim the Obamas never admitted any guilt blah-blah-blah.  That’s like Armstrong saying he never tested positive.  Armstrong didn’t have to test dirty; his  teammates and others knew he was dirty.  And worse yet, the cycling powers knew it too, even though they chose to keep their heads buried in the sand for plausible deniability.  People know the Obamas are dirty as well.

What Armstrong proves is that there is justice.  Armstrong proves that if we are persistent and thorough that when the cheering stops for the cheaters — and when the movers and shakers have gotten what they want out of them — there’s a good chance we’ll finally bring the Obamas to justice. 

Return to school is upon many and what can we reasonably expect from the schools and students? I do not apologize for being critical of parents who leave the education of their children to teachers who are very often only slightly more educated than the students, their college degree notwithstanding.

I went to school in the dark ages. We didn’t have computers; we didn’t have teachers making over $50,000. We didn’t have all of the failed programs teachers today insist are necessary for children to learn. We didn’t have the ritalin epidemic and we didn’t have ADHD.

We were in school to learn and there were few options for not doing same. We weren’t passed from one grade to the next because someone came up with the brilliant idea that failing students was harmful to their self-esteem. The color of my skin had nothing to with expectations and demands placed upon me to learn and complete the requisite work with a grade average commensurate to allowing me to be promoted to the next grade.

Books weren’t banned because they contained original period language and standards weren’t lowered to show a non-existent positive. History hadn’t been rewritten; we pledged allegiance to the flag; we celebrated Christmas; we openly prayed, and, as surprising as it might be, no one suffered harm from same.

But in many schools today, the children are only marginally less educated than the teachers.

According to ACT (The American College Testing Program), 60 percent of 2012 high school graduates are at risk of not succeeding in college and career. In ACT‘s newly released report, The Condition of College and Career Readiness 2012 they found:

More than a fourth (28 percent) of ACT-tested 2012 graduates did not meet any of the four ACT College Readiness Benchmarks in English, mathematics, reading and science, suggesting they are likely to struggle in first-year college courses in all four of those subject areas. Another 15 percent met only one of the benchmarks, while 17 percent met just two. In short, a total of 60 percent of test takers met no more than two of the four benchmarks. In comparison, only 25 percent of tested 2012 grads met all four ACT benchmarks, unchanged from last year.” (http://www.act.org/newsroom/releases/view.php?lang=english&p=2402)

The tragedy is that some parents don’t care whether their children are learning; other parents leave it all up to the schools and teachers. And then there are the parents who applaud themselves and their children for meeting a worthless academic standard that the bar was lowered on years before.


I can tell you that there are public school systems that are no longer teaching grade-school children to write in cursive (or long-hand as it was called when many of us were in school). There are public school systems where written essays by high school students are the equivalent of “See Spot run.”

I work in a policy and information-driven technical world. Linguistic ability and technical ability pursuant to being able to communicate and work with technical equipment are imperative. My point is, how will the children of today who are not home-schooled, private schooled, or the products of the few remaining public school systems that are actually teaching children, contribute intellectually in tomorrow’s global world?

I recall having an in depth conversation with a managing editor not so long ago. They spoke of how poorly equipped many young people right out of college actually are. We spoke about the lack of true, marketable skills they possess.

Many parents today have no real idea what their children face in the future. They have this misguided Pollyanna belief that their children will graduate from high school, go to college for what amounts to a degree in lollipop making or basket weaving–graduate and get a job making lots of money (the specific amount depends on the parent and/or child’s ability to fantasize).

Writing for MarketWatch.com, Quentin Fottrell paints a very grim picture for future graduates:

After commencement, a growing number [of] young people say they have no choice but to take low-skilled jobs, according to a survey released this week…And while 63% of “Generation Y” workers — those age 18 to 29 — have a bachelor’s degree, the majority of the jobs taken by graduates don’t require one, according to an online survey of 500,000 young workers carried out between July 2011 and July 2012 by PayScale.com, a company that collects data on salaries. (Trading Caps And Gowns For Mops; 8/22/12)

Part of the problem is that people have no clue how businesses and the real world work. They envision their children finishing school, getting a great job near them, and living happily ever after. The problem is that it doesn’t work that way.

Obama and others have convinced young people that they must go to college and that they can go on the old “go now, pay later” plan. And by the time they graduate college they are in debt from student loans and in credit card debt thanks to the card companies passing them out like candy to students.

Employment isn’t about skin color or gender: it is about marketable linguistic skills, marketable educational skills, marketable social skills, and marketable employment skills.

The race-mongers and political parasites will claim all kinds of injustice and call for more money to be spent. But in the final analysis money doesn’t educate people. Poorly prepared, poorly educated teachers produce poorly prepared, poorly educated students.

Parents who do not raise the bar of expectation for their children, parents who place sports over academics, and parents who are just clueless are condemning their children to the harshest of realities.

People may not like what I’ve said, especially teachers, but the statistics don’t lie–and neither does the job market.

The Obamas just continue to drag the nation deeper into the pig trough that they wallow in and the tragic thing is that it’s calculated. They have done the focus group studies and taken polls that are telling them a certain segment of the population will respond favorably to their baneful commonality.

The latest in the laundry list of the Obamas‘ pernicious commonness comes from Penny Starr at CNSNews.com. Michelle Obama is serving as guest editor for iVillage.com. It is NBC’s “community of online women” that, as Penny reveals, “offers sexually explicit material, including graphic sex tips from prostitutes, 20 kinky things you So can do, and a list of ‘naughty’ apps for mobile devices.” The online sexual site “includes advice on sex positions, complete with illustrations and detailed explanations on ‘how to do it’ and ‘why you’ll love it.’” A screen shot of a page shows a title “Oral Sex: A Step-by-Step Guide.”

Let me say that the last thing I am is anti-heterosexuality in any way, shape, or form. But, I believe there is a dignity associated with heterosexuality that belongs between a man and a woman, that does not lend itself to what this mimic of a FLOTUS is espousing as guest editor.

What I’m saying is, the American people have the right to expect a certain degree of propriety, culture, reserve, and dignity to be associated with the president’s wife and the title she assumes by virtue of her husband’s position. The majority of the American people are not interested in a FLOTUS who brings to mind the picture of a cheap street-walker sitting in a $20.00 hotel room with a can of beer.

While she didn’t herself comment on any of the sexually explicit content on the site, she is the person serving as the guest editor. She chose to be the guest editor of a site that gives instruction on how to perform oral sex, sexual tips from prostitutes, and a guide on “the top 10 places to hook up” of at all the places Disney World–and how much time you can put into it before risking getting caught.

Where are the class and dignity in her actions? Where are the class and dignity when she wallows/humps around on the floor on the Ellen DeGeneres Show, for a lesbian host that was visibly delighted to watch her writhe on the floor?

A person’s position dictates what is acceptable behavior. But then again, while she has shown no propensity for class and dignity, this latest act isn’t about that at all. It is about reaching a voting demographic. The Obamas are seeing the same numbers we are, and as I have said before, there are three demographics they believe can get him reelected: young voters, black voters, and Hispanic voters.

As I referenced in the beginning, these people do nothing without polls and focus studies. And I’m betting their data show that a certain segment of young people and women will respond favorably to her association with such a rag. But is that what we are to expect from the FLOTUS?


Judging by the way she was dressed at the children’s award ceremony in Los Angeles dressed like an employee of the Bunny Ranch in Nevada–choosing to be the guest editor of this site may be with the idea in mind to get votes, but what the site represents is certainly not out of character for her.

Read Penny Starr‘s article: Michelle Obama ‘Guest Editor’ For Website Featuring Sex Tips–Including From Prostitutes; http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michelle-obama-guest-editor-website-featuring-sex-tips-including-prostitutes; CNSNews.com; 8/22/12.

Help me out here if you can.  Shouldn’t a person running for office be a person in whom we can have confidence that his yes is yes and his no is no?  Shouldn’t a person who is running for a political office, and asking us to trust them, be trustworthy?  Shouldn’t they be willing to say what they believe and stand by it regardless of the consequences?  In other words, shouldn’t a person running for office be veracious?  Shouldn’t the voters have confidence that a politician says what he/she believes and that the politician will not succumb to saying anything just to get elected?

Recently, we witnessed leftist groups and homosexuals react with their typical knee-jerk apoplexy, when the owner of Chick-Fil-A spoke openly and honestly of his personal point of view.  Now granted, this man is not a politician, but wouldn’t it be refreshing to see a politician stand by their convictions instead of making their convictions whatever will get them elected?  

That is exactly what I would do if I were the Republican Senatorial candidate from Missouri Todd Akin.  Akin has come under fire and pressure to abandon his race for the Senate because he gave an honest answer to a question about abortion.  When asked if he opposed abortion even in the case of rape, he should have answered “yes” and moved on to the next question.  Instead,  he answered yes and then tried to legitimize his answer with medical evidence. 

Truth be told, there is medical opinion that supports his answer: “From what I understand from doctors…if it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut [the female reproduction ability down].”  I recall reading the same thing going back to my early years of college.  And more important, I can recall hearing adults saying the same thing when I was a child.

 

Democrat Elizabeth Warren can lie about her ethnicity in order to defraud and cheat the government to get student loans.  Democrat Richard Blumenthal lied about his non-existent Vietnam War record all the way to reelection.  Bill Clinton can lie about sexual relations. Obama can lie about his mother’s death; can lie about his father’s non-existent military record and can lie about his past (by keeping all documents pursuant to same sealed).  Mitt Romney has flipped, flopped, and flipped again to the point that who knows  what he really believes.  But Akin speaks his mind and position truthfully and Karl Rove and Republican leadership throw him under the bus faster than they threw Trent Lott under the bus for making a jocund comment at the late Strom Thurmond’s birthday party.  

Republicans need to figure out that standing up for what a person believes in shouldn’t disqualify a person from office.  I would double down on Akin and tell the media we’ll stop supporting Akin when Obama stops supporting Eric Holder and Joe Biden.  Go Akin.

This is the first time I’ve ever posted another person’s work for my Daily Rant, but with the general election just around the corner in November this essayist’s article is a must reminder of the danger Obama presents.

This article is from June 11, 2010. The author goes by the nom de plume Robin of Berkeley. She is a psychotherapist and a self-described recovering liberal. I am posting in part because she raises certain issues that I have raised since early 2004, but she does it from a professional opinion based on her field of endeavor.

If after reading this you still believe Obama does not present a very real threat to America there is little left for me to say.

A Shrink Asks: What’s Wrong with Obama?
By Robin of Berkeley

So what is the matter with Obama? Conservatives have been asking this question for some time. I’ve written a number of articles trying to solve the mystery.

Even some liberals are starting to wonder. James Carville railed about Obama’s blasé attitude after the catastrophic oil spill. The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd revamped Obama’s “Yes We Can” motto into “Will We Ever?”

The liberal women of the TV show “The View” have expressed sympathy for Michelle Obama’s living with a man so out of touch. Peggy Noonan, hardly a vehement Obama foe, recently pronounced him disconnected.

Obama’s odd mannerisms intrigue a psychotherapist like me. He also presents a serious diagnostic challenge.

For one, Obama’s teleprompter and the men behind the Blackberry keep him well-scripted. We know so little about the facts of his life.

But it’s more than just a lack of information. Obama himself is a strange bird. He doesn’t fit easily into any diagnostic category.

Many people attribute Obama’s oddness to his narcissism. True, Obama has a gargantuan ego, and he is notoriously thin-skinned.

Yet a personality disorder like narcissism does not explain Obama’s strangeness: his giggling while being asked about the economy; his continuing a shout-out rather than announcing the Ft. Hood shootings; or his vacations, golfing, partying and fundraising during the calamitous oil spill.

Take also Obama’s declaring on the “Today Show” that he wants to know whose ass to kick. Consummate narcissists would never stoop to this vulgar display of adolescent machismo.

Obama is flat when passion is needed; he’s aggressive when savvy is required. What’s most worrisome is that Obama doesn’t even realize that his behavior is inappropriate.

So if it’s not just simple narcissism, what is wrong with Obama? Since I’ve never evaluated him, I can’t say for sure. But I can hazard some educated guesses.

If I saw a client as disconnected as him, the first thing I would wonder: Is something wrong with his brain? And I’d consider the following theoretical diagnostic possibilities.

–Physical problems: There are a multitude of physiological conditions that can cause people to act strangely. For instance: head injuries, endocrine disturbances, epilepsy, and toxic chemical exposure.

It makes me wonder: Did Obama ever have a head injury? His stepfather in Indonesia was purportedly an alcoholic abuser. Was Obama subject to any physical abuse?

– Drugs and alcohol: Damage to the brain from drugs and alcohol can also cause significant cognitive impairments. Obama once said that there were 57 states — and didn’t correct himself. Memory problems can be caused by both illicit and prescription drug use.

Obama admits to a history of drug use in his youth. Did his usage cause some damage? Does Obama still use?

–Asperger’s Syndrome: Also known as high-functioning autism, Asperger’s causes deficits in social skills. A person with Asperger’s can’t read social cues. Consequently, he can be insensitive and hurtful without even knowing it.

Could Obama have Asperger’s? He might have some mild traits, but certainly not the full-blown disorder. In contrast to Obama, those with Asperger’s get fixated on some behavior, like programming computers. Obama lacks this kind of passion and zeal.

–Mental Illness: Obama’s family tree is replete with the unbalanced. His maternal great-grandmother committed suicide. His grandfather, Stanley Dunham, was particularly unhinged: He was expelled from high school for punching his principal; named his daughter Stanley because he wanted a boy; and exposed young Barry to not just drunken trash talk, but unrestricted visits with alleged pedophile Frank Marshall Davis (who might or might not be Obama’s biological father). Barack Sr. was an abusive, alcoholic bigamist.
Since mental illness runs in the family, does Obama have any signs? Yes and no. No, he is not a schizophrenic babbling about Martians. But there are red flags for some other conditions.

While Obama doesn’t appear to hallucinate, he seems to have delusions. His believing he has a Messiah-like special gift smacks of grandiose delusions. His externalizing all blame to conservatives, George W. Bush, or the “racist” bogeyman hints at persecutory delusions.

Along with a delusional disorder, Obama may fit for a mild psychotic disorder called schizotypal disorder. It may explain some of Obama’s oddness.

People with schizotypal disorder hold bizarre beliefs, are suspicious and paranoid, and have inappropriate and constricted affect. They have few close friends and are socially awkward. A schizotypal is someone like your strange cousin Becky who is addicted to astrology, believes she is psychic, and is the oddball at social gatherings.

Schizotypal Disorder does ring some bells vis-à-vis Obama. One way the diagnosis doesn’t fit, however, is that schizotypals are generally harmless, odd ducks. Not so with Obama.

–Trauma: My gut tells me that Obama was seriously traumatized in childhood. His mother disregarded his basic needs, dragged him all over the place, and ultimately abandoned him.

But I think there may be something even more insidious in his family background. While I can’t prove it, the degree of Obama’s disconnect reminds me of my sexually abused clients.

With serious sexual abuse, the brain chemistry may change. The child dissociates — that is, disconnects from his being — in order to cope. Many adult survivors still dissociate, from occasional trances to the most extreme cases of multiple personality disorder.

Apparently, young Barry was left in the care of Communist Frank Marshall Davis, who admitted to molesting a 13-year-old girl. As a teenager, Obama wrote a disturbing poem, “Pop,” that evoked images of sexual abuse — for instance, describing dual amber stains on both his and “Pop’s” shorts.

Would trauma explain Obama’s disconnect? In many ways, yes. A damaged and unattached child may develop a “false self.” To compensate for the enormous deficits in identity and attachment, the child invents his own personality. For Obama, it may have been as a special, gifted person.

Let’s return now to my original question: What is wrong with Obama? My guess is a great deal. The answer is complex and likely includes some combination of the above.

Along with the brain issues are personality disorders: narcissism, paranoia, passive-aggressiveness. There’s even the possibility of the most destructive character defect of all, an antisocial personality. Untreated abuse can foster antisocial traits, especially among boys.

If my assessment is accurate, what does this mean?

It means that liberals need to wake up and spit out the Kool-Aid…and that conservatives should put aside differences, band together, and elect as many Republicans as possible.

Because Obama will not change. He will not learn from his mistakes. He will not grow and mature from on-the-job experience. In fact, over time, Obama will likely become a more ferocious version of who he is today.

Why? Because this is a damaged person. Obama’s fate was sealed years ago growing up in his strange and poisonous family. Later on, his empty vessel was filled with the hateful bile of men like Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers.

Obama will not evolve; he will not rise to the occasion; he will not become the man he was meant to be. This is for one reason and one reason alone:

He is not capable of it.

This article is not intended to offer any definitive diagnoses, but for educational purposes only.

A frequent AT contributor, Robin is a psychotherapist in Berkeley and a recovering liberal. You can e-mail Robin at robinofberkeley@hotmail.com. She regrets that she may not be able to acknowledge your e-mail.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/a_shrink_asks_whats_wrong_with.html

I’ve never had a problem confronting a bully, but apparently Republicans do – and none more so than Mitt Romney. The Obama campaign has called Romney a criminal with no justification for same. They simply made up the false allegations, circulated the talking points per same to Obama’s minions, and then let Harry Reid do the rest. The result? Romney spends time and energy on defense.

Now Obama and his campaign are demanding Romney release his tax returns for the past five years. And they are brazenly telling him that if he releases returns for the past five years they will stop demanding more.

Romney’s response was to decline the deal, but for all of the wrong reasons. Romney declined because his campaign believes that if he releases five years’ worth of returns, the Obama campaign will demand 10 years more and then 10 years more and so forth. But inexplicably, what Romney does do is tell the reporters on the campaign trail that he has paid 13.6 percent in taxes over a 10-year period.

I don’t know who is responsible for Romney’s campaign, but I give two thumbs down. Politics isn’t for the faint of heart nor is it a pursuit for those who do not know how to fight back. Leftist Democrats are the equivalent of bare-knuckle brawlers. Republicans want to conduct themselves as genteel neatly coiffed ballerinas.

As a friend said to me earlier today: “It more than irks me that Republicans want to tippy-toe around–being polite, looking polite and pretty, rather than own that this is akinto a blood-sport and the past four years, if nothing else, should have beaten that
into their neatly-coifed heads. Unless, of course, we’re being duped by all of them and the point is to lose.”

If I were Romney, and Obama demanded I release more of my tax returns than are legally required for me to run, I would have seized upon that opportunity like a child being told they could have absolutely anything they wanted for Christmas.

I would carry copies of my returns for the five years Obama wants released, on every campaign stop. I would hold them up to the crowds and open every rally and/or interview by saying, “I will release these the moment Obama unseals of the things he has paid millions to keep hidden from the American public.”

I would turn Obama’s demands into a vendetta against him. I would run campaign ads showcasing Obama as a hypocrite for trying to divert attention from his abysmal record and trying to hide his past. I would point out that the only reason a person hides things about themselves is because they have something to hide.

One of my campaign slogans would be – I’ll show you mine if you unseal yours. I would tell the people that no president or world leader in history has hired large law firms to keep their past a secret.


I would run ads and buy space on billboards asking, “What does Obama have to hide?” And I would do that at every single stop. I would continue to do it at the upcoming debates. And I would up the ante on Obama’s failure as a leader. I would run ads condemning Obama with his own words. I would run ads showing him with communists and communist activists.

I would talk about his wife’s ultra-lavish vacations. I would talk about the fact that members of his own party are complaining about his disinterest in reciprocating for their doing the heavy lifting in supporting him.

I would tell people that I’m not ashamed to have benefited financially for applying sound business principles. I would tell the people that those who win large lottery jackpots hire tax lawyers to help them keep more of their winnings even before claiming the jackpot. Why is having same help me legitimately keep more of what I work for any different?

I would ask which is more suspicious: my benefiting from the advice of the best tax lawyers or Obama using the best law firms to conceal his past?

I might even question why Obama doesn’t think “The Star Spangled Banner” isn’t “one of the prettiest sounds on earth at sunset” as said of the Muslim call to prayer? I might even have someone ask the question of whether Obama can recite the Apostles’ Creed with the same perfect annunciation that he recites the Muslim call to prayer, the Adhan. After all, he does profess to be a Christian.

I would use large placards listing Obama’s failures as president.

But Romney isn’t doing any of those things. He’d rather smile and wave. Well, smiling and waving don’t win elections. Even Obama had to do more than smile and wave to get elected – he had to lie and deceive the public. The absolute last thing he wants now is to have those lies exposed – which is exactly what I would do if I were the candidate.

And for good measure, I would point out that my wife my uses horses as a medically proven aid for her multiple sclerosis. But that’s better than having her demand that Harvard abandon meritocratic performance and instead hire professors based solely on color of skin as Obama’s wife did.

The following is my syndicated column from 6/15/04. How dare the corrupt Chicago community extortionist holding elected office today, compare himself to President Reagan:

We stood with tens of thousands in the streets of our nation’s Capitol to observe the final motorcade of President Ronald Reagan.

One person shared of a woman who had elicited a smile and a wave from the former first lady Nancy Reagan, when she had called out “We love you Nancy.” Amongst my group, there were salutes, tears and an outflow of emotion from those of us who understood the significance of the lone F-16 that broke formation and streaked Heavenward by itself.

Then came the moment none of us wanted to experience nor forget. The caisson pulling the flag-draped coffin and the president’s riderless horse – fully saddled, his riding boots mounted backward into the stirrups. The dark stallion pranced somberly, from time to time jerking its head as if some unseen rider had given a quick tug of the reins.

But it was as I ascended the steps to walk out onto the tiny squares of tile and stand in the midst of greatness past, that I wondered if in the passing of President Reagan had the last vestiges of American greatness passed as well.

In that Rotunda dwelled the remembrances of “American Greatness” – those who had passed from life into infinity. I thought it fitting the president should be permitted to rest here amidst such immortality and greatness.

I was at once struck by the uniformed color guard that stood statuesque surrounding his coffin in the center of the Rotunda – two at the front, three at the rear, one off to the side. One had to strain to observe them breathing, so positioned were they.

I perceived an almost imperceptible sadness in their eyes as they protected the finality of a great man. It had been Ronald Reagan who had rescued our military from the wastelands of downtrending re-enlistments and the famines of not only spare parts and ammunition, but of meager earnings as well.

This president knew that war, as he put it, “never [came] about because we were too strong.” While not an aggressor, he knew that “For the sake of our freedom and that of others, we [could] not permit our reserve to be confused with a lack of resolve.”

I stood alone in a corner of that garden of history, observing persons paying their last respects, including the persons in my group and the Navy officer who snapped to attention, saluted and then turned with tears staining his face.

There had been a mother with her daughter who hugged her as she sobbed. The depth of emotion of those passing was palpable. Little children instinctively ceased to make noise and joust. Something transformed us all as we stood in that great hall of immortality.

The painting of the “Surrender of General Burgoyne” and the rigid yet gentlemanly respect offered to Gen. Burgoyne by the American Gen. Horatio Gates (October 17, 1777) reminded me of how President Reagan had treated then-Soviet leader Gorbachev – and the respect he, too, came to have for Reagan.

The “Frescoed Frieze of American History” seemed a fitting adornment surrounding Mr. Reagan. Within the first scene, “America and History,” a female figure representing history is holding a tablet to record the events of history as they occur. As I had said in interviews during the course of these events, “I believe it will be history who ultimately records the greatness and legacy of Ronald W. Reagan.” She appeared ready to prove my words.

It seemed that history welcomed him that night – one could not avoid the parallels. The statue of Abraham Lincoln is by Vinnie Ream – the first woman artist to receive a government commission. Sandra Day O’Connor, appointed by President Reagan to the Supreme Court was its first female.

There was the statue of Thomas Jefferson, whom many (myself included) believe to be only one of two presidents who did more for America than President Reagan.

As I turned to exit that pantheon of Americana, the painting of “General George Washington Resigning His Commission” caught my attention. It seemed meet that these two legends of American democracy should share this hallowed room, for both presidents were true public servants. They “possessed an extraordinary strength of character and a wealth of public virtues.” Both “exhibited an integrity, self discipline, and devotion to duty that made [them] natural leaders” – one in nation building, the other in restoring it to her principled place of greatness.

Then I descended the marbled steps, exiting into the balmy night air – where I looked across that “Shining city upon a hill,” reflecting that an aspect of the “Glory of God” seems historically to have been to bless His people with great leaders when they were most needed.

I could not help but ponder whether America could ever be so blessed again.

I have repeatedly said that the Obamas are about race-mongers and that Michelle Obama is even more so than her husband. August 15, 2012, Charles Johnson, writing for The Daily Caller, drove home my point with more proof of same.

He wrote:
During her third and final year at Harvard Law School, first lady Michelle Obama — then named Michelle Robinson — penned an article for the newsletter of Harvard’s Black Law Students Association (BLSA), arguing that Harvard and its students were perpetuating “racist and sexist stereotypes” by not intentionally hiring minority and female law professors on the basis of their sex or skin color. (http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/15/in-harvard-essay-young-michelle-obama-argued-for-race-based-faculty-hiring/#ixzz23ep0RyLZ)

He continues: “The 1988 essay, titled ‘Minority and Women Law Professors: A Comparison of Teaching Styles,’ ran in a special edition of the BLSA Memo. The future first lady justified her demands for more black and female law school faculty by attacking the ‘traditional model,’ in which law students were educated through the Socratic method.”

This is the future First Lady I write about in my syndicated article, “Michelle Obama’s Inner Demons”: “Barack Hussein Obama, originally known as Barry Sotero, claims two mentors and two people of greatest influence in his life – the race-baiting, hate-filled Jeremiah Wright and his race-conscious, bitter wife.” (WND.com; 4/6/08)

This is the woman who has Obama’s ear. This is also the woman who arrogantly said she had been ashamed of the America we love, her entire life–at least until she was in the White House and able to influence Obama’s agenda.

Johnson writes: “She opposed the traditional meritocratic hiring principle, where professors with better legal pedigrees were more often hired, arguing that it limited the success of women and blacks.”

Michelle Obama graduated from Harvard Law School in 1988, and was admitted as a lawyer by the Supreme Court of Illinois on May 12, 1989. Following graduation, she joined Sidley Austin, a corporate law firm in Chicago. But a few years later, in 1994, while working for the Public Allies project in Chicago, Obama voluntarily surrounded her law license under clouded circumstances.

In other words, she was demanding that Harvard ignore those with superior credentials and legal pedigrees in favor of those who could be at the bottom of the proverbial barrel, as long as they were black and/or female. Of course, it’s my guess she would have protested just as much if too many white women were hired.

Johnson’s incomparable article further calcifies that which many have known from the beginning and that is the Obamas are race-conscious Marxist-Leninists who want Van Jones and Eric Holder types to control our lives.

In my syndicated article referenced above I write:
She views life and America through a prism of segregative bias based on her own inner demons. She castigates universities as being designed to cater socially and academically to white students. In reality, schools are to cater to educating the student, but thanks to the very vehicle she used to attend Princeton and Harvard, education is overshadowed by racial diversity. Her Princeton thesis concluded with her excoriating other black alumni because they identified with inclusive American culture more than they valued the color of their skin.

Johnson noted that:
. . . [S]he praised the teaching of several professors who didn’t use the Socratic method, including the far-left academics Martha Minow and Charles Ogletree. Minow’s father, Newton Minow, later recruited Michelle and Barack Obama to Sidley Austin, the Chicago law firm where the two met. Ogletree, who mentored both Michelle and Barack at Harvard, admitted during the 2008 election that he had concealed a videotape of Obama praising ‘critical race theory’ architect Derrick Bell. Michelle also gushed praise for critical race theory itself — the view that law is an instrument of the powerful against the powerless, rather than an effort to seek justice.

And as if we needed more proof of her Erebusic influence over Obama’s presidency, Johnson notes that the language she used “bore clear similarities to the ‘empathy’ test Obama promised to use when deciding on nominees for the judiciary.”

The clear and present danger of these two along with their cabal of racist Marxist-Leninists which includes Valerie Jarrett, cannot be ignored. The only thing remotely close to the threat they present is the realization that Republican hierarchy will do everything in their power to prevent true conservatives from being elected.

It is one thing to have the Obamas committed to transforming America into a Communist state–it is another to have Republican hierarchy aiding and abetting them by pushing candidates we cannot support.

Read Also:
Michelle Obama’s Inner Demons: http://www.wnd.com/2008/04/60963/
Michelle Obama Law School BLSA Essay: http://www.scribd.com/doc/102879345/Michelle-Obama-Law-School-BLSA-Essay

I’m going to make a suggestion. It is not intended to inspire racists and/or bigots of any description. But it needs to be said, so I’m saying it.

There are so-called African-American people who were bred, born, raised their entire life in America. They are the recipients of every opportunity available to all Americans. That said, they additionally have the single greatest advantage available to a people today. They are able to drop the “It’s because I’m black” bomb in the blink of an eye. And woe be to anyone who dares upset their matrix of contempt.

Evidence this comment that a Charlene Ivory posted on my blog. It is one of several comments she posted attacking, and directly attempting to insult, my subscribers. Take note of the hatred and rage she has toward me because I dared speak unfavorably (albeit truthfully) of the NAACP. Note her phoniness when she tries to proclaim her love for all, as she launches into her racist diatribe:

“Why does the NAACP need to fear or hate you? You’re the house negro no self-respecting black person would want anything to do with. They shouldn’t even acknowledge your existence (as I am unfortunately doing now). Do you crave the acceptance of whites so much that you are willing to exploit your own race to be embraced by them? I love all people of all races, but I do not like people who pander to one race to gain their acceptance. You join a party that has many racist members who dislike, if not hate blacks. Look at Lynn Jenkins, who was looking for the ‘great white hope’ for the Republican Party, or the Chaffey Community Republican Women’s Federation (who made the food stamp bill with Obama’s face on the body of a donkey surrounded by chicken,ribs, watermelon, and koolaid), Mayor Dean Grose and the watermelon patch emails, or Marilyn Davenport who emailed Obama’s face on the body of a chimpanzee, and as dark as you are she would have done you the same favor, and worst of all Mike O’neal (Kansas Speaker of the House)who referenced Psalm 109 to Obama-pretty much hinting that he wanted O’bama to die and his children to be left fatherless!But what can one expect from someone who loves the white man more than the white man loves himself. You’re proud to belong to this party?-your’e a disgrace! The NAACP, created in 1908 or 1909, was created by whites and blacks in response to the lynchings of blacks and the disfranchisement of blacks. Had it not been for these brave men and women you probably wouldn’t be where you are today. Albert Einstein(remember,the inventor of the law of relativity)was a member of the Princeton chapter of the NAACP. So now, being the dutiful little house negro that you are, you want to be a self-proclaimed enemy of the NAACP. Well let me officially inform you: You aren’t worthy to lick the scum off the bottom of the shoes of the men and women of the NAACP who fought-and yes some even died-so you with your race-hating self could have the freedom to sit and bash everything they stood for! You’re absolutely right,there’s no bravery in you!” (Posted by Charlene Ivory 8/12/12)

The New Black Panther Party has sent a message to the Republican National Committee saying: “Our feet will be on your motherf***ing necks” when the Republicans hold their National Convention in Tampa, Florida. And as if that weren’t bad enough, their leadership has said: “We must create [a] military to murder [white] babies and skin white people.”

Spike Lee, who has made hundreds of millions of dollars specifically because whites go to see his movies, recently said: “I’m doing whatever it takes to get Obama [a] second term so he can do whatever he wants this time.” Lee’s not-so-coded message is that he wants Obama to shove it in the face of whites.

The chief cheerleaders and advocates for this rage are Barack Hussein Obama and his wife. I have written and commented many times concerning Michelle Obama’s disparaging of black students at Princeton who did not subscribe to her contempt for whites and the college establishment at the college she was attending for free.

Obama, and his administration, have repeatedly shown that they are not for a United America. Obama has refused to rebuke Joe Biden for telling a crowd in Danville, Virginia that was 50 percent black that the [rich white] bankers were going to put you (meaning African-Americans) back in chains. Those in the crowd applauded and cheered. Obama supported Biden’s screed.

I could go on ad nauseum, but I really do not think it necessary to make my point.

If the United States is so bad and so unfair, why are those claiming to be of African descent still here? If they are so offended by Americans such as myself, and the tens of millions of people who along with me are not white, black, or other, but American–why are they still here?

Rather than risking prison, and potential death sentences if they carry out their voiced intentions, why don’t the Panthers just leave? If persons such as myself are so offensive to Ivory, why is she still here?

My suggestion to them all is this: If America, and those of us who are unhyphenated Americans are such a drain on their well-being–why don’t they follow the example of Marcus Garvey and leave? They can take Obama and his Marxist-Leninist minions, who use color of skin as currency to further their diabolical agendas, with them.

It will be much more harmonal and serendipitous for them. Every morning will be a fresh day, free of we who cause them such stress. They will no longer be burdened by that which they view as our ignorance. Obama can be emperor for life and Michelle can be the fashion plate she always dreamed of being, in her jungle animal-skin wardrobe.

And those of us who love America will be free of their malcontent.

How gullible can people be to continue to believe Obama’s lies? Can his campaign plan be to dazzle people with the equivalent to the products moo-cows deposit in fields after eating?

At a Chicago fundraiser this past weekend, Obama attempted to boast about his political record saying Americans should look at his record, and make the choice to move forward and not backward this general election. He pointed to his ending “don’t ask, don’t tell,” allowing women greater access to birth control (whatever that means), and bum-rushing the healthcare bill through as the major accomplishments of his first term. And, of course, he engaged in his obligatory mantra of class warfare, calling the most successful free-market capitalist model in history “top-down economics.” Derisively saying, “They have tried to sell us this trickle-down fairy dust before, and guess what? It did not work.”

I have got to say it, has he lost his flipping mind? Has he even looked at his record and lack of accomplishment so far? He’s leading his own cheering section because homosexuals and lesbians are now able to engage in their preferential debauchery openly. What next, will we see modern day Corporal Klinger’s doing guard duty, decked out in sequined dresses and pantyhose?

Why doesn’t he talk about the disaster known as “cash for clunkers”? Why doesn’t he tell the handpicked crowds how he has massively contributed to the destabilization of the Middle East? Why doesn’t he explain what a friend to Israel the U.S. has been under his so-called leadership? Why doesn’t he explain why he permits his wife to flaunt the wasting of our tax dollars on lavish vacations and over-the-top spending sprees? Why doesn’t he tell us why his wife spends $50,000.00 in one visit to an exotic lingerie boutique in New York, when the millions of unemployed are losing their homes?


Speaking of the unemployed, why doesn’t Obama explain his economic disaster as I wrote in my July 27, 2012 Daily Rant titled, “Obama Calls Poverty Of Nation Successful Economic Policy”:

The question the rest of the American voters must ask is how Obama reconciles his self-affirmation of economic success with the fact that there are more people living below the government‘s poverty line than at any time since 1959. There are 46 million people or 15.6 percent of the population, living in poverty, i.e., people with an annual income below $11,139.

As Brian at “Brian’s Right Perspective” wrote: “We tried our plan – and it worked!”
President Obama is now hitting uncharted territory with, possibly, the most delusional statement he’s yet made on the economy. He can’t possibly believe the crap that falls out of his mouth, so I can only conclude that this President, and this administration, believe that the American people are stupid enough to believe this tripe.

Let’s see how well Obama’s economic plan has worked:

June 2012:
Unemployment (U-3) – steady at 8.2% (up from 8.1 in Apr)
Underemployed (U-6) – rose to 14.9%
Long Term Unemployment ([more than] 27 weeks) 5.4 million or 41.9% of all unemployed
Discouraged workers – no longer looking: 821,000
Labor Force Participation: 63.8%
Americans who have left labor force: 8.6 million
Americans on Food Stamps (Apr2012): 46.2 million (1 in 7 Americans)
US GDP (1st Qtr 2012): 1.9% (Historical 3.25%) – GDP under 3% 6 of last 7 Qtrs (3% – 4th Qtr 2011)

In addition to all of the sunshine shown above, since June 2009 inflation-adjusted income has plummeted under Obama by 6.7%. That is, the money you do make, buys less.

I wonder what the numbers would look like if Obama’s plan didn’t work? (June 24, 2012)

Why doesn’t “Boasting Barry” take credit for those economic disasters? Why doesn’t he boast to the public how he is secretly devising a plan to circumvent the Second Amendment and deny our Constitutional right to own and bear arms?

Obama is an unaccomplished and unpolished liar, but no one in his inner circle dares tell him that his lies are as transpicuous and base as the painted-on, jeans outfit his wife wore to the children’s award show was whorish.

I’m not a psychologist, but a couple of my closest friends are, so it is not without some discussion that I make the following observation. Obama is an emotional catastrophe. The emotional damage inflicted upon him by his unstable parentage has gone unaddressed. He no doubt learned, at an early age, how to prostitute himself for the attention and adulation he craved. Just like a common street-walker, once he had received what he craved, he had no use for those who had worked to help him achieve his objective.

Think about it for a moment. At the time Obama started dating Michelle, the kindest, most kind, thing that could be said about her looks was that she was hideous. He, on the other, even in his glorified pimp-daddy wannabe, “I’m stoned outta my mind” impression, was nowhere near as unpleasant looking as she was–yet she is the woman he attached himself to. And while today her looks are the result of the taxpayers paying for the same $15,000 a day makeup person for Michelle that Oprah uses, photos of her from back then show a frighteningly unpleasant-looking woman. But she probably has many of the same characteristics his mother had.

During the 2008 campaign, Obama lied and bojangled his way around the truth and away from any serious vetting of his sealed background. And, just as he made a vulgar gesture to Hillary with his finger, so he is giving us the same gesture, every time he lies and/or tries to mislead us into believing he is not exactly what we see.