Thread: "Obamanation."

I Think I Prefer Barack Obama Fundraising out on the Road

Richard Anthony 15 hours ago



I know that I have been one of Obama's staunchest critics for not being in Washington DC during the recent world events. However, I see that as long as he is out on the road attending fundraisers, he's not doing any more damage to America. Let's face it, when he is in the White house, he's constantly violating his oath of office, signing some new executive order, or acting on royal decree to "fix" some law that he doesn't feel like enforcing, or implementing (case in point his own law - Obamacare), or attempting an end-run around congress. No, while he's out on the road panhandling, he's out in the open right where we can see him and he's not doing any more damage to the country.

In fact, I hope he takes a long, "well deserved" vacation when he does get back to Washington DC! I also hope, he takes his entire family with him, because if Michelle Obama is with him spending taxpayer money on lavish accommodations, meals and assorted souvenirs, it's better for all of us that way. If Michelle is vacationing, she's not screwing-up school children's lunches. I hope they both go to some five star hotel someplace and just kick-it for a couple of months. I know, it sounds crazy doesn't it?
But if you think about what I said for a minute, it's perfectly true, it's better when he's not in the white House causing more mayhem.
In World War ll, the allies wanted to find a way to assassinate Adolph Hitler. They came up with quite a few different ways to kill him. But as the war progressed, they found that Hitler alive was worth more to the allied war effort than Hitler dead. Hitler had taken complete control of all executive, major military decisions away from his General staff. Because of his distrust of officers, coupled with his own inflated ego, he actually believed that he was a brilliant military tactician. History proved this correct, because as long as Hitler was completely in-charge of all military decisions, he was helping the allies win the war.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

As long as Obama is in full campaign mode and out on the road, he's not doing something stupid to destroy America, or screw the American people.
So I say, let him take as long as he wants; let him attend a thousand fundraising dinners; let him make a thousand speeches. As long as he stays away from the White House, we're pretty sure he's not sticking-it to you and me, or embarrassing the United States of America on the world stage. I know, it sounds like I'm picking on our poor president, doesn't it? However, when he does step in front of a camera, he only emboldens our enemies. Do any of you think that the terror group ISIS is worried? For that matter, is Vladimir Putin sitting in the Kremlin hiding under his desk chewing his fingernails, wetting his pants? Does anyone believe for a second, that Boko Haram is scared stiff about the prospect of any kind of action from America?

Hell no!
They're all laughing their asses off at the United States. They know, without a single doubt, that as long as Barack Obama is president of the United States of America, they have free gratis to do anything they want!

The left-wing and assorted liberals will tell you that Obama is doing a bang-up job of keeping us safe and not getting us into to situation that we don't belong in. That's why these delusional bastards keep writing him checks. I wonder, does Obama really spend all of that money he gets from these idiots, or does he just pocket the excess cash that he doesn't use? Either way, as long as he's not in Washington acting like a king, he's doing us a favor.
I was hoping that he could take John Kerry with him on some of these fundraising trips too because every time Kerry tries to do his job he only makes things worse every time he opens his mouth.

Which would you rather have, Obama in the Washington or out on the road?

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.


Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/07/i-...lfOC7O3z5eb.99

Wouldn't it be nice if one day when he was "traveling", we just all go in and move him right on outta there!!!!!

Ellison’s Must Read of the Day

BY: Ellison Barber // July 24, 2014 9:07 am




My must read of the day is “Obama locks out the press—again,” in Politico:

President Barack Obama went to the West Coast to meet donors from two top Democratic Super PACs, but the press wasn’t invited.
Tuesday, the reporters and photographers traveling with the president on Air Force One and in his motorcade were left on the gravel path not even within sight of former Costco CEO Jim Sinegal’s house in the Seattle suburbs where Obama sat for a Senate Majority PAC fundraiser with a $25,000 entrance fee.

Wednesday morning, when he met with big donors for the House Majority PAC at the Four Seasons hotel in downtown San Francisco, they weren’t even told what room or floor he was on.

“We think these fundraisers ought to be open to at least some scrutiny, because the president’s participation in them is fundamentally public in nature,” said Christi Parsons, the new president of the White House Correspondents’ Association. “Denying access to him in that setting undermines the public’s ability to independently monitor and see what its government is doing. It’s of special concern as these events and the donors they attract become more influential in the political process.”

Despite constant complaints from the press corps and promises from White House officials, access to the president continues to be limited. The constantly repeated line that they’re running the “most transparent administration in history” tends to prompt snickers. Halfway through Obama’s West Coast swing, it’s tipping toward outrage.

It would be nice if this was an unbelievable story, but it’s not. The White House doesn’t do this occasionally—it occurs fairly frequently, despite repeated complaints from the press corps.

I always find it interesting, and concerning, that there seems to be an overwhelming tendency for the general public to dismiss this kind of behavior, largely because they’re perceived as menial events. Do we really care that the press didn’t get a photo of the Apollo 11 astronauts? Or that they were kept out of one measly fundraiser, when we know there will be plenty more? Maybe we don’t. Maybe nothing newsworthy comes from these events, but we need journalists and photojournalists there to be sure.

Theoretically lawmakers represent the people, but I’ve always thought that role is quickly handed to the press. Their job is to be an instrument that holds public officials accountable to their constituents and for their actions. They can’t do that when they’re blocked from events.

Every time the White House releases their own photos, instead of allowing the press to be there, they’re presenting a controlled image of the activity.

That’s propaganda.

http://freebeacon.com/blog/ellisons-...y-obama-press/

What is the difference the media pass all their propaganda crap to us any ways...Am I supposed to feel outrage here??? Not Happening!!!!

Video claims Valerie Jarrett played role in effort to kidnap Amb. Chris Stevens

Play

Video claims Valerie Jarrett behind botched plan to kidnap Amb. Chris Stevens
Western Journalism


Joe NewbySpokane Conservative Examiner



Alex Wong/Getty Images




July 23, 2014

A video posted Tuesday by the Western Center for Journalism makes the explosive claim that White House adviser Valerie Jarrett played a role in what was to be an attempt to kidnap Ambassador Chris Stevens. The attempt was "botched," ultimately resulting in the terror attack that led to Stevens' death.
The video cites "Dark Forces: The truth about what happened in Benghazi," a book by Kenneth R. Timmerman, that says Iranians were behind the 2012 terror attack on the Benghazi compound. Worse yet, the video claims, Jarrett may have been "pulling the strings."
The book cited in the video claims Jarrett has maintained close ties to the Iranian government for decades, including one Ali Akbar Velayati, a man who served as Iran's Foreign Minister from 1981 to 1996. According to "Dark Forces," Jarrett and Velayati discussed a plan intended to make Obama look like a "diplomatic genius."
"Velayati told Jarrett there were elements inside Iran (such as the Quds Force) who were 'out of control' and were planning to kidnap an American diplomat to show their displeasure with U.S. santions on Iran," the video said. "Some claimed that Jarrett then proposed that they transform the kidnapping into a hostage exchange, with the United States freeing the Blind Sheikh in exchange for the kidnapped U.S. ambassador. That would make Obama look like a diplomatic genius."
The "Blind Sheikh" is none other than Omar Abdel Rahman, the bearded Islamic extremist who helped orchestrate the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. In January 2013, the Washington Post said Islamist leaders, including former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, have pressured the U.S. to release him.
According to Timmerman, the NSA intercepted communications by militants in Benghazi revealing a plan led by Iranians to kidnap Stevens and attack the CIA annex. The plan was reportedly stopped when Iranians -- traveling in vehicles with Red Crescent markings -- were attacked and captured by Ansar al-Sharia. But, Timmerman said, the attack was a ruse to make the CIA think the plan had been scrapped.
Instead, the video claims, the plan was simply altered to let Ansar al-Sharia kidnap Stevens and attack the compound. The Iranian leader behind the botched attempt reportedly did not believe Ansar al-Sharia could successfully kidnap Stevens and allegedly ordered him murdered.
The video goes on to say this is the reason the administration blamed the attack on an obscure online video for weeks. But, the video -- which can be seen above -- says more needs to be done.
"And this is why we must forcibly remove Barack Obama and Valerie Jarrett from the White House and arrest them immediately," the video adds.

Suggested by the author

Report says Valerie Jarrett gave the order to stand down in Benghazi
Creepy: NBC airs picture of Valerie Jarrett with figurines bowing before her
New book: Obama canceled bin Laden raid three times at urging of Valerie Jarrett
Retired General: Military purges a real concern, Jarrett pulling the strings
Valerie Jarrett: Americans 'hungry' for Obama to act like an imperial president

http://www.examiner.com/article/vide...valeriejarrett

The Hegelian Dialectic: Offering Communistic Solutions to Fabricated Crises

David Risselada 51 mins ago

By now, many have read that President Obama has recently called for a "new collectivized order" in order to quell many of the problems plaguing the world. President Obama cited the problems in Russia and Ukraine, Iraq, Israel and Palestine, and no doubt acts as if the immigration issue is one of these crises as well. Truly, the world seems to be on fire, and the Global Elite that are calling the shots would have you believe that surrendering our sovereignty to an all-powerful global government is the solution, never mind the fact that it is the global elite causing these problems in the first place. Using the concepts of the Hegelian Dialectic, the powers that be create the global conditions that lead to fear and uncertainty, allow the targeted populations to demand "predetermined solutions," and then reluctantly act as if they must go along with the demands to give the appearance of carrying out the people's will. It's all designed to get you to willingly accept what you once wouldn't, global communism.

The formula is simple, create the problem which persuades the people to beg for a solution and then give it to them. This system of persuasive arguing was devised by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and would later become the framework for Karl Marx's "Dialectical Materialism," which, of course, eventually became the framework for communism. Like Marx, Hegel was a statist and believed that humanity owed allegiance to an all-powerful state that directed every aspect of our lives. The dialectic is a methodology devised for the purpose of bringing people to this ultimate conclusion by being the creator of societal chaos while also being the one able to implement the necessary solution. The formula was thesis-antithesis-synthesis, or problem-reaction-solution. In other words, it cons people into believing the state can create a perfect world by pitting two opposing forces against each other, alleged opposing forces anyway.

With President Obama currently citing problems created by his own design as a reason to implement a "new world order," there is little doubt that he is following this dialectic formula. It isn't just the crisis created in Iraq by pulling troops out too early, or arming Islamic militants whose intent is to annihilate the Jews. It isn't just the current Cloward-Piven strategy being used to justify amnesty; it is every single-policy issue seen in the United States and abroad. In fact, our entire government is now a dog and pony show following the outline of the dialectic in order to get people to see the "wisdom" in compromise.

Republicans and Democrats give the illusion of opposition, but in reality they are pushing the same agenda while using their minor variances in policy initiatives as a means of bringing you to do their bidding. Whenever you hear the word compromise, you can assume that compromise was already a "predetermined" decision, and is being offered simply to give the illusion that two opposing parties can work together.

Many would argue that the Democrats and Republicans are doing anything but compromising. That's part of the thesis to get you to believe that we have an ineffective government, and be more accepting of the "collective" synthesis. The antithesis, of course, would be the demand that something be done about a congress that can't work together.

This same strategy is being used with the Second Amendment as well. Not only are they using tragedy as a means of getting people to accept, or rather get politicians to push for, more gun control, but I would argue that, in many cases, they are lax on existing gun laws with the hopes of creating a crisis. For example, take the words of Eric Holder as he explains how to "brainwash" people into looking at guns in a different manner. People in the United States, as a result of one too many high-profile shootings, are literally begging for the government to restrict their rights. When you consider the fact that the worse gun violence occurs in states where there are more gun laws, it becomes self-evident that the laws of said states are not being enforced, and the result of reoccurring violence is of course, more gun laws. The issue of gun control is the perfect example of the Hegelian Dialectic at work.
Another good example is Global Warming, where people have been conditioned to believe that two hundred years of human activity is ruining a planet that is allegedly six billion years old. The United Nations has already announced that global communism is the best way to fight global warming. They argue that the problem is so big and so complex that only a global government with complete control over the world's resources can solve it. This is despite the fact that Antarctic sea ice is hitting new record highs, confounding the climate models predicting otherwise. The formula works the same here: Create a crisis, cause fear and discontent, get people to demand your predetermined solution and then give it to them.

The powers that be are close to completing their new order, all they need is your acceptance and it's a done deal. They will continue to point to all the chaos in the world with the hopes of instilling fear and uncertainty, when in reality they have caused the problems with the intent of getting you to turn to them for the solution. Don't fall for it America.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/07/he...OMGhyRguPo1.99


Don't fall for it America, wake up America!!

Like Europe, the United States is Funding Terrorism Directly

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/07/li...rism-directly/




Like Europe, the United States is Funding Terrorism Directly - Freedom Outpost
freedomoutpost.com
Like Europe, the United States is Funding Terrorism Directly
Like Europe, the United States is Funding Terrorism Directly

The Common Constitutionalist 57 mins ago

For years the mantra of the right, me included, was to drill for oil and gas domestically – and one of the main reasons was to not fund terrorism – indirectly.

Well, it seems Obama, Kerry and the gang are cutting out the middleman. Europe is doing the same – directly funding their own killers – albeit in a different way, and involuntarily.

Muslim terrorists have taken up the ancient art of kidnapping. They grab a rich/important member of European society and ransom him or her to fund the killing of Europeans or others.

Unlike some charities, where one can choose which cause they fund, the Europeans are not given that choice.

There is no 800 number to call and pay the ransom – that might go something like: "You have reached the terrorist ransom payment center. To reveal your payment amount and to get your loved one back – press one. You owe $100,000 to retrieve your loved one. If you wish your donation to go to killing only Jews – press two. If you wish your donation to go towards only killing Americans – press three" – and so on.

Of course, this is absurd, and heartless. I apologize for that – but the Europeans must know that they can't continue down this path. It will never end until they stand up and fight these savages.

They only have to look back at American history and our conflict with the (Muslim) Barbary Pirates, who did the same to us for years, until President Jefferson had had enough.

But even the Europeans can't top the stupidity of our present-day administration, with Obama and Kerry at the helm.
No one is holding anyone or anything for ransom. Instead, we are willingly giving truckloads of cash directly to Hamas, who we all know is hell-bent on the destruction of Israel and us.

Meanwhile, as we offer millions in "humanitarian" aid to murderers, Obama is busy trying to bully our one ally into a phony cease-fire.
Yes, Bill Hoffmann at Newsmax reported on Tuesday that, "President Barack Obama yelled at Benjamin Netanyahu during a tense phone conversation as he demanded that the Israeli Prime Minister agree to an unconditional humanitarian cease-fire in Gaza…"

According to Danny Danon, a Likud party member of the Knesset and Netanyahu's former deputy minister of defense: "It was not a pleasant conversation if you saw what happened… It was not pleasant. He was yelling and telling Prime Minister Netanyahu what he should do and what he should not do."

It's as I wrote in an article in March of this year entitled, "This Is What "Leading From Behind" Gets Us."

Obama is a classic bully. He will only pick on whom he thinks he can control, and Netanyahu/Israel is one country he feels he can get away with pushing around.

But what of Hamas? Well, Hamas began in 1967 as a wing of the Muslim Brotherhood. In 1978, they registered, with Israel no less, as a nonprofit religious organization.

Now I thought the Democrats were the great defenders of the mythical "Separation of Church and State," but I guess that's only for Christians and Jews.
Imagine Obama or John Kerry offering Catholic charities $47 million to rebuild some war-torn area. Yeah, that would happen.

Heck, even Bill Clinton, for all his flaws, would never even consider giving money or any support to terrorists.

Back in 1994, the Clinton administration urged Yasir Arafat of the PLO to crack down on Hamas. Clinton Secretary of State Warren Christopher told Arafat he would have to choose between peace with Israel and thus by extension us, or side with Hamas.

Christopher told reporters on Air Force One, "Either get along with Hamas or get along with Israel and us."

I don't know how this will end, but I'll bet it won't end well.

Maybe we move to Canada, where their Prime Minister gave Netanyahu Canada's full support and said that, "Ending the war does not require Israeli restraint."

In other words, do what you have to do to crush them.

That's a real leader.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.
You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

About The Common Constitutionalist

Brent, aka The Common Constitutionalist, is a Constitutional Conservative, and advocates for first principles, founders original intent and enemy of progressives. As well as publisher of the Common Constitutional blog, he also is a contributing writer for Political Outcast, Godfather Politics, Minute Men News (Liberty Alliance) and Free Republic View all posts by The Common Constitutionalist →

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/07/li...43tFLGooEBc.99

Debbie Wasserman Schultz Makes Shocking Admission About Obama’s Work Ethic



Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Goofs and Accidentally Tells the Truth



Congress’s village idiot Debbie Wasserman Schultz inadvertently made a shocking admission on Wednesday about the work ethic of President Obama. According to The Daily Caller, the DNC chairwoman said that Obama does his job less often than any other president since Grover Cleveland, who was commander-in-chief 125 years ago.
In typical Wasserman Schultz fashion, this was not exactly what she meant to say when she told MSNBC why she was going to defend Obama against congress before they voted to sue him.
“I’m going to go to the House floor and actually debate why we shouldn’t be voting for the first time in American history to sue the president of the United States for doing his JOB, and doing his job actually less often and at a rate that is lower than any other president since Grover Cleveland,” said Wasserman Schultz, while blaming Republicans who she claims “refuse to do anything.”
Her comparison to Cleveland may seem random, but a recent study was released that said that Obama has used his executive action less often than any president since the 19th century figure. Recently, Obama has been criticized more and more for his laziness and lack or work ethic.
We’re glad that Wasserman Schultz finally told the truth, even if it was an accident!

http://tellmenow.com/2014/07/debbie-...as-work-ethic/