Observations of the Presidents and First Ladies

 

These are from Secret Service agent Ronald Kessler's book about his observations of the Presidents and First Ladies are pretty much the image they projected while in office but some or very interesting.  I especially like the last one about Gen. McChrystal’s response to Obama. Scroll down to read what Kessler thinks of the presidents he served. Interesting, but not surprising!
  

JOHN & JACQUELINE KENNEDY
*A philanderer of the highest order.*
*She ordered the kitchen help to save all the left-over wine

from State dinners, mixed it with fresh wine and served again

during the next White House occasion.*
 
LYNDON & LADYBIRD JOHNSON
*Another philanderer of the highest order. In addition, LBJ was as crude as the day is long. Both JFK and LBJ kept a lot of women in the White House for extramarital affairs and both had set up early warning systems to  alert them if/when their wives were nearby. Both were promiscuous and oversexed men.*
*She was either naive or just pretended to not know about her husband's many liaisons.*

RICHARD & PAT NIXON
*A "moral" man but very odd, weird, paranoid.

He had a horrible relationship with his family

and was almost a recluse.* She was quiet most of  the time.*

   
SPIRO  AGNEW
*Nice, decent man. Everyone in the Secret Service was surprised by his downfall.*

GERALD & BETTY FORD
*A true gentlemen who treated the Secret Service with respect and dignity.

He had a great sense of humor.  *She drank a lot!*

JIMMY & ROSALYN CARTER
*A complete phony who would  portray one picture of himself to public and very different in private e.g. would be shown carrying his own luggage but the suitcases were  always empty. He kept empty ones just for photo ops. He wanted people to see him as pious and a non-drinker but he and his family drank alcohol a lot! He had disdain for the Secret Service and was very irresponsible with the "football" with nuclear codes. He didn't think it was a big deal and would keep military aides at a great distance. Often did not acknowledge the presence of Secret Service personnel assigned to serve him.*
*She mostly did her own thing.*


RONALD & NANCY REAGAN
*The real deal, moral, honest, respectful and dignified. They treated Secret Service and everyone else with respect and honor, thanked everyone all the time. He took the time to know everyone on a personal level. One favorite story was early in  his Presidency when he came out of his room with a pistol tucked on his hip. The agent in charge asked: "Why the pistol, Mr. President?" He replied, "In case you boys can't get the job done, I can help." It was common for him to carry a pistol. When he met with Gorbachev, he had a pistol in his briefcase. 
*She was very nice but very protective of the President and the Secret Service was often caught in the middle. She tried hard to control what he ate. He would say to the agent, "Come on, you gotta help me out." The Reagan's drank wine during State dinners and special occasions only otherwise they shunned alcohol. The Secret Service could count on one hand the times they were served wine during family dinner. For all the fake bluster of the Carters, the Reagan's were the ones who lived life as genuinely moral people.*

GEORGE H. & BARBARA BUSH
*Extremely kind and considerate, always  respectful. Took great care in making sure the agents' comforts were taken care of. They even brought them meals. One time she brought warm clothes to agents standing outside at Kennebunkport. One was given a warm hat and, when he tried to say "no thanks" even though he was obviously freezing, the President said "Son, don't argue with the First Lady. Put the hat on." He was the most prompt of the Presidents. He ran the White House like a well-oiled machine.*
*She ruled the house and spoke her mind.*


BILL & HILLARY CLINTON
*Presidency was one giant party. Not trustworthy. He was nice mainly because he wanted everyone to like him but to him life is just one big game and party. Everyone knows about his sexuality.*
*She is another phony. Her personality would change the instant cameras were near. She hated, with open disdain the military and Secret Service. She was another who felt people were there to serve her. She was always trying to keep tabs on Bill Clinton.*


ALBERT  GORE
*An egotistical ass who was once overheard by his Secret Service detail lecturing his son that he needed to do better in school or he would end up like these guys, pointing to the agents.*

 
GEORGE W. & LAURA BUSH
*The Secret Service loved him and Laura Bush. He was also the most physically in shape who had a very strict workout regimen. The Bushes made sure their entire administrative and household staff understood that they were to respect and be considerate of the Secret Service.*
*She was one of the nicest First Ladies, if not the nicest. She never had any harsh word to say about anyone.*


*BARACK & MICHELLE OBAMA
*Clinton all over again - hates the military and looks down on the Secret Service. He is egotistical and cunning. He looks you in the eye and appears to agree with you but  turns around and does the opposite. He has temper tantrums.*
*She is a complete bitch who basically hates anybody who is not black, hates the military and looks at the Secret Service as servants.*

A TRUE STORY ABOUT General McChrystal's resignation in Obama's office from General McChrystal's book  NEVER STAND IN LINE AGAIN:

Some men carry and handle their diplomacy better than  others. When former U.S. Military commander in  Afghanistan, General McChrystal, was called into the Oval Office by Barack Obama, he knew things weren't going to go well when the President accused him of not supporting him in his political role as President.

"It's not my job to support you as a politician, Mr. President, it's my job to support you as Commander-in-Chief," McChrystal replied, and he handed Obama his resignation.
 
Not satisfied with accepting McChrystal's resignation, the President made a cheap parting shot. "I bet when I die  you'll be happy to pee on my grave."
 
The General saluted and said, "Mr. President, I always told myself after leaving the Army I'd never stand in line again."

The stroy behind the Obamacare website

Michelle Obama's Princeton classmate is a top executive at the company that earned the no-bid contract to build the disastrous Obamacare website.

Toni Townes-Whitley, Princeton class of '85, is senior vice president at Canadian company CGI Federal, which earned the no-bid contract to build the so far costing $678 million Obamacare enrollment website at Healthcare.gov.

Townes-Whitley and his Princeton classmate Michelle Obama are both members of the Association of Black Princeton Alumni.

Toni Townes, Pricenton '85, is a onetime policy analyst with the General Accounting Office and previously served in the Peace Corps in Gabon , West Africa .

George Schindler, the president of the CGI Federal's Canadian parent CGI Group, became an Obama 2012 campaign donor after his company gained the Obamacare website contract.

________________________________________________

Soooooo...........

Let's see if we can connect the dots here ...

1.) No American companies considered for building Obamacare's website;

2.) CGI Federal was chosen by God knows which criteria and hired;

3.) CGI Federal was given a NO BID contract worth $93 million;

4.) A top executive at CGI Federal was a Princeton classmate of Michelle Obama;

5.) Previous company's experience was building a gun registry for the Canadian government;

6.) CGI Group was fired by Canadian Government for overruns that cost Canada $100 million;

4.) CGI has continued its practice of overruns as the Obamacare enrollment website has gone from $98 million to costing U.S. tax payers $678 million, and it's still going up.

Does this bother anybody else besides me? 

Government steals your home under "Free Obamacare"

Fine print: State can seize your assets to pay for care after you’re forced into Medicaid by Obamacare
POSTED AT 9:41 PM ON DECEMBER 16, 2013 BY MARY KATHARINE HAM


My, this is an unpleasant consequence of Obamacare. I’m not going to call it unintended because in its current form, it potentially earns a bunch of money for states, so I’m pretty sure that’s intentional. What I think is unintentional is anyone noticing this is what they’re up to.

But the Seattle Times noticed:

It wasn’t the moonlight, holiday-season euphoria or family pressure that made Sophia Prins and Gary Balhorn, both 62, suddenly decide to get married.

It was the fine print.

As fine print is wont to do, it had buried itself in a long form — Balhorn’s application for free health insurance through the expanded state Medicaid program. As the paperwork lay on the dining-room table in Port Townsend, Prins began reading.

She was shocked: If you’re 55 or over, Medicaid can come back after you’re dead and bill your estate for ordinary health-care expenses.

The way Prins saw it, that meant health insurance via Medicaid is hardly “free” for Washington residents 55 or older. It’s a loan, one whose payback requirements aren’t well advertised. And it penalizes people who, despite having a low income, have managed to keep a home or some savings they hope to pass to heirs, Prins said.
So, here’s the deal. There used to be a provision whereby the state could recuperate funds spent on a Medicaid patient post-55 years old from whatever assets he owned. So, a low-income individual in nursing home care after age 55 might pass away and his kids would find out the family home or car of whatever he had to his name had to be bought back from the state if they wanted it. It’s called estate recovery, and sounds pretty shady if it’s not boldly advertised as the terms for Medicaid enrollment, which is most definitely is not.

Before the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion, there weren’t that many people in Medicaid who had much in the way of assets for seizing. But now that Medicaid enrollment requirements have been relaxed, more people with assets but low income are joining the program or being forced into it. For instance, a couple in their 50s who, say, retired early after losing jobs in the bad economy may have assets but show a very low income. Under Obamacare, if their income is low enough to qualify for Medicaid, they must enroll in Medicaid unless they want to buy totally unsubsidized coverage in the now-inflated individual market. As teh Times notes, this is no small difference:

People cannot receive a tax credit to subsidize their purchase of a private health plan if their income qualifies them for Medicaid, said Bethany Frey, spokeswoman for the Washington Health Benefit Exchange.

But they could buy a health plan without a tax credit, she added.

For someone age 55 to 64 at the Medicaid-income level — below $15,856 a year — it’s quite a jump from free Medicaid health insurance to an unsubsidized individual plan. Premiums in King County for an age 60 non-tobacco user for the most modest plan run from $451 to $859 per month.
The couple in the Times story was able to marry, combine their incomes, and get out of the Medicaid trap. Others will not be so lucky, and may not even read the fine print:

Prins, an artist, and Balhorn, a retired fisherman-turned-tango instructor, separately qualified for health insurance through Medicaid based on their sole incomes.

But if they were married, they calculated, they could “just squeak by” with enough income to qualify for a subsidized health plan — and avoid any encumbrance on the home they hope to leave to Prins’ two sons.
For no one else in the world is it a-okay to give low-income people a loan that might endanger their family’s assets and not even clearly inform them they’re getting a loan.

This Daily Kos diarist has a nice write-up (I know) on the toll this could take on lower and middle-class people looking for relief and getting what amounts to a surprise predatory loan instead:

We haven’t had lots of people younger than 65 on Medicaid, because in most states simply earning less than the Federal Poverty Level did not qualify one for Medicaid.

And we haven’t had many people with lots of assets on Medicaid, because in most places you have to have less than around $2400 to your name before Medicaid will cover you. You can keep your house and your car, but Medicaid reserves the right to put liens on them and take them when you die.

But now we have the Affordable Care Act, and its expectation that everyone in the lower tier of income will end up in the Medicaid system. To accomplish this, they have dropped the asset test. So now we will have lots of people ages 55-64, who have assets but not a lot of income right now, for whatever reason, on Medicaid.

The kicker of it is, if you make the right amount to qualify for a subsidized health insurance plan, your costs are going to be shared and subsidized by the government. But if you go on Medicaid, you owe the entire amount that Medicaid spends on you from the day you turn 55…

How will this play out? No one knows, as far as I can tell. But it is easy to see how this could become a real problem. If someone is low income and goes on Medicaid, will Medicaid put a lien on their house? If they need to sell their house and move, will they then lose all their equity in paying off the lien? Will people get hit with bills and liens for many thousands of dollars, even if they were healthy and hardly ever went to the doctor?
The fact that this is being treated with seriousness at Kos is an indication of how large a liability it could be for this government program. Washington is scrambling to change the law. No doubt other states will start looking at their implementation of this part of Obamacare. But there will be people caught unaware that their houses effectively belong to the government because the government forced them into Medicaid coverage. You’re welcome!

Wow. 4 and a 1/2 minutes you need to watch!

Enough said!

Hit Man Insider Admits That He Murered People, On Command, For Bill and Hillary Clinton

Posted on 18 October, 2013 by Dylan

via dcclothesline

Larry Nichols, former 10 year accomplice to the Clinton’s , can now add hit-man to his list of dirty deeds. Nichols dropped a bombshell on The Pete Santilli Show when he very calmly admitted that he had murdered people, on command, for Bill and Hillary Clinton. Mr. Nichols has been a voice crying out in the wilderness since he brought to light the sexual brutality of Bill Clinton during his reign as Governor in Arkansas. That information would eventually play a key role to Clinton’s impeachment in the 90′s. Larry says he makes no apologies.

They sent me overseas to kill people for them and told me it was for the good of the Country. So when they asked me to do it for them in the States it felt no different. The real truth is, I did it for the money and I didn’t give a shit about the women I beat and the men I murdered. The Clintons are bad people and I did bad things for them. I had to live with that all of these years and now I just don’t care anymore who knows it.

Larry maintains the Clintons were into so many illegal activities at the time, they had to have a team of mercenaries made up of friends and state-troopers to cover it all up and keep them protected from the public finding out. According to Larry Nichols, both Bill and Hillary were wild and out of control and both were relentless in their pursuit for money and power. From running drugs, to the rape and beating of women and young girls, both of the Clintons are guilty of the unspeakable crimes.

When Pete asked Larry about Gennifer Flowers making headlines last week claiming Bill had told her Hillary had eaten more pussy than he had Larry said that’s old news, and indeed it is … Larry had made that same statement on the Pete Santilli show early last spring. Larry is adamant that Hillary Clinton is a “Dyke” and always has been.

One thing I know for sure She did have enough sex with men to have a kid, but it wasn’t Bill Clinton’s Kid she had … Chelsea is actually the daughter of Web Hubble.

Nichols and many other insiders claim Clinton began having sex with Hubble to gain employment at The Rose Law Firm which she believed would eventually advance Bill Clinton’s chances of becoming Governor of Arkansas.

The above quotes came from a radio interview. I have obtained a video that is posted on the same page. It is 4 hours long and I have not had time to isolate the comments so I have no idea what segment of the show contains them. I am posting the video for those who might have time to listen to it.

The club posts, you decide 

A must read here! You could be fined over $4000 and still have no Health care coverage!

DISTURBING REPORT — Obamacare Fines to be Seized From Bank Accounts?

Posted on 2 October, 2013 by Amy

(Redflagnews) (PAUL JOSEPH WATSON) — A man who attempted to sign up for Obamacare online was told that a fine of over $4,000 dollars a year for refusing to take out mandatory health insurance could be taken directly from his bank account, and that his drivers license would be suspended and a federal tax lien placed against his home, according to an entry on the HealthCare.gov Facebook page.

Will Sheehan claims that when he tried to sign up for Obamacare and then register to opt out, he received an ominous warning. Sheehan’s full Facebook post reads;If true, the implementation of Obamacare is going to be a whole lot more draconian than Americans have been led to believe.

“I actually made it through this morning at 8:00 A.M. I have a preexisting condition (Type 1 Diabetes) and my income base was 45K-55K annually I chose tier 2 “Silver Plan” and my monthly premiums came out to $597.00 with $13,988 yearly deductible!!! There is NO POSSIBLE way that I can afford this so I “opt-out” and chose to continue along with no insurance.

I received an email tonight at 5:00 P.M. informing me that my fine would be $4,037 and could be attached to my yearly income tax return. Then you make it to the “REPERCUSSIONS PORTION” for “non-payment” of yearly fine. First, your drivers license will be suspended until paid, and if you go 24 consecutive months with “Non-Payment” and you happen to be a home owner, you will have a federal tax lien placed on your home. You can agree to give your bank information so that they can easy “Automatically withdraw” your “penalties” weekly, bi-weekly or monthly! This by no means is “Free” or even “Affordable.”

Sheehan went on to point out that the site makes you input all your personal information before giving you an indication of the costs, meaning a database of the “uninsured” is being built. He added that he could not afford to pay the premium so would have to break the law and pay the fine, leaving him with no health care coverage. (Do you understand this! He will have to pay the fine of over $4,000 and still have NO Health Care coverage!)

The federal government has consistently denied that any fines pertaining to Obamacare non-compliance could be seized from bank accounts.

“There’s no criminal sanctions for not paying this, and there’s no ability to levy a bank account or do seizures,” then-IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman said in April 2010.

In addition, Americans who refuse to pay for mandatory health insurance “shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution,” according to the law itself. (Then why the tax and fines that are enforced by all the new IRS agents?)

Section 1501(g)(2) of the Affordable Care Act also states that the IRS cannot “file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section.”

EIther Sheehan’s claim that he received this notice is a lie, or the feds have been dishonest with the American people all along, and the revolt against Obamacare is about to take “don’t tread on me” to a whole new level. (hmmm, they lie about Obama care? You must be a T-Bagger radical racist homophobic that clings to his guns and religion)  

Read a copy of the full exchange on Facebook below. Read more via Infowars

Justice for Trayvon

Hello. Don’t recognize me? That’s OK; I understand.

My name was Antonio West. I was the 13-month old child who was shot in the face at point blank range by two black teens, who were attempting to rob my mother, who was also shot.

I think my murder and my mommy’s wounding made the news for maybe a day, and then disappeared.

A Grand Jury of my mommy's peers from Brunswick, Georgia ruled the black teens who murdered me will not face the death penalty... too bad it was me who got the death sentence from my killers instead, because Mommy didn’t have the money they demanded.

See, my family made the mistake of being white in a 73% non-white neighborhood, but my murder wasn’t ruled a ‘hate crime’.

Oh, and President Obama didn’t take a single moment to acknowledge my murder. He couldn’t have any children who could possibly look like me - so why should he care?

I’m one of the youngest murder victims in our great Nation's history, but the media didn’t care to cover the story of my being killed in cold blood.

There isn’t a white equivalent of Al Sharpton, because if there was he would be branded a ‘racist’. So no one’s rushing to Brunswick, Georgia to demonstrate and demand ‘justice’ for me. There’s no ‘White Panther’ party, either, to put a bounty on the lives of the two black teens who murdered me.

I have no voice, I have no representation, and unlike those who shot me in the face while I sat innocently in my stroller - I no longer have my life.

Isn’t this a great country?

So while you’re out seeking ‘justice for Trayvon’, please remember to seek ‘justice’ for me. Tell your friends about me, tell your families, get tee-shirts with my face on them, and make the world pay attention, just like you did for Trayvon.

I won’t hold my breath.

I don’t have to anymore.

Face book has now censored me. Why, because I speak the truth!

Face book has now censored me. Why, because I speak the truth!

I recently became involved in an discussion with a man that attended the same high school I did, at about the same time.

Let me set this up for you because it may be hard to follow but I still think you will find it very interesting read and I really would like your comment on it. It does not matter who you feel is in the right; I just want to hear what you have to say. Please feel free to forward this to your friends and I welcome their input. 
I am conservative, and I openly say so. I’m not sure what Marks call himself. We had some good back and forth posts and were in agreement most of the time and then came GUN CONTROL. I have to admit that I no longer have tolerance for the Liberal talking points. I find them illogical, contrary to the facts and spurred on by a need to show compassion and react in some manner, just to show they care. I really believe that they just want to hold the opposite view of Republicans.

Marks post about guns started including conspiracy’s and voter redistricting, you have to take my word on this, it was very one sided, full of anger and attacks on people like the tea party members. He then he attacked a friend of mine, I had a belly full of it and replied very forcibly below; (My words in reply will be in red and his posted words in black. My friend posted my reply because I had un-friended Mark) 

I feel sorry for Mark, he has gone completely blind with his agenda and hate fills his sprite in a feeble attempt to cast blame on everyone else. He talks about conspiracy theories and attacks the right for all those and yet in his next breath, makes up his own about how the Republicans are trying to steal voter districts. Now he is off again on a new conspiracy about how those who stand by principle will be the destruction of the country. It is sad and very upsetting to see how one’s mind can be so corrupted and filled with hate and resentment to the point of lashing out at everyone and everything around him. He must feel as many Obama supporters feel, that they know what people need and what they do not need. Just as he states, “cling to weapons even unnecessary weapons” Who gave him or them the right to force their views on America? Yet, when people object to this invasion on our rights, Mr. Mark and those like him, verbally attack the patriotism of those in disagreement with him. Then he twists words and makes untrue statements about how the right wants to abandoned the sick, the old, the poor all for the sake of a dollar. All the facts point to conservatives giving more of their time and money than liberals. The main difference being that the right wants to control how and where they help (stop fraud and waste)  and the left wants the government to control how the money is spent. No sane man can point to a government program that is run efficiently as private programs, that is just a fact of bureaucracy! Liberals will not accept this fact.  Marks statement that “They believe it is okay to confiscate property from the poor if they are unable to pay for their medical bills.” Is a bold faced lie! He goes on to lie by telling what the right wing believes in, but his view could not be further from the truth. This is very disturbing. I think I sent him off on this tirade when I suggested that voters should own property or pay taxes to vote. The point I was trying to get across is that politicians are getting elected by people who are not contributing to the government but instead are benefiting from the social programs. A Liberal reads into this that I want all old and sick people to die! How does that happen? How can it be so twisted, because that is not what I believe or promote and yet, Mark takes it and runs as far left with it as he can. I have un-friended Mark on FB because I can’t stand to hear a mind that thinks like what he writes below;
“They include people like Bruce Clark, and Trace Turpin. They do not believe the right to vote is an inherent right given to all citizens regardless of race, color, creed, or religion. They do everything they can to stop citizens of this country from registering to vote or allowing them to vote, by creating long lines and illegally purging voting records, and enacting voter registration laws that unfairly tax the poor, the needy, and the helpless. They even claim that those poor should not be allowed to vote as they don’t own “property.” They believe in only registering Republicans, and discarding the registrations of Democrats.” My word!!! Did you read this? His statement is, for the lack of a better word, CRAZY! I refuse to be drawn into defending his lies against me and others. It would make no difference, his mind is closed and dark, his views are unwavering. This is so hypercritical as he writes how the right is “driven by extremists who believe absolutism is a substitute for principles who cling to their absolutes even to the destruction of the country.”  And yet there seems to be an “absolute” on his part and that is apparent when you read his writings. No one is putting words in his mouth or forcing him to converse in this manner. 
Mark lies again when is writes, “I’m afraid they are taking it back the days of slavery and child labor” perhaps that is not a lie…because he believes it. But who in their right mind would believe such a view? It is beyond silly but at the same time, very disturbing. 
“I fear if we do not speak up this is how democracy will end” Mark, is this you making up your own conspiracy or just the view of a paranoid mind? 
Mark is not on the same playing field when he attacks Allen about “the anger in the comment that resorts to denigration” My word, does he not read his own words??? Then he twists words and tries to paint Allen as what? Allen pointed to a poll that supports his view but that is attacked by Mark because Allen has said before that he does not trust polls. So? dang, nothing wrong there. Mark is the exact same way! He does not trust Allens poll but quotes one of his own. Do Liberals not take the time to think? How…oh…never mind, it’s like beating a dead horse.
I leave Mark with a note on his last attack on Allen; “And the last part of this post once again is a great example of a conspiracy that only exists in the minds of the extremist like Rush Limbaugh, And I guess Alan”
Allens words where; “The rights to free speech has been trampled on not by the Republicans, but by the Democrats that have been trying to get shows off the air for speaking out against injustice.” I don’t know why Mark calls it a conspiracy. There are attacks on both sides, the right dislikes the liberal media and the left dislikes the right sided talk shows and news like FOX. The president has even attacked both in the last couple of days so Mr. Mark, it’s not a conspiracy, it’s just a fact!

I leave Mark with his own words about himself; 

“It is his belief, that in a world of hate and violence it is only a love that is true, unprejudiced, unbiased, unjudgmental, and all accepting that can prevail.” This is on his FB description of himself 

Shame he does not live by his own words.
End of post

I really don’t care that I was attacked like I was, I’m sure that my reply to Marks post brought it on and indeed it was meant to get a rise out of him. Still, I had no idea that he would respond with such aggression and lies. It seems that when I pointing out where and how he lied in his reply really upset him.

Well, I saw the post I spoke of above on Allens time line and that is what I replied to. As I had un-friended Mark for the reason I just did not wish to see his posts anymore, I asked Allen to post my reply above to the comments on the subject, I felt the need to defend my friend Allen, he sure did not go over any line or personally attack Mark in any manner and in my modest opinion, Mark needed slapped down for his off the wall attacks on us both.

Below is Marks response to my reply that Allen posted for me; (I will make comments within his post and leave you to your own conclusions) 

Mark Barger
14 hours ago near Joplin, MO
Recently we had an unprofessional and inappropriate comment made on one of our posts that you may have seen from Bruce Clark. It was posted on our Facebook by Alan Nebeker. Both Alan Nebeker and Bruce Clark are radical right wing TEA Party supporters. (well, I do support the T Party but I am not a member) In typical right wing TEA Party fascism, (he should look up the definition of the words he uses)  instead of supporting their positions or pointing out their perceived flaws in the post in a polite manne...r, (or better yet making their points on their own Facebook), they chose to attack character on ours. Alas due to their inappropriate, disrespectful, and hateful behaviors on our Facebook they have been banned from further conversations on our posts by Facebook. (Yes, he got me... I can no longer post what I did above, I have been censored by facebook but Mark is allowed his posts…go figure, seems a little one sided in my view) It should have been unnecessary but due to their apparent childishness and lack of proper Facebook etiquette it was probably a foreseeable consequence. (well, he apparently complained to FB about my reply calling him a liar from his words here)  Frankly they appear to just be bullies that never quite grew up, never matured, have little respect for others, and are still living in that high school world where they peaked in life. (Dang, he forgot to add the toys in the sand box part... I think I may be scared for life for what he says about me) They appear to have one standard for others and another for themselves. (ever heard the expression, “I think thou protests to much”) It seems they are attracted to extremism and violence because it gives them an outlet to continue their hateful behavior, rather than maturing and becoming a valued contributing member of society. Sadly this is the type of behavior I often see from these TEA Party extremists. (Dang, he sure says a mouthful there huh? I never really knew how bad a person and citizen I was until I read this account of me) I remember once during the healthcare debate a man in a wheelchair was showing support for the Affordable Healthcare Act. I remember one of the TEA Party members walking up to him, screaming in his face that he would decide who and what to pay for other’s healthcare not the government, and threw a dollar bill in the man’s face. It showed a serious lack of compassion and a strong hatred for the sick, the suffering, and the handicap. (I don’t know if that was true or not, or what the circumstances were, but on face value, I sure do not support that kind of abuse and I take offence to anyone that would insinuate that I would) Bruce Clark, supported by Alan Nebeker, made the exact same remark in his last post saying that he wanted to decide what to pay and who to pay, and not have the government decide. (No, that is not true. We were talking about taking care of the needy and who donates time and money. I said that conservatives would rather give to a cause and know how the money is being spent than donate to the government and have no say in how our money is spent. VERY BIG difference. Why must people twist words and plain out and out lie?) Typically this behavior is driven by greed and selfishness and I suspect the same is true of Bruce Clark and Alan Nebeker who have all been banned from comments on our posts by Facebook due to their hate-filled vicious comments. (I have been banned for hate filled comments? Yet Mark is free in his writings? He sure is proud of his accomplishment as this is the second time he has made this statement)  Bruce mentioned that the government doesn’t run things as well as private enterprise therefore the government shouldn’t run social programs that help the poor and the needy and that this should be left to private enterprise. (NO, I never said that. Mark injects this to make me seem very radical and uncaring)  Really? I agree the government is not overly efficient most of the time, but they are also not “For Profit.” (so, so what is wrong with “for profit, why is that considered evil and wrong?”) For profit organizations often cost more than government run programs, (the government doesn’t need to make a profit). (Well Mark, I would like to know where you get your numbers. How can you state that "profit organizations often cost more than government run programs”. How do you back this up?) Even if private enterprise is able to run it more effectively and cheaper, here’s the question I have for these TEA Party folk, what’s stopping more private enterprises from running programs that help the needy and the poor right now? (Nothing Mark, who said there was? Many people and organizations are doing great works, you just don't hear about them in the media) Nothing except it’s not profitable. (Mark, how many charitable organizations are out there that are private, having nothing to do with tax payer funding and yet are serving everyday. I think we all could name a dozen or more) So where are all the private enterprises that are taking over so the government does not have to? In society it has never worked, which is why the government must step in and provide the safety net for its society. (well, I agree in part I guess, the government can and does provide a safety net, and I support that. I would only like to stop the abuse so the needy get help and the lazy get none. I would also point out thosecounties that are failing because of their bloated social programs. Greece and Italy come to mind ) The Nazi Party was a lot like the TEA party in some respects. (O-MY WORD, now he is gone off the wall. These types of statements are what raise the hair on the back of my neck, they are fighting words. Hmmm, but face book condones his attacks but censors me? Maybe I am supposed to complain to them like he must have. No, not my style) They didn’t want to take care of the poor, the sick, the disabled, or the elderly so they euthanized them. (WHAT???? What in the world…tell me where the tea party favors this? This is where a Liberal just lose their mind and it shows when they not only say stuff like this but write it down!) Saves money right? Well we know from history how that turned out. I believe the biggest reason enterprise is not adequately filling the gap is due to greed. Look at your billionaires and multimillionaires, the money they have alone, (that they are not using), (not using Mark? What in the world! How do you know what they do with their money and why is it your concern? If you wish them to donate more of their time and money then work towards that end and not attempt to steal it from them though taxes) would be more than enough to take care of the poor, the sick, the needy, and those less fortunate. (There is it my friends, no matter what you were thinking before. Mark now states the rich are greedy and don’t need all that money. So without putting words in his mouth, I believe he wants the government to take that money and give it to those that Mark feels needs it.)    In fact if they all just paid a decent wage to their workers, (who help them become successful), it would relieve much of the suffering of the poor. (Now, now he want everyone to believe that all the rich guys don’t pay their poor employees anything but bread and water…my word. This is not correct and is CLASS WARFARE and does nothing to help anyone. It just exposes a socialist attitude) I remember one person saying, it’s their money, so they should be able to do what they want with it. (Yes Mark, if you earn it, you should have the right to spend it how you see fit. This is still America.) Really? They made the “widgets” themselves? I don’t think so, they got there on the backs of their workers for which they should be grateful. When their workers are not able to make it on the wages paid while the CEOs and owners have a billion times what they need to make it, that’s not gratitude. (Say that is all true, even if it’s horribly wrong, what would Marks answer to the issue be?) One only needs to look at who supports the TEA Party to see that it is backed by these same wealthy people. (Hmmm at all the rally's I saw on TV, I only saw plain hard working folks out there. Moms, Dads, Grandmas and Grandpas and all the kids playing around. Nothing like the liberal Occupy Wall Street protests that had drugs, people urinating in public, trash, open sex, violation of laws and all supported by the liberal media and Democrat leaders including Obama) If they complain about taxes, can there be any real expectation that they would provide for the poor, the sick and the needy? Not that I can see. (That is where a liberal has problems with a conservative. A liberal can’t see anyone helping others just to help them. Liberals believe you have to be forced to help someone and that is where government and taxes come in.) The real reason, I believe, that mr. Bruce probably identifies with these groups is also greed. It appears Bruce and Alan don’t want people touching their money, government or otherwise, (again greed). (NO Mark, it called being responsible for and in control of your own earnings. But he is correct, I don't want anyone stealing my money. I will use it, spend it and donate it as I see fit because by the grace of God, I earned it! I don't want the government spending it on abortions or wasting it by making healthy people dependent on government programs) What people like mr Bruce seem to forget is that most people are not born into money nor marry into money. (What??? I forget what???, This guy sure know a lot about me huh?) They work all their lives to scrape out a living, provide for their family, put food on the table a roof over their heads, pay their medical bills and have little or nothing left over for savings, and must rely on Social Security, food stamps and Medicare for their retirement. (Then if that is true something is very messed up Mark, and the Government is not going to fix it. SS is earned by all those who have worked and paid into it. If people choose to buy big TVs, eat out and spend their money instead of saving, that is their choice. Do not blame someone else because they won't save or invest money throughout their lives. No working person has to rely on food stamps for retirement, that is just over board and a kin to starving old people and babies comments. ) When they discover these social programs are not adequate it leaves them begging for the necessities of life. (MY WORD, NOW IT SOUNDS LIKE EVERYONE HAS TO BEG TO STAY ALIVE IN AMERICA) Not that I would expect Bruce Clark or Alan Nebeker to have compassion on these people but they should be ashamed along with the rest of America for not doing a better job of social governance of the needy. (Well, the man is simply lost to reality. Without listing what I do, I will mention that, as everyone should know, I donate time with Special Olympics and take care of developmentally disabled young adults, one of whom is in a wheel chair. I help DD adults that have had their funding cut 6% because of the financial condition the government is in. I would love to see the needy get all the help we can give them and more, it is money well spent! but to do that we must get rid of the fraud and abuse of the system that robs funds from the needy and gives to the lazy. So when Marks attacks me as greedy and uncaring, well, It just shows how misguided and blinded by his agenda  he really is. I', sorry for being so blunt but people that are on disability and taking funds away from the handicapped just because they are to fat to walk, disgusts me! They wheel into line with food stamps and twinkes, they take no responsibly for themselves, but expect that you and I should pay for their lifestyle choices  I don't buy into that and will not support them at the expense of the truly needy ) These two individuals don’t seem to understand that because of their own greed, individual hatred, or some other misguided impression of mankind they are becoming the very enemy of mankind to their own detriment. They also seem to not understand the plight of someone who has become injured or sick before they are eligible to collect Social Security, such that they cannot do the job they once did, making them rely on a reduced income or welfare. (I think Mark has a lot of pain and anger from somewhere, but that does not excuse his statements made above.) It appears from their rhetoric that they would kick these people off entitlement and welfare programs because they see them as deadbeats. Bruce Clark went so far as to say they should not be allowed to vote, and only those that contribute to society or own property should be allowed to make the rules for society. (Not true and explained in the first part of this letter, yet he will write his view for all to see and paint me as a monster because I disagree with him) They treasure their guns because they seem to envision a government that will one day take away their money, and if not the government then the poor and needy might steal from them just to get a meal, or clothes, and God forbid that should happen so they must be prepared to fend them off with deadly force. (OK, this is just WAY OUT THERE and I can’t say anything more about that) They appear to live in a fantasy world that moves from conspiracy to conspiracy, finding an enemy under every rock. From language and comments they have made it also appears they treasure their guns, especially assault rifles as they see these weapons as necessary to fight the government. Of course that might be treasonous talk or home grown militia terrorism. (OK, so I believe that the second Amendment protects the right to have an AR 15. A Rifle that I love for shoot varmints with. So in Marks view that makes me a terrorist) Well Bruce Clark, Alan Nebeker welcome to the Homeland security watch list. (Ha ha, been on it for a long time I am sure, so if you sent them a letter about me, I guess they just added it to the pile. But hey, thanks for caring and wanting to protect your country from blood thirsty crazy's like me!) They say they are Christians, but the fact is true Christians are held in the grip of the love of their God the Creator, and can stand tall with no need of weapons of self-defense, or drugs, alcohol or other chloroform masks of wealth, power, fame, or status to protect them from reality. (Whew, he sure has an opinion) True Christians are also good citizens. (Dang, somewhere the Bible also says something about judging others, O well…) The hypocrisy of their lives is simply this, should anyone point out that their behaviors and beliefs might just not be in the best interest of a civilized society, they revert to their draconianism and derisive behaviors attacking the character of the individuals who wish to make a difference in the lives of those who need it most. (Ha ha…I mean I would be offended if these statements where not so totally bizarre) They also don’t seem to understand the proper etiquette of Facebook. (Well dang, that upsets me, I didn't even know I did anything wrong...I feel...so... ashamed...) But, with all that said, we must keep in mind that like all bullies, the reactions of people like this are driven by fear, fear of those who are different, fear of loss of income, fear of the loss of control, fear of the unknown future, especially when that future does not look like anything they recognize. In a reaction to protect themselves, they surround themselves only with others who are just as radical and agree with their distorted view. People like this, who are radical absolutists feel they must vilify anyone who dares to see things differently. Sadly it closes their minds and escalates there pomposity. Their paradigms are locked like a laser on a singular point of focus creating a tunnel vision that blinds them to the universe that surrounds them causing them to destroy anything that gets in their way. We must remember, they are to be pitied, for theirs is a life of desperation and fear that is only half lived. (man, I just love the way he talks, has me convinced, he needs to write a book...dreams of my father!) We must also remember that they, above all, need our love, compassion and forgiveness. (Yep, Mark showers that on all of us right-wingers. I'm sure that was his whole point in this post on his time line, nothing but love and compassion for me the other right-wingers  We do not have to agree nor should we agree, we do not have to call their rants of hate “flowery colloquialisms.” We can and should hold them responsible and call it what is, we can and should point out the error of their ways, we can and should stand up for what is right, but we can and should always be willing to forgive while showing them the love and power of the Creator for they need it more than most.
(There it is, the end. Just a note for all who read this, Mark calls himself a preacher and has a congregation. I have no idea if that is true or not. Interesting comments, words and views from a man of the cloth. 

Please leave a comment below and let me know if my thoughts and words are way off base. Thanks!) 

Obama's War on America

You view the video below and then send this link you everyone on your e-mail list.
Let them decide for themselves, what position they will support.



Before the month is over, Obama will take action against law abiding citizens.
He will attack your right to property
He will attack your right to defend yourself
He will attack the second ammendment
He will do so all with a stroke of a pen and call it, an executive order.

Comment back in 30 days if what I said does not come true!

All of our founding fathers were united in one voice and one thought; Citizens need to fear a government that would at anytime would restrict or limit their right to bear arms.
They never say anything about hunting, indeed, the need for arms equal to or superior to the governments was for one reason, to protect citizens from government!
Fear a government that fears armed citizens!


What Alexander Hamilton says to traitors like Dianne Feinstein

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.

"Gun control is part and parcel of the ongoing collectivist effort to eviscerate individual sovereignty and replace it with dependence upon and allegiance to the state." - Lawrence Hunter

All the following quotes are from Washington's Bog:

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms, disarm only those who are neither inclined, nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1764

What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.
-- Thomas Jefferson

Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn't.
-- Ben Franklin

Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.
-- Thomas Paine

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.
-- George Washington

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.
-- Patrick Henry.

Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
-- Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.

The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.
-- Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.

The right of the people to keep and bear... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country...
-- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).

(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation... (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
-- James Madison.

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-B.

To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them.
-- George Mason

The supreme power in America (OBAMA) cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.
-- Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (1787) in Pamplets on the Constitution of the United States (P.Ford, 1888)

[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.
-- Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Obama Attacks Freedom of Speech, Outrageous!!!

PEOPLE………….AMERICANS!!!............THIS IS THE WAY DICTATORS BEGIN THE TAKE-OVER  OF THEIR PEOPLES FREEDOMS.

PLEASE SEND THIS TO ALL OF YOUR VOTING FRIENDS AND TAKE NOTICE!!!

Please take the time to listen to this and pass it on.  We are loosing our freedoms as a Nation one day, one law at a time. 

New law makes it illegal to protest in Obama's presence.  The President seems to be very busy, quietly passing laws so that if he is re-elected, he can grab the reins and start to implement all of these Executive Orders (EO) and by then it will be too late for all of us.

This means that, wherever Obama is at, his secret service can have you arrested, fined, and imprisoned for more than a YEAR if you ask him something he doesn't like...or say something he doesn't like...or if you are carrying a sign he doesn't like. Sound like he's more like Hitler than Lincoln to you?

WATCH AND BE AMAZED AT HIS LATEST MOVE TO STAGE A TAKE OVER OF AMERICA...

Guess you've probably heard about this, but send this blog to your friends anyway. It's probably the scariest thing this guy has done yet.  Are you aware of this new law, signed by Obama in early March 2012?

  

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=7SGWH3kirzg&vq=medium

A Black Perspective on the Obama's by Mychal-Massie

Why I Do Not Like The Obamas 23 February 2012 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 hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same, Michelle Obama’s raw contempt for white America is transpicuous. 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 card. It is my intention to do all within my ability to ensure their reign is one term. I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them, as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label 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)  Mychal-Massie.Com is funded solely by donations from readers.Donate here.