#51 White (House) Collar Crime

When the American colonies decided to break away from Great Britain and the tyrannical rule of it's king, George III, it did so on grounds of acts of despotism by that certain monarch. The acts of despotism included unfair trials, unfair laws, unfair taxes, and unfair treatment. The treatment in question dealt with the taking away of rights. Among these rights that were being taken away were, as Thomas Jefferson phrased, unalienable rights of man. Rights that all man(kind) are born with. The freedom to have a voice and speak your mind is the most basic of all freedoms. And in the same category of freedom of speech, there is another freedom that has been ensured by the founding fathers to protect the American people by allowing them to hear the truth about our community, it's people and the government. It's called freedom of the press. But apparently, "President" Obama has not read this paper nor the Constitution. None of that is surprising since he hasn't even read his own bill on health care.

In case no one can remember what the First Amendment to the Constitution says, including the administration of the current president, here its is:

• Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So then why has this administration tried to ban a legitimate news outlet (FOX-News) from interviewing the "Pay Czar", which by the way setting up new offices for government control over the people is also a detestable act we complained about in the Declaration of Independence? If the pay czar refused to do the interview on grounds of self-incrimination that is one thing. But if an order by the White House to ban the interview was given then a federal crime was committed. Our Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments were written and added to our Constitution to protect the American from any government that would try and set up anything remotely connected to tyranny. Yet, we are at the doorstep of mainline Socialist Technocracy and people are still thinking he is the savior of the world.

He has committed a federal crime! Check out the link. By the way, you will not find this story on CNN, MSNBC, or CNBC websites. It isn't even on FOX anymore. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/10/22/white_house_tries_to_bar_fox_news_from_intervewing_pay_czar.html. If this is allowed to go on then we might as well throw away the greatest document of all history and thumb our noses at all of those graves in Arlington Cemetery when we should be defending this paper to the death and thumbing our noses at the Nobel Peace Prize committee.

#50 Who is he?

Last month's poll: Who in modern history is President Obama more like?

• 34%- A negative combination of the worst people in modern history
• 27%- Stalin-he is forcing socialism on people for his own power.
• 13%- He is his own person.
• 6%- Hitler-he is using propaganda and scare tactics for his own agenda.
• 6%- FDR-he is making social change to get us back on track.
• 3%- GW Bush-there is no difference between them.
• 3%- A positive combination of the better leaders in modern history
• 3%- Someone else.
• 0%- J.Kennedy-he is making changes for equality.
• 0%- Lincoln-he is trying to mend a broken country.

So let's compare.

Lincoln: Never really won an election until his later days when he became president. He served one term in Congress. Well, the same with Obama. Maybe he is like Lincoln. Oh, wait. Lincoln during his term of president was locked in a Civil War that broke the country apart. Yet, instead of worrying about gay rights he fought to keep the country together. He stood his ground in times of trouble and didn't cater to those opposing him. Perhaps he is no Lincoln.

Kennedy: Kennedy was one of the first to fight for civil rights. Maybe he is like Kennedy. Oh, wait. Kennedy did not back down from socialism when it came to push and shove. He didn't take down missiles of protection and stood up for an ally (Turkey at the time) and their protection. Sure he had his trouble with female celebrities, but after all he was a Democrat President. But he stood his ground in times of trouble. Perhaps he is no Kennedy.

GW Bush: No plan of withdrawal from wars on terror and has put people without any intelligence in his cabinet. Maybe he is a GW Bush. Oh, wait. Bush brought the country back together after a tragedy (9-11, in case you forgot) and stood his ground against terrorists and the US was never attacked again under his watch. Instead of wasting time on politics he stood his ground in times of trouble. Perhaps he isn't even a GW Bush.

FDR: Socialist reforms, got us through a depression, perhaps he is an FDR. Oh, wait. FDR was solving problems the US had, not creating them. But perhaps we are getting closer.

Hitler: A man who preached racism. A man who was for national socialism. A man who tried to use censorship and propaganda to get his ideas across. A man who used children to praise himself. A man who promised to get his people out of debt through change. A man who became Time's man of the year, 1938, so he is a man who got distinction for nothing good. A man who lied to get what he wanted. There may be a pattern started here.

Stalin: A man who said we have to take from the wealthier class and spread the wealth. A man who believed in tyrannical socialism, not just welfare. A man who also used censorship and propaganda to get his point across. A man who was Time's man of the year, 1942, also becoming a man with distinction for nothing positive. A man who lied to get what he wanted. Definitely a pattern.

His own person: No new ideas. Just same rhetoric from liberal viewpoints that say conservatives are out of touch with people. Same two-sided Democrat double talk about working for all Americans but helping his own agenda, to get re-elected by catering to all groups he can. Same ideological non-sense from left-wingers that try and run the country with far sided misconceptions about how the earth really is, aka Michael Moore. His own person? Perhaps not.

Someone else: Well, http://ideasoftimreligion.blogspot.com/2009/10/xxxviii-obamanation-part-ii.html can explain maybe some of that.

Evidence: nothing positive has happened in the first 10 months, no prospects of anything positive, taking protection away from allies, not helping the military by putting off decisions on a surge or not, speaking to schools not by personal visits but by making a national televised event to show how hard his life was and how he had to overcome things, by using not just television but by YouTube and other media outlets targeting certain audiences (the younger crowd) to listen to his rhetoric.

Verdict: It ain't good. Perhaps the closest thing we can say is, he is the epitome of those before him. Perhaps this poll was correct. 67% of the voters think he is something negative to the world, yet he is the "man of peace". Thank you Nobel. Hail to the chief. Or is it Heil to the chief?

#49 Holy Cow!

You have got to be kidding. What has the world come to? A man who has done nothing but "campaign" for his own benefit is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Did he get rid of nuclear weapons? Did he solve the Mid-East problem? Did he end any wars? Did he get 50 million people the right to vote? Did he keep our current allies happy by maintaining their security, i.e.; Poland? Did he solve the world economic problem? Heck, has he fixed anything in his own country yet? All of the answers to the questions above is "NO!". This is the same man who campaigned on the promise that he would withdraw our troops from Iraq the same day he would take office and has failed to do so. Which smart Americans knew was a promise that could not and should not be kept. Only stupid Amerikans were duped by that one. This is the same man who right now has no exit strategy for Afghanistan. The same man who criticized President Bush for not having one, is now sitting on his hind end not listening to military leaders about needs to be done (troop surge) and is allowing more and more military to die without cause. And this is the man who gets a peace prize.

By the way, no one who has been in leadership of any country should be awarded any kind of distinction of this caliber in only 9 months of work. This is not a political ideological argument. This is a common sense fact. But the world has been duped by this man. If those who awarded him this prized did so on account of his dreams and speeches on peace then the world should get a peace prize as well. No one wakes up and says "I sure hope we have war today, it's too peaceful". We all want peace. We all want a better world. Just because one "hopes" for it and promises "change" does not make him the one we all should bow down to. Can any one answer: What has the man accomplished?

Here is an article that explains his winning.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091009/ap_on_re_eu/eu_nobel_peace

The world for some reason is uplifting this man for no reason. Below is how many in the world have reacted so far. It is amazing but the only realistic reaction is given by the Taliban or Chavez of Venezuela.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091009/wl_time/08599192939300

What on earth did he actually do to deserve this? Come to think of it, maybe he did not do anything on earth?

Holy Cow!