1984, Act II
Fundamentally Changing America
“Change” apparently equals a cover up of a terrorist attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, tapping the Associated Press’ phone lines and using the IRS to target people who don't vote the way you want them to. I ALMOST wish the IRS had targeted Democrat groups under a Republican president to see how much greater the outlash would have been, but, like it or not, we will have to settle on Democrat politicians showing their true colors. And yes, the President is responsible for it. Even Chris Matthews, a usual proponent of the Obama administration, is starting to understand that.
On May 16th, the Business Insider reported Matthews as saying,
“For anybody to run around in Washington and say, 'We don't run the IRS,' or, 'We can't control the Justice Department and I'm recusing myself,' ... the steering wheel doesn't control the car any more.”
These are Obama’s people and it's happening on his watch. If it was Bush's fault that Barney Frank and Christ Dodd wanted to "roll the dice" with Fannie and Freddie because there was apparently no threat of a housing bubble back in 2005, then there is no reason not to hold Obama accountable now (not to mention for once). But instead of owning up to any of this, the game that the president is playing is “how many people can we throw under the bus?”
The guy whose video was originally blamed for the Benghazi attack is STILL in jail!
And for a moment, if you can, forget the fact that Obama, Hilary, someone who should have been doing their job, didn't send reinforcements to help save the lives of fellow Americans, Obama still assisted and praised the removal of Gaddafi by sending weapons to the rebels. So, by making a bad situation worse isn't he in some way responsible for the attacks on Benghazi if the rebels he supported later attacked and killed US citizens? Prior to Gaddafi’s removal, the rebels were under control.
(Audio from Diane Rehm’s show on NPR)
Politico readers experienced a cold day in hell when they read:
“Establishment Democrats, never big fans of this president to begin with, are starting to speak out. And reporters are tripping over themselves to condemn lies, bullying and shadiness in the Obama administration.”
If your head is spinning after reading that, you most likely read the news and deal with reality on some sort of regular basis.
Excuse me, but if this is still planet Earth, exactly when did establishment Democrats establish themselves as “never being big fans of the president”?
And the second sentence is up for interpretation. Does Politico mean that there are so many lies, so much deceit and corruption under Obama they don’t know where to start? If that’s the case they should have started back in 2006 when Obama was still just a deceitful senator and then it’d be easier to report. If, however, Politico means that they are correcting themselves on poor journalism, feel free to join Scott Pelley and issue a public apology.
Scott Pelley recently said:
“We’re getting the big stories wrong, over and over again.”
The Department of Justice (irony anyone?) was caught tapping the phone lines of the Associate Press. Generally speaking, and as of recently, the AP had no problem leaning far to the left and cherry picking news topics to highlight the otherwise less than spectacular POTUS, so what exactly does/did the AP know that the Obama administration was so worried about? That is a big eyebrow raiser. We’re talking about the AP, not FOX...
Compared to these two, tapping phone lines is a holiday. What other president could get away with this? Nixon was impeached over only one of these; Obama has THREE different things going for him. I wish we all really wanted the best for America.
So now, under the most transparent and bipartisan president America has known, ::crickets::, we have people being financially targeted for the way they vote. Not only that, but according to the Washington Examiner,
“IRS officials refused to grant tax exempt status to two pro-life organizations because of their position on the abortion issue, according to a non-profit law firm…”
And just like Obamacare, they know what’s good for you so they will shove it down your throats.
The only way that the Coalition for Life of Iowa would receive the same tax-exempt status of other non-Republican groups was if they agreed to sign a letter saying that they would not “not picket/protest or organize groups to picket or protest outside of Planned Parenthood…”
“Once the IRS received this letter, their application would be approved.”
Was the IRS issuing a legal document regarding the right of the people to assemble peacefully? I think there is something in the first 1st Amendment addressing this.
Amazing.
The desire for control over the lives of everyday citizens is sickening, yet unbelievably inconsistent that people are starting to know better.
For the past couple of months, gun control steadily took over the news headlines. The idea behind the legislation and threatening of executive orders (great way to treat fellow Americans, Mr. President) was that lives can be saved!
So clearly, this is a position shared across the board right? Nope...
CBS NEWS, Baltimore reported a federal agency’s desire to reduce the legal alcohol limit.
(At least most of the congressmen wouldn’t be able to drive to work anymore.)
“The National Transportation Safety Board says the recommendation could cut the number of DUI deaths but not everyone is on board.”
That’s strange. I thought the trending thought was that if there was anything we could do to save “just one life” we need to do it! What? We’re not taking the same stance on this issue? Oh, OK...
That’s especially peculiar since the number of alcohol related deaths is two times that of firearms. Therefore, wouldn’t more needed to be done or regulated concerning alcohol if we are to remain consistent about saving lives?
The problem we are dealing with is politicians who twist the purpose of the law. These legislative powers are left to the state! That is why some states have voted in favor of gay marriage. By the same token, state power (we all have our own state constitutions for this reason) is why Obama, regardless of his flip on the definition of marriage, has done nothing to advance gay marriage/rights.
Amendment 10: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."
If one is to ever actually try to enforce the Constitutional Republic we are supposed to have, you’d start to understand that the 10th Amendment alone would get rid of most of the bureaucratic fluff we are already dealing with. In simple and basic terminology, the 10th Amendment grants states the powers not explicitly granted to the federal government in the constitution.
Perhaps the founders weren’t hip to the acronym, K.I.S.S. That or we’ve voted for politicians dumber and more selfish than the founders could have ever imagined.
If, for some reason, the desire for control is not clear, let’s examine further.
From CBS News:
“The new rules, which go into effect Thursday, require owners of ‘dangerous dogs’ to carry $1 million in liability insurance, post signs, complete an obedience class with the dog, and keep the dog in a locked, fenced-in area. Owners must also comply with seven pages worth of other requirements to keep their pets in the city.”
Had this policy been named, “Danger Congressmen” Insurance Policy, I’d be in full favor.
“How do you decide what’s dangerous,” she said.
You mean, like an “assault” dog?
Someone should have told her that it’ll probably wind up being the responsibility of the IRS.
“Violation of the dog ordinance is a misdemeanor offense, punishable by a fine up to $500 and 90 days in jail.”
I think that it’s safe to say that on a national or local level, our priorities are poorly chosen.
Do you really want these laws to be enforced by people like this:
The dog, named Ella, was fenced in her yard when the animal control officer showed up saying she attacked another dog, was rabid and needed to be shot.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think there is any gun control proposed for officers, is there?
Great job, America! Keep handing your liberties over to these people.
Well done.
- NJ Front
