Responder
¡Bienvenido! Para que puedas participar, intercambiar mensajes privados, subir fotos, dar kudos y ser parte de las conversaciones necesitas estar ingresado en los Foros. | Ingresa | Regístrate Gratis
Junior
belledunuit
Mensajes: 457
Registrado: ‎03-08-2012
0 Kudos

WHAT A DIFFERENCE 3 MONTHS MAKE,,,LALALALALALAAAAA

 

EL MAS PERFECTO Y EXPERIMENTADO FLIP FLOPPER DEL UNIVERSO. AND i MEAN, DEL

U-N-I-V-E-R-S-O

CUACUACUAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Diamante
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: WHAT A DIFFERENCE 3 YERAS MAKE,,,LALALALALALAAAAA

 

 

 

 

 

Some people have the vocabulary to sum up things in a way you can understand them. This quote came from a friend in the Czech Republic . We have a lot of work to do.

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America .

 

Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama,who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."

 

 

OBAMA SE NIEGA A PERMITIR CONSTRUIR EL OLEODUCTO DE CANADA A HOUSTON OBLIGANDO A CANADA A VENDER SU PETROLEO A CHINA, PETROLEO QUE HUBIERA LIBERADO A U.S. DE COMPRARLO A CHAVEZ.... ASI OBAMA CASTIGA A LOS AMIGOS Y AYUDA A LOS ENEMIGOS DE U.S.

OBAMA"Wanted Higher Gas Prices, and He Got Them"
LA GUERRA DE OBAMA CONTRA LA INDUSTRIA DOMESTICA DEL PETROLEO ES RESPONSABLE DE QUE EN CALIFORNIA YA ESTA A $7 EL GALON.

 

 

 
 

OBAMA ES UN NARCISISTA MEGALOMANÍACO

 

“There is scarce a king in a hundred who would not, if he could, follow the example of Pharaoh - get first all the people’s money, then their lands, and then make them and their children servants forever. It will be said that we do not propose to establish kings. I know it. But there is a natural inclination in mankind to kingly government. It sometimes relieves them from aristocratic domination. They had rather have one tyrant than 500. It gives more the appearance of equality among citizens, and that they like. I am apprehensive - therefore - perhaps too apprehensive - that the government of these States may in future times end in a monarchy [not called a monarchy but an executive with monarchial powers]. But this catastrophe, I think, may long be delayed, if in our proposed system we do not sow the seeds of contention, faction and tumult, by making our posts of honor places of profit. If we do, I fear that, though we employ at first a number and not a single person, the number will in time be set aside, it will only nourish the fetus of a king (as the honorable gentleman from Virginia very aptly expressed it), and a king will the sooner be set over us.”

— Benjamin Franklin

 

 
 



 

 

Diamante
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: WHAT A DIFFERENCE 3 YERAS MAKE,,,LALALALALALAAAAA

Good Economists
 By Walter E. Williams
4/18/2012
 

It's difficult to be a good economist and simultaneously be perceived as compassionate. To be a good economist, one has to deal with reality. To appear compassionate, often one has to avoid unpleasant questions, use "caring" terminology and view reality as optional.

 

Affordable housing and health care costs are terms with considerable emotional appeal that politicians exploit but have absolutely no useful meaning or analytical worth. For example, can anyone tell me in actual dollars and cents the price of an affordable car, house or myomectomy? It's probably more pleasant to pretend that there is universal agreement about what is or is not affordable.

If you think my criticism of affordability is unpleasant, you'll hate my vision of harm. A good economist recognizes that harm is not a one-way street; it's reciprocal. For example, if I own a lot and erect a house in front of your house and block your view of a beautiful scene, I've harmed you; however, if I am prevented from building my house in front of yours, I'm harmed. Whose harm is more important? You say, "Williams, you can't tell." You can stop me from harming you by persuading some government thugs to stop me from building. It's the same thing with smoking. If I smoke a cigarette, you're harmed -- or at least bothered. If I'm prevented from smoking a cigarette, I'm harmed by reduced pleasure. Whose harm is more important? Again, you can't tell. But as in the building example, the person who is harmed can use government thugs to have things his way.

How many times have we heard that "if it will save just one human life, it's worth it" or that "human life is priceless"? Both are nonsense statements. If either statement were true, we'd see lower speed limits, bans on auto racing and fewer airplanes in the sky. We can always be safer than we are. For example, cars could be produced such that occupants could survive unscathed in a 50-mph head-on collision, but how many of us could buy such a car? Don't get me wrong; I might think my life is priceless, but I don't view yours in the same light. I admire Greta Garbo's objectivity about her life. She said, "I'm a completely worthless woman, and no man should risk his life for me."

Speaking of worthlessness, I'd be worthless as an adviser to either the White House or Congress because if they asked me what they should do to get the economy going, I'd answer, "Do nothing!" Let's look at it. Between 1787 and 1930, our nation suffered both mild and severe economic downturns. There was no intervention to stimulate the economy, but the economy always recovered.

During the 1930s, there were massive interventions, starting with President Herbert Hoover and later with President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Their actions turned what would have been a sharp three- or four-year economic downturn into a 10-year affair. In 1930, when Hoover began to "fix" the economy, unemployment was 6 percent. FDR did even more to "fix" the economy. As a result, unemployment remained in double digits throughout the decade and reached 20 percent in 1939. President Roosevelt blamed the high unemployment on his predecessor. Presidential blaming of predecessors is a practice that continues to this day.

You say, "Williams, the White House and Congress should do something." The track record of doing nothing is pretty good compared with doing something. None of our economic downturns in the century and a half prior to 1930 lasted as long as the Great Depression.

It would be political suicide for a politician to follow my counsel -- and for good reason. Americans have been miseducated into thinking that Roosevelt's New Deal saved our economy. That miseducation extends to most academics, including economists, at our universities, who are arrogant enough to believe that it's possible for a few people in Washington to have the information and knowledge necessary to manage the economic lives of 313 million people. Good economists recognize our limitations, making us not nice people to be around.

Walter E. WilliamsDr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of 'Race and Economics: How Much Can Be Blamed on Discrimination?' and 'Up from the Projects: An Autobiography.'
Diamante
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: WHAT A DIFFERENCE 3 years MAKE,,,LALALALALALAAAAA

Exclusive! Obama, Hillary on Flight Home from Cartegena (living the good life)
White House Dossier ^ | April 19, 2012 | KEITH KOFFLER

 

 

This is an outrage. I mean, didn’t they party enough while they were there?

Junior
belledunuit
Mensajes: 457
Registrado: ‎03-08-2012

***** EATER!

Diamante
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: WHAT A DIFFERENCE 3 years MAKE,,,LALALALALALAAAAA

The Sea Change: Obama's Confirmed Forgeries Are Not Going Away

By Monte Kuligowski

 4/19/2012

For several years, an Orwellian-type fear of being "marginalized" held reporters and pundits back from questioning Barack Obama's eligibility to hold the office of the presidency. To raise an eyebrow at the bizarre secrecy of Obama was off-limits. To question whether the historic definition of "natural born citizen" applied to Obama was taboo.

The era of fear, however, is happily winding down. It will take some time for this realization to fully take hold. But make no mistake: the tables have turned.

Like it or not, the ground has shifted, and it cannot shift back. The evidence of Obama's forgeries is not going away.

Up until this point, Mr. Obama controlled everything, including the talking points and burden of proof.

Rather than simply produce certified paper copies for state election officials and make the original available for officials to inspect in Hawaii, Obama played games with his purported birth certificate. We were told for three years that Obama's birth certificate had been posted online in 2008 -- though it turns out that it was a scant certification. In 2010, when confronted with the alarming doubts of the American people, Mr. Obama lamented to a sympathetic Brian Williams of NBC: "I can't spend all my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead." The following year, out of left field, on April 27, 2011, Obama "released" the elusive birth certificate by posting a now-discredited file image online.

This time he wasn't teasing. It was "proof positive." Mr. Obama, in his robotic **noallow**, barked that it was time to stop the "silliness" and move on.

No one ever wanted Obama to get all crazy and walk around with his birth certificate plastered on his forehead. But many took the reasonable **noallow** of wanting the mysterious birth certificate produced, not plastered or uploaded to a computer. Many wanted Obama to produce certified copies for state officials and make the original available for inspection.

But because no authority forced him to comply with basic legal standards, Mr. Obama was able to create a sideshow atmosphere by selecting non-experts to verify his internet postings behind closed doors. His media sycophants were able to make those who questioned Obama's staunch secrecy appear as the unreasonable ones. Somehow the burden of proof was erroneously placed on the citizenry to prove that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii.

Well, the burden never actually rested with the people to prove anything. That was all smoke and mirrors. No conspiracy theories are needed to demand that Obama comply with basic legal standards -- especially in context of a state with a history of certifying foreign births as Hawaiian.

After Obama "released" the birth certificate in 2011, nonpartisan computer software experts immediately recognized that the embarrassing image had been computer-assembled. Of course, few in the free press dared to report on the "silliness." Fox News quickly summonsed Adobe-certified expert Jean-Claude Tremblayto to conclude, nothing fishy here (but his ORC explanation has been demonstrably debunked by the control-test findings of Sheriff Joe Arpaio's investigative team -- see below).

It's simply unfathomable to the consensus media that the One they worked so hard to elect could be a fraud -- or, at minimum, could have something to hide.

Unfortunately, Sheriff Joe Arpaio's team of law enforcement and investigative experts were able to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that forgeries have been committed. It turns out that the sheriff simply confirmed the "open secret" shared by technical document experts across the country. As with many crimes, if not for their abject carelessness, the forgers might have gotten away with it. But the strength of the evidence is such that local law enforcement was able to conclude that "probable cause" exists to show that the White House uploaded a computer-generated forgery of a birth certificate. Ditto with Obama's Selective Service registration form: it is also a crude forgery.

Who would have thought that Obama's illegal immigration nemesis, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, could turn the tables on Obama?

With the help of his friends in the consensus media, Mr. Obama had been afforded the luxury of effectively remaining silent for years. Obama was able to sit back as a third-party onlooker as the media attacked, maligned, and ignored those who raised valid questions.

But the recent findings are similar to the events of a trial in which the burden of proof shifts from one party to the other. In our context, the burden of proof was absurdly placed on the people, but finally it has shifted to Obama. The six-month investigation by trained law enforcement and forensic experts has resulted in a compelling case-in-chief.

Anyone who views the video presentations of the law enforcement team can plainly observe the sea change which shifted the burden to rebut to Obama.

Even though crimes were allegedly committed, at this point, what is taking place is comparable to a civil trial. As such, it is time for Mr. Obama to produce competent evidence. If he has no evidence to produce, he's in public opinion trouble. If a court or Congress forces the production of his original documents, it's over for Obama.

Simple little mistakes: hastily uploading an assembled image without first printing and scanning, and cutting a "2008" rubber stamp to create the appearance of "1980." And the Selective Service forgery alone is enough to end Obama's presidency.

Sheriff Arpaio is under personal attack, but curiously, the control-test findings of his team are not being refuted. Apparently oblivious of the fact that the White House tried to cover its tracks by quickly replacing its original file image, NPR naively reports: "For the record, we opened the file using Adobe Photoshop and found that [the birth certificate] contained only a single layer of information." Fortunately, thousands have the original White House posting preserved for perpetuity.

The establishment media are trying every way they can think of to discredit Sheriff Joe. As WND.com president Joseph Farah recently wrote, "[t]hey are no longer just protecting Obama. They are now protecting their own reputations." The problem, of course, is that after all the attacks on Joe Arpaio are exhausted and after all the dust settles, the evidence of Obama's forgeries will remain.

The problem for Obama and his enablers is that the evidence is objective. And it's there for everyone to see. Generations from now, professors in Adobe Photoshop and journalism classes will be discussing and analyzing the evidence of Obama's forgeries.

The very result that timid conservatives and liberal reporters feared will eventually catch up with them: loss of credibility.

On the flipside, those who questioned Obama's bizarre secrecy eventually will be vindicated.

Diamante
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: WHAT A DIFFERENCE 3 years MAKE,,,LALALALALALAAAAA

Cheering Black Radical Killers

By Arnold Ahlert On April 19, 2012 In Daily Mailer,FrontPage

Alice Kaplan’s latest book, ”Dreaming in French,” illuminates a pivotal year in the lives of Jackie Kennedy, Susan Sontag and Angela Davis, each of whom spent time in Paris between World War II and the start of the Vietnam War. In his review of the book, the San Francisco Chronicle’s Thomas Chatterton Williams contends that Angela Davis was the beneficiary of French intellectuals, whose works Davis had mastered, when they returned the favor by supporting her “against the racism of trumped-up charges she later would face.” Williams is referring to charges Davis faced in a 1972 murder case for which she was acquitted. Trumped up charges? Historical revisionism at best, outright lying at worst. Yet “racist-motivated” or “trumped-up charges” has been a recurring motif used to defend a coterie of radical black criminals who, despite mountains of evidence against them, have also benefitted from the support of leftists. It is those same leftists who are determined to turn the Trayvon Martin case into another racially-motivated circus–one where genuine justice takes a back seat to a leftist mob agenda.

Angela Davis is a former member of the Black Panther Party, who became a Communist in 1968 because she believed that “the only path of liberation for black people is that which leads toward complete and radical overthrow of the capitalist class.” In 1979, Davis was awarded the Intenational Lenin Peace Prize (formerly the International Stalin Peace Prize) by then-communist East Germany. In both 1980 and 1984, she ran for Vice President of the United States on the Communist Party ticket. She currently leads her own movement against what she refers to as the “Prison industrial complex,” contending that all incarcerated minorities are nothing more than political prisoners who should be freed.

On August 7, 1970, 17-year-old Jonathan Jackson pulled out a gun in the middle of trial and ordered everyone to freeze. He then passed out guns to the defendants and took five hostages as part of an escape plan. One of the hostages was presiding Judge Harold Haley, who had a sawed-off shotgun taped to his chin during the ordeal. During the subsequent gun battle attempting to prevent the escape, the judge’s head was blown off.

Davis was indicted as a result of two over-riding factors. First, more than 20 witnesses indicated that the hostage-taking was an effort to free fellow Black Panther George Jackson who was reportedly her lover, and that Davis had been in the area at the time of the crime. Second, Davis was the owner of the shotgun that killed Haley, and owned all of the other guns used in the attempted escape as well.

Trumped up charges? Davis seemingly didn’t think so. She fled California to avoid arrest, using aliases and changing her appearance until she was apprehended in New York City two months later. And even if one concedes the former charge might be untrue, the latter charge is indisputable. Davis owned the guns. Yet for people like Thomas Chatterton Williams and other see-no-radical-evil disciples, a prosecutor bringing charges against the owner of weapons used in a murder constitutes race-based railroading.

See-no-evil is a recurring theme for leftists when it comes to black radicals. Assata Shakur, aka JoAnne Chesimard, was part of a revolutionary activist organization known as the Black Liberation Army (BLA). On May 2, 1973, Chesimard and two accomplices were stopped for a motor vehicle violation on the New Jersey Turnpike by two state troopers. Chesimard was already wanted for her involvement in several felonies, including bank robbery. The trio opened fire on the troopers, wounding one. The other trooper was shot and killed execution-**noallow** at point-blank range. In 1977, Chesimard was convicted of first-degree murder. Two years later, she escaped prison and is currently thought to be living in Cuba.

A societal pariah as a result? Hardly. In 2005, a grassroots movement, “Hands Off Assata” generated support for Chesimard in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia and other cities. Other supporters claim she was the victim of “racial profiling and political targeting.” In 2011, the controversy touched the president when rapper Common was invited to the White House, despite penning “A Song for Assata” and naming his child Omote Assata Lynn. “Assata had been convicted of a murder she couldna done,” Common rapped. New Jersey state troopers were understandably outraged by the invitation. How is the president associated with Common? “It is likely Obama met Common at the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ were both men were members,” reported the NH Journal in 2011.

Tellingly, Common has voiced support for another cop-killing radical and former Black Panther, Mumia Abu-Jamal, who murdered Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner in 1981. Despite this reality, Abu-Jamal has been the darling of innumerable leftist crusaders, a partial list of which, compiled by the Fraternal Order of Police, can be found here. Once again, supporters insist Abu-Jamal was convicted in “a kangaroo court on trumped up charges.” And once again, one of Abu-Jamal’s apparent supporters was another associate of president Obama: in 2008, the Chicago Tribune reported that former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers decorated the door of his University of Illinois office with a picture of Abu-Jamal, along with radicals Che Guevara, and Malcolm X.

And in a poetic close to the circle of radical support that began with Parisian intellectuals backing Angela Davis in the ’70s, the socialist mayor of Paris, Bertrand Delanoë, made Abu-Jamal an honorary citizen of his city in 2003, followed by Mayor Didier Paillard naming a street after the cop-killer in the Paris suburb of Saint-Denis in 2006.

Which brings us to Sanford, Florida. No one can say with any degree of certainty what occurred during the fateful exchange between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. Yet what can be said with certainty is that a leftist constituency of racial arsonists, including Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the latest incarnation of the Black Panther Party, the New Black Panther Party (NBPP), is every bit as interested in mob justice, absent the facts, as the original Panthers and their supporters were. Their pre-determined verdict in the case is already in: Trayvon Martin is an innocent victim, and George Zimmerman is a racist, cold-blooded killer.

Yet as ironically as it gets, the same leftist protesters who have so often demanded freedom for those whose guilt has been established beyond all reasonable doubt now demand law enforcement officials to find George Zimmerman guilty of something. If that same reasonable doubt they ostensibly champion leads to an acquittal? As NBPP leaders have made clear, America should get ready for a “race war” if that particular verdict is reached by a jury.

But it’s not just the NBPP or other radicals looking for street justice. Daily Beast columnist Mansfield Frazier worries about America “facing Rodney King, Part II…if this case goes all the way to trial.” As opposed to what? “To my mind, the government offers Zimmerman a plea deal that has him back on the street within this decade, and he accepts it quietly. That seems like a conclusion most reasonable Americans could live with,” writes Frazier, who apparently eschews constitutional due process when it is threatened by mob violence. One is left to wonder whether Mr. Frazier would be willing to “live with” a similar plea deal even he were innocent, in order to placate a mob.

As for Angela Davis, she considers Trayvon Martin the victim of “racist violence,” further contending that “it’s difficult to keep all of the other examples of racist violence in focus when we demand justice for Trayvon Martin.” In other words, as far as Ms. Davis is concerned, racism is an established fact in this case. She further emphasized that conclusion during a speech at Cal Poly Pomona, when she contended that George Zimmerman could be compared to a “modern day slave catcher.”

One can only wonder how Davis, et al., can be so monumentally oblivious to their own hypocrisy. For decades they have decried “racially motivated” jury verdicts, based on “trumped up” charges, played out in “kangaroo courts.” They have rallied to protest against a “rush to judgment” and the “railroading” of “innocent” suspects. Yet it is now glaringly apparent that such earnestness only applies to the “right” kind of suspect.

George Zimmerman is not the right kind of suspect. There is nothing to be gained by defending “white Hispanic” George Zimmerman’s constitutional rights–except justice. Yet when it’s not a fellow radical under the microscope, justice be damned.

Banned
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: WHAT A DIFFERENCEYEARS MAKE,,,LALALALALALAAAAA

[ Editado ]

Obama's Solution to High Taxes: Even Higher Taxes

By John Ransom 4/21/2012

 

The most expensive tax in the history of the world has been proposed by the Obama administration and to hear them tell the story, you’d think the rest of us should be grateful.

“We want to create a global minimum tax,” said vice president Joe Biden, “because American taxpayers shouldn’t be providing a larger subsidy for investing abroad than investing at home.”

A global minimum tax is a tax on all profits made by nominally US companies that operate overseas. They operate overseas for various reasons, but one big reason is because corporate taxes are higher in the US than overseas. And to fix high corporate taxes in the US, the Obama administration proposes even HIGHER TAXES on corporations.    

Yes: Obama thinks American taxpayers should be forced to pay higher taxes for everything they buy inexpensively from overseas so Obama can subsidize only government approved activities.


 


Our vice president now posits that normal corporate and individual profits in the course of business outside of the US are “subsidies” given out by a benign government.

Oh, where have you gone Harry Truman?  In terms of real subsidies, though, how come Biden doesn’t know that the government should be providing no subsidies at home or abroad?

That’s because, just like any other addict, Biden, Obama and their progressive friends refuse to understand that they have a problem when it comes to spending money. 

Not content to tax the rich here in the United States, Democrats are so hungry for welfare revenues that they now want to tax all revenue, everywhere, ignoring international borders, international waters and universal common sense.

And guess who is gonna pay the tax? When they toll the bell “rich” during this campaign, understand that that bell tolls for thee.

Because, while the “rich” may be someone across town in the US, the “rich” in Obama’s global sense, is you. This is a tax that will fall most heavily on the poor and middle income earners. 

Liberals can’t understand that the country is losing jobs because the governments in the US- federal and municipal- aren’t competitive anymore. Instead of doing something about the fundamental problem we face, they find it more convenient to rearrange the game pieces to suit their desired outcome.

 

HIGHER TAXES, LESS PRIVATE CAPITAL FOR INVESTMENT, HIGHER UNEMPLOYMENT, HIGHER MISERY INDEX.



That’s because they suck at the game of government and public service, liberals do. If Obama was a first round NFL draft choice he’d be Ryan Leaf, a different type of talent bust who, not coincidentally also happens to be an addict.  

I’d love to be a GOP challenger in 2012 asking a Democrat incumbent to explain to constituents why raising taxes on everyone and shipping even administrative jobs overseas makes sense.

Memo to White House: If raising taxes is the platform you’re sticking Democrats with then prepare to get an old-fashioned party butt kicking. 

Because you, the ordinary reader, will pay for the liberal addiction to spending gnot just through higher taxes on everything via  Obama’s Global Tax, but through the loss of jobs too. Corporations will stop shipping jobs overseas and just ship the entire company rather than pay another onerous tax.

When you add in the fact that the wall separating Washington and Wall Street has been destroyed over the last decade- but never worse than under Obama- you can see why moving to the Philippines might make sense for say, Caterpillar.  

So now, we can confidently look into an Obama-inspired future when baseball, hot dogs and apple pie are only imports. Forget Chevrolet. They already killed that bit of Americana.

You want to see what America used to look like? Shortly you’ll have to travel overseas to catch a glimpse.   

That’s because this administration has serious issues when it comes to boundaries. I don’t know if Obama was held too much as a child or not held enough, but when it comes to taxes, healthcare, regulatory orders, race issues, food choices,  Obama’s got a Super-Freudian case of separation anxiety.

In everything that he does, he clumsily overreaches, asserting authority that not only he doesn’t have, but probably can‘t enforce without risking wholesale rejection by voters, or abject policy failure.

Energy? Immigration? Cap and Trade? Gun-Walking? Healthcare? Jobs? Stimulus? Anyone?

It would be hard for me to name any success Obama has had on any policy front, even if I qualified and tempered those successes on a Jimmy Carter curve. But anyone can rattle off the unqualified disasters of the administration.

And no disaster would hit the US harder than Obama’s Global Tax. 

It will be difficult even for Mitt and the GOP to blow this one.

Still, you know how bad ideas circulate amongst progressives.

It was only ten years ago we went to sleep confidently thinking we won the Cold War and consigned Communism to the trash bin of history.

Or did we?


John Ransom

John Ransom is the Finance Editor for Townhall Finance. You can follow him on twitter @bamransom and on Facebook: bamransom.
Diamante
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Yes, Obama Eating Dogmeat Matters

Yes, Obama Eating Dogmeat Matters
My Brain | 4/21/12 | Alan Levy

 

"And away from the dinner table I was introduced to dog meat (tough), snake meat (tougher) and roasted grasshopper (crunchy)...."---Bark Hussein Obama, writing in Dreams From My Father

 

Yes, it matters. Yes, it matters a great deal.

This little quote speaks volumes. It shows just how foreign Obama truly is. It shows how foreign his upbringing was. Not only that, it also shows how much the Arrogant and Lazy Mainstream Media sucks at its job.

Now, before we get started, yes, I know that former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers may have ghost written Chairman Obama's books. However, that changes nothing. Even if Ayers ghost wrote the above quote, that doesn't mean it wasn't proofread by the future American dictator, nor does it mean that Ayers wasn't given first hand accounts about Bark's life, this incident included.

Back to the matter at hand.

This quote, among thousands admittedly far more important, illustrates just how foreign Obama's upbringing truly was and how truly foreign his thought processes are. For thousands of years, dogs have been domesticated by humans living in western civilization. Dogs (along with cats) are universally accepted as pets, but not as food. Many western cultures have outlawed the eating of dogs and cats for that purpose. It's a social more. Most folks find eating dogmeat almost as repugnant as polygamy and incest. It simply isn't done by normal people with a normal upbringing.

But yet, in the above quote, Obama is treating it as if it was no big deal, like eating duck pate or escargot. That coudn't be further from the truth. It's barbaric.To a lot folks in western civilization, especially those who consider their pets part of the family like I do, this is almost like admitting that one ate Aunt Gladys for dinner. The very fact that this was included in his autobiography, when there was no real reason to do so, shows just how out of touch Bark Obama truly is with American culture.

The worst thing about it is the fact that the Arrogant and Lazy Mainstream Media isn't making more of this. I know they're doing their doggone best to make sure their Fuhrer gets another term to finish off America, but hey, just once, can't they pretend to be Americans who have a vested interest in American culture ? More importantly, as Mark Levin brilliantly asked, why isn't the Arrogant and Lazy Mainstream Media asking when Bark Obama stoppedeating the flesh of Man's Best Friend ?

Yes, I know I should be writing about Bark Obama's countless scandals, ranging from arming Mexican drug cartels with Operation Fast and Furious to aiding the Muslim Brotherhood take control of Libya. I get it. In the grand scheme of things, this is nowhere near as important as those crimes against humanity. However, we can't lose sight of things like this. After all, snippets like this from Bark Obama's childhood explain why he's the [fill in your favorite curse word here] he is today. What's more important, it's a barometer of what kind of [fill in your favorite curse word here] he'll be if he gets another four years without having to worry about be reelected.

We are on the edge of complete economic, political, and social disaster. I can't gussy it up. I can't make it sound palatable. The truth is what the truth is.

Diamante
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

WHAT A DIFFERENCE 3 YEARS MAKE,,,LALALALALALAAAAA

Grope and Change

 

Unlike the government of the United States, I can’t claim any hands-on experience with Colombian hookers. But I was impressed by the rates charged by Miss Dania Suarez, and even more impressed by the U.S. Secret Service’s response to them.

Cartagena’s most famous “escort” costs $800. For purposes of comparison, you can book Eliot Spitzer’s “escort” for $300. Yet, on the cold grey fiscally conservative morning after the wild socially liberal night before, Dania’s Secret Service agent offered her a mere $28.

Twenty-eight bucks! What a remarkably precise sum. Thirty dollars less a federal handling fee? Why isn’t this guy Obama’s treasury secretary or budget director? Or, at the very least, the head honcho of the General Services Administration, whose previous director has sadly had to step down after the agency’s taxpayer-funded public-servants-gone-wild Bacchanal in Vegas.

All over this dying republic, you couldn’t find a single solitary $28 item that doesn’t wind up costing at least 800 bucks by the time it’s been sluiced through the federal budgeting process. Yet, in one plucky little corner of the Secret Service, supervisor David Chaney, dog-handler Greg Stokes, or one of the other nine agents managed to turn the principles of government procurement on their head. If the same fiscal prudence were applied to the 2011 Obama budget, the $3.598 trillion splurge would have cost just shy of $126 billion. The feds’ half a billion to Solyndra would have been a mere $18 million. The 823-grand GSA conference on government efficiency at the M Resort Spa & Casino would have come in at $28,805.

Chaney-Stokes 2012! Grope . . . and Change! Red lights, not red ink.

Alas, young Miss Suarez, just 24 and with a nine-year-old son and a ravenous pimp to feed, didn’t care for the cut of her Secret Service man’s jib. He made the fairly basic mistake — for an expensively trained government operative — of attempting to pay a prostitute in the hotel corridor, and Dania caused an altercation whose fallout has brought the Secret Service to its knees. Which isn’t how these encounters usually go.

What we know so far is this: All eleven Secret Service men and all ten U.S. military personnel staying at the Hotel Caribe are alleged to have had “escorts” in their rooms that night. All of them. The entire team.

Twenty-one U.S. public servants. Twenty-one Colombian whores. Unless a couple of the senior guys splashed out for the two-girl special. “Some of them were saying they didn’t know they were prostitutes,” explained Congressman Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.

“Some are saying they were women at the bar.”

Amazing to hear government agents channeling Dudley Moore in Arthur: “You’re a hooker? I thought I was doing so well.” It turns out U.S. Secret Service agents are the only men who can walk into a Colombian nightclub and not spot the professionals. Are they really the guys you want protecting the president?

Congress is not happy about this. “It was totally wrong to take a foreign national back to a hotel when the president is about to arrive,” said Representative King.

It’s wrong to take a “foreign national” up to the room, but it would have been okay if she’d been from Des Moines? We’re all in favor of outsourcing, but in compliance with Section 27(e)viii of the PATRIOT Act this is the one job Americans will do?

With respect to the congressman, sometimes it helps to step back and consider the bigger picture. Why were 21 officials of the United States government able to enjoy a night of pleasure with 21 prostitutes, whether “foreign nationals” or all-American? The answer isn’t difficult. Indeed, one retired agent spelled it out: “They just didn’t have anything to do.”

So they did Dania Suarez and her friends instead.

The 21 dedicated public servants jetted in on the so-called car-planes, the big transports flying in the tinted-windowed black Suburbans for the presidential motorcade. The “car-plane” guys show up a few days in advance, but usually two weeks or so after the really advanced advance team has hit the ground. And there was nothing for them to do. There is no reason for them to be there.

So instead they went to the Pleyclub.

As I understand it, the 21 public servants did not technically bill U.S. taxpayers for their “escorts.” But you suckers paid for them to fly to Cartagena, and they were enjoying those women on your time. On foreign trips, aside from the 40 or so armored limousines, there are usually 200 Secret Service agents plus a couple of dozen sniffer dogs. Did the latter take any Colombian ***** back to their kennels? Or are they just the entrée for Obama’s embassy banquet?

I’ve written before about the U.S. government’s motorcade culture. Just last month, it cost U.S. taxpayers half a million bucks to fly Obama and David Cameron to Dayton, Ohio, to pretend to enjoy a basketball game. I’ve attended previous “Summits of the Americas” and G7 meetings and other international confabs, and always heard the same story wearily retailed by representatives of the host nation — that the money-no-object Yanks are flying in a bigger and more disruptive presidential entourage than everybody else put together. At this point, the local official usually rolls his eyes, and mostly, but not always, leaves the thought unspoken:

“Americans! What do you expect?” The Queen routinely turns down requests from visiting U.S. presidents to reinforce the garden walls and replace the windows of Buckingham Palace — for an overnight stay. When the U.S. was the richest country on earth, the mad excess used to impress in a crude kind of way: If you’ve got it, flaunt it. Now it’s the Brokest Nation in History: America hasn’t got it, but still flaunts it. Which is kind of pathetic.

Does more equal better? No. All eleven Secret Service johns had their “security clearances” canceled. That still leaves over 4 million Americans (or about 2 percent of the adult population) with “security clearances,” and, according to the director of national intelligence last October, just under 1.5 million federal employees with “top secret”clearances. Which helps explain why one army private was able singlehandedly to download bazillions of (admittedly mostly worthless) “secrets” for WikiLeaks. Imagine the entire population of New Zealand with security clearances, and the entire population of Philadelphia or Phoenix with “top secret” clearances.

And yet the more guys on the payroll, the less anyone does. For all the hooker-cavorting among a bored entourage with time on its hands, there was no one to proofread President Obama’s speech. So he stood up in public and attempted to pander to the Latins by referring to the sovereign British territory of the Falkland Islands by the designation of its temporary Argentine usurpers 30 years ago: “Las Malvinas.” Except that his writers got it wrong. So the president of the United States called it “the Maldives,” an entirely different bit of British Commonwealth real estate half a world away in the Indian Ocean. Were the speechwriting staff also face down in the hooker bar? “Jush a minute, baby. Hic. The preshhhiduh wansh a couple rewrites. ‘I call on London to return British Columbia to Colombia.’ Thash should do it. Lesh go back to my room and I’ll show you my prompter.”

It’s not just the entitlements. Everywhere you look in the bloated federal Leviathan, all is waste, all is excess. But the absurd imperial presidency is a good place to start. The next citizen-executive of this republic would be sending a right message were he to halve the motorcade, halve the security detail, halve the hookers.

Otherwise, America’s foreign creditors will start to figure out that another half decade of U.S. spendaholism and they’re likely to wind up like Dania Suarez: You loan the U.S. government $800 billion, and come the due day the treasury secretary reaches in his pocket and says: “So how about we call it 28 bucks even?”

Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist, is the author of After America