It seems not all of us are so easily conned and fleeced!!
"Todd Smith, Chief of Staff for Representative Nathan Deal of the United States House of Representatives serving Georgiaâ??s 9th district, has confirmed today that Deal has sent a letter to Barack Hussein Obama requesting him to prove his eligibility for the office of President of the United States of America. The letter was sent electronically the first of December 2009 in pdf format, and Mr. Smith said that Representative Deal has confirmation from Obamaâ??s staff that it has been received. The letter did not have additional signatories. It originated solely from Representative Deal.
Now, what does this mean? This is probably the first time in 233 years of American history that a sitting member of the House of Representatives has officially challenged the legitimacy of a sitting presidentâ?¦.one full year into his term."
Not a day late and a dollar short, but more than a year late and several trillion dollars short: by however many Obama has spent or committed to spend thus far above previously budgeted.
Nothing will happen. It will go down the memory hole.
Obama was elected largely because we have reached a point in time where at least 51% of voters believe that with regard to government “entitlements,” to each according to his needs; and with regard to taxes, from each according to his ability to earn.
As well as agreeing with the majority of the planks of the Communist Manifesto, and having fundamental disagreement with none of them. (And before anyone objects that that “must” be hyperbole: first it is not, and second, please find your examples where you think this is not so before posting that it can’t be so.)
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Obama was elected largely because we have reached a point in time where at least 51% of voters believe that with regard to government “entitlements,” to each according to his needs; and with regard to taxes, from each according to his ability to earn.
As well as agreeing with the majority of the planks of the Communist Manifesto, and having fundamental disagreement with none of them. (And before anyone objects that that “must” be hyperbole: first it is not, and second, please find your examples where you think this is not so before posting that it can’t be so.)[/quote]
Well, one of the lefties did come up with a good explanation:
All this money was spent to seal his kindergarten records because it occurred to Obama that he just didn’t want reporters bugging his kindergarten teachers, and he’s a feeling, considering kind of guy. So he put his lawyers right on to sealing those records.
The lefty in question did not provide an explanation for the sealed college records or the sealed passport records, but I’m sure Obama was just as concerned for the privacy of his university professors and the State Department workers, and so the expenditure of funds and effort was well called for.
When you find yourself cheering over symbolic gestures that are sure to accomplish nothing, don’t you ever pause and consider how much more could be accomplished under an authoritatarian government?
I doubt any money will be spent, except perhaps by people donating to causes trying (futilely, IMO) to push this thing.
Obama already spent the money to seal all these various records. So far as I know, he did this with his own funds, whether personal (probably not) or from donors.
There is no way that Congress will appropriate money to investigate the matter.
At this point, all Obama and his supporters have to to do is ignore, or perhaps ignore with the occasional bit of ridicule.
Imagine what one man could get done with a loaded 45 a ski mask and the ability to teleport. Even the super powerful would be on thier best behavior, lest they get a visit from… Mr Teleporter Man!
[quote}Bill Roberts wrote:
Obama was elected largely because we have reached a point in time where at least 51% of voters believe that with regard to government “entitlements,” to each according to his needs; and with regard to taxes, from each according to his ability to earn.
As well as agreeing with the majority of the planks of the Communist Manifesto, and having fundamental disagreement with none of them. (And before anyone objects that that “must” be hyperbole: first it is not, and second, please find your examples where you think this is not so before posting that it can’t be so.){/quote}
All I will say that the most socialist president in the history of the united states was not obama, but George W Bush who nationalised many of your banks. Lenin would have been proud.
Can you name one of these banks “nationalized” by George W Bush?
And provide some sort of evidence of this occurring?
In contrast, a correct statement would be that the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 authorized and resulted in purchase by the government of some non-voting stock in many banks, which I agree is socialist, although perhaps not technically as the banks do not comprise a “means of production.”
However, how can Bush be called “more socialist” than Obama on this account, when Obama voted for it? And has gone on to further acts which definitely do meet the definition, as for example government ownership of a large percentage of GM certainly is ownership of means of production.
Generally speaking though, Obama is more of a fascist than socialist: that is to say, he favors strong government control of (and high rates of taxation of) privately owned means of production, e.g. the health industry, the energy industry, etc without really being bent on government ownership though he certainly doesn’t oppose government ownership when he finds it convenient.
i would agree on you with Obama having fascistic overtones. Snake oil salesman. I found it strange that the US sees him as left wing; by the standards of most countries he is right wing.
I had known that they were put into conservatorship and that as with other banks stock had been bought, but I didn’t know until checking just now that in the case of these government sponsored entities (which they have always been) the ownership is nearly 80%.
I really didn’t have them in my mental classification of what I consider banks, as they aren’t in the ordinary sense, but whether they technically are or not (what they do is to purchase loans from banks, rather than themselves issue them; they also trade derivatives) that seems close enough for your statement to be valid, and actually I think they technically are banks. My error that I did not have them in mind.
i would agree on you with Obama having fascistic overtones. Snake oil salesman. I found it strange that the US sees him as left wing; by the standards of most countries he is right wing. [/quote]
Yeah but, a lot of those coutries consider national socialism right wing too.
[quote]Bambi wrote:
[quote}Bill Roberts wrote:
Obama was elected largely because we have reached a point in time where at least 51% of voters believe that with regard to government “entitlements,” to each according to his needs; and with regard to taxes, from each according to his ability to earn.
As well as agreeing with the majority of the planks of the Communist Manifesto, and having fundamental disagreement with none of them. (And before anyone objects that that “must” be hyperbole: first it is not, and second, please find your examples where you think this is not so before posting that it can’t be so.){/quote}
All I will say that the most socialist president in the history of the united states was not obama, but George W Bush who nationalised many of your banks. Lenin would have been proud. [/quote]
Marx predicted this. He (mostly) thought that capitalism had to EVOLVE into socialism. The capitalists would put up a fight and try to take half-measures in hopes of mollifying the masses, such as old age pensions and the like, but he knew that such measures couldn’t work long term.
So long as people publicly believe in altruistic socialism, they will take it to its logical conclusion (enslavement of all, to all).
i would agree on you with Obama having fascistic overtones. Snake oil salesman. I found it strange that the US sees him as left wing; by the standards of most countries he is right wing. [/quote]
What? Right = less govt. Left = more govt. Fascism is just right of socialism but is not right wing.
Fascism, socialism, communism, theocracy, etc… Rand had one word to describe them all: Statism. All societies that place the rights of the individual secondary to their collective ideal.