Advertisements
Home

What Do These Three Presidents Have In Common?

Leave a comment

A blog post by Old NFO inspired me to repost this one.

 

hoovertrumanike

 

They  sent the illegals  packing.

There was a time in our nation’s history when our Presidents did what they had to do to ensure that the nation remains strong.

And, unlike our current President, they always seemed to put the interests of the American people first.

During The Great Depression, President Herbert  Hoover ordered the deportation of ALL  illegal aliens in order to make jobs available  to American citizens that desperately needed work..

At the end of World War II, Harry  Truman deported over two million illegal aliens to ensure that returning  veterans would find work.

And in 1954, President Dwight Eisenhower  deported 13 million Mexican Nationals!  The  program was called ‘Operation Wetback’.  He did it  so WWII and Korean Veterans would have a better  chance at jobs.

Advertisements

10 Myths the Anti-Hunters Would Lead You to Believe

Leave a comment

This is from Wide Open Spaces.

Many of us have heard this myths many times over the years.

 

Let’s quickly debunk ten of the most common anti-hunting myths.

The next time an anti-hunter throws a clearly bogus generalization at you or another hunter, be prepared to debunk and dismiss it for what it is: false propaganda.

Here are ten myths about hunters and hunting that we hear fairly regularly from the anti’s.

1. Hunters don’t care about animals. How could you care about animals you want to kill? 

Death is a necessary part of the larger pursuit we call hunting, but death and reverence are not mutually exclusive. Death in hunting can mean many things. For some it means connecting with an animal and its environment in a fundamental, “primitive” and honest way that no other activity can.

There is no doubt that hunting offers the opportunity to be a part of the natural world on a richer and more intense level than anything else we can do (sorry folks, but outdoor photography, camping, hiking and the like simply cannot offer the depth of intimacy and involvement with nature that true hunting can…that’s not a value judgement or opinion, it’s a reality).

Death also, of course, means food. Indigenous Americans understood this melding of practical and spiritual realities. The same reverence and gratitude for life taken to sustain other life, both physically and psychologically, is alive in many true hunters today.

Silhouette_of_father_and_son_hunting_in_the_sunset

wikimedia

2. Hunters have an unfair advantage over defenseless animals.

Prey animals are VERY good at not getting killed by hunters, or by the other natural predators that pursue them 24/7/365. They have the advantage. The fact is, hunter success rates are much lower than most people would assume. Depending on state and region, deer hunting success rates hover between 50%-80%. Bowhunters generally have even lower success rates (8%-10% in Indiana, for example).

3. Hunters are bloodthirsty psychopaths.

Most hunters are outdoorsmen in several other areas of their lives. They are fishermen, bird watchers, conservationists, boaters, hikers, campers, skiers, etc.. Simply engaging in the great outdoors is the defining characteristic, not bloodlust.

kids_hunting_mgn

NBC33 TV

4. Hunters are compensating for their lack of masculinity.

More women are hunting than ever before. In Minnesota, for example, women purchased72,000 hunting licenses in 2012, and the national trend of women hunting has grown by about 25%.

5. Hunting is a threat to animal species. We should be trying to preserve animals, not push them into extinction. 

No species has even come close to extinction from modern sport hunting. On the contrary, sport hunting and the efforts of hunter conservationists have been the reason that so many species from elk and turkey to pronghorn antelope and whitetail deer have strong and stable populations today.

elk-hunt

AR15

6. Hunting is unnecessary. We can get food from grocery stores.

But is it safe? More people are more concerned about eating quality, hormone-free, natural and healthy food than ever before. There is NO more natural, safe and healthy protein available than wild game.

7. Trophy hunting is immoral.

“Trophy” means different things to different hunters. A hard-earned 6-point buck may be a trophy to one hunter while a massive B&C record elk may be a trophy to another. Trophy is defined by the challenge presented, whether that challenge be in the form of an African lion or a brace of mallards.

Trophy hunting exotic game is also well understood to be vital to ensuring conservation and wildlife management practices of big game in places like Africa. It is those trophy hunting dollars that help ensure the viability and security of many big game species.

art-melissa-20bachman-620x349

True Activist

 

8. Hunters only care about big game species.

The number of small game a waterfowl taken each year by hunters exceeds the number of big game species by a large margin. At one point squirrels were the numerically most harvested animal in the country. While the trend in recent years concerning license sales has seen big game licenses outsell small game and waterfowl licenses, many hundreds of thousands of small game and waterfowl licenses continue to be sold to hunters every year.

grouse-hunt

Wisconsin Journal Sentinel

 

9. Hunting causes pain and suffering to animals.

This one gets to the heart of why many anti-hunters oppose hunting: their compassion and fear that animals would suffer pain at the hands of humans. No ethical hunter ever wants to cause an animal pain or suffering. The lengths that the hunting community goes to to ensure clean, efficient and as pain-free a death as possible for the animals we hunt is really quite extraordinary.

Thousands of articles, lectures, videos, and conversations deal exclusively with the desire to make a clean and quick kill. Millions of dollars, hours and resources have been spent in research and development to create and improve upon the best, most efficient firearm calibers, loads and ballistics, as well as the most efficient broadhead and bow designs. Hundreds of thousands of hours are spent by hunters honing their marksmanship skills so that they can give an animal a quick and respectful death.

While a completely pain-free death is never a guarantee, death at the hands of a hunter is practically peaceful compared to that which comes from a predator’s fangs, starvation, disease, or even – domestically – in a slaughterhouse.

realtree

Real Tree

10. Hunters are stupid, drunken rednecks.

Really? I think that Harry Truman, Teddy Roosevelt, George Bush, Ronald Reagan, even Bill Clinton, along with many other former Presidents might disagree with that contention. General Norman Schwartzkopf, singer Blake Shelton, athlete/entrepreneur Bo Jackson, actors Jennifer Lawrence and Eva Longoria, supermodel Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, and many other high-brow celebrities, entrepreneurs, businesspeople and Ivy Leaguers who hunt might put the lie to this silly claim.

Sure, there are always a few people of less than admirable character who participate in any activity. But on the whole, hunters are an educated, highly intelligent and socially concerned bunch. Enough with the cartoon characterizations already.

Remember, most of these myths are emotionally driven, so be calm, be respectful and be polite when addressing a confrontational anti-hunter. Sure, they’re wrong, and chances are good that whatever you say isn’t going to change their opinion, but how you state your point of view might just soften theirs a bit.

After all, if emotion is their starting point, you’ll win with an attitude and approach that appeals to their emotion, not their reason.

 

 

 

 

What Do These Three Presidents Have In Common?

1 Comment

Hoover,Truman,Ike

 

They  sent the illegals  packing.

There was a time in our nation’s history when our Presidents did what they had to do to ensure that the nation remains strong.

And, unlike our current President, they always seemed to put the interests of the American people first.

During The Great Depression, President Herbert  Hoover ordered the deportation of ALL  illegal aliens in order to make jobs available  to American citizens that desperately needed work..

At the end of World War II, Harry  Truman deported over two million illegal aliens to ensure that returning  veterans would find work.

And in 1954, President Dwight Eisenhower  deported 13 million Mexican Nationals!  The  program was called ‘Operation Wetback’.  He did it  so WWII and Korean Veterans would have a better  chance at jobs.

Entire families of illegal immigrants were deported, including children born in America, which under the prevailing misinterpretation of the Constitution, meant that U.S. citizens were being deported

It seems to me that if  they could deport the illegal’s back then – they now have 30-40 million good reasons to do it again.

Reminder: Don’t forget to pay your taxes…
30 million Illegal Aliens are depending on you!

UNCOVERING LIES: ‘Progressive’ Dems, Repub ‘War Mongers’

2 Comments

This is from Clash Daily.

 

Progressive” Democrats and Republican “War Mongers”

Woodrow Wilson: Declared war on Germany, involving the U.S. in WWI — Progressive; Mr. New World Order

FDR: Declared war on Japan, involving the U.S. in WWII Progressive — Mr. New Deal; Made Depression worse

Harry Truman: Ordered two nuclear weapons detonated in Japan — Democrat

Harry Truman: Involved U.S. in the Korean War — Democrat

JFK: Initiated U.S. involvement in Vietnam — Democrat

LBJ: Escalated the Vietnam War, mismanaged it, lost it — Democrat

Jimmy Carter: Projected weakness, encouraged Jihad — Democrat

Bill Clinton: Did nothing about genocide in Rwanda, bombed Kosovo, further encouraged Jihad projecting weakness, leading to 9/11 — Democrat

Barack Obama: Combines pacifism, globalism, communism, projecting weakness and retreat and surrender, allowing for escalations of global jihad in every direction, destroyed the economy — Democrat/Progressive/Communist/Globalist

Every Democrat President since 1900 has promoted centralized power in Washington, entitlements, deficit spending, high taxes, globalism, socialism, and foreign policies injurious to the national interest. Perhaps American voters have had enough.

High Ironies
Eisenhower liberated Europe, then came home to preside over a great period of peace and prosperity. Nixon, with all his faults and failures, ended the Vietnam War, opened China, improved our standing internationally, forwarded arms control, made Egypt an ally, and came to the aid of Israel. Nixon was viciously condemned by the liberal media, as he is to this day. Reagan restored economic strength, liberated the Eastern Block and indeed the world, without firing a shot, and he was called a war monger. George H.W. Bush liberated Kuwait and contained Saddam and he was called a war monger. George W. Bush liberated Afghanistan and Iraq and effectively confronted Jihad for years while securing the homeland, and he was called a war monger.

High Crimes
Barack Obama destroys our economy, insults and shames the U.S. on the world stage, engages criminality and lawlessness, sparks serial scandals, demoralizes the country, totally alienates Congress, promotes divisiveness, neglects border security, encourages illegal immigration, makes room for Chinese and Russian aggression, ignores militarization in South America, causes wars in various places, aids and funds Jihad, then drops a couple bombs in Iraq, and he is called hero, a humanitarian and a peacemaker.
Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2014/08/uncovering-lies-progressive-dems-repub-war-mongers/#p3rQwbdWHLhZOx8l.99

 

Obama wants to fight ‘mean Congress’

2 Comments

This is from The Hill.

Hey Barack this is not 1948 and you sure as Hell are not Harry Truman.

 

The White House’s emerging strategy for the midterm elections is to run against a “mean” Congress.

President Obama has made that tack known more than ever in recent days.
In the last week, he’s accused Republicans of getting into disagreements with themselves over the border supplemental funding and for not being able to pass “plain vanilla” legislation.

He asked them to “stop hating” and “being mad all the time.” And he mocked House Republicans for suing him and added, “And I said to Speaker Boehner, tell your caucus the best way to avoid me acting on my own is work with me to actually do something. Then you don’t have to worry about it.”

Just as important as Obama’s words are his gestures and style.

The president is in his wheelhouse when he’s in campaign mode, and during the Kansas City, Mo., address, he was frequently joking and smiling with the crowds.

He at times oozed with sarcasm as he hailed the infrequent times when he said Republicans had been willing to work with him. Laughter and smirks were diced through the speech.

His audience ate up the storyline portraying House Republicans as the villains in the 2014 storyline.

Those in Obama’s circle say it’s no coincidence that, with the fall elections just months away, Obama is ramping up his attacks on a “do-nothing” Congress.

“All of us have always thought he’s better with an opponent and someone to fight against,” said Tommy Vietor, a former longtime Obama communications aide. “When you got an opponent, especially an opponent as absurd as the Republican Congress, he’s in a better place because he can point out their hypocrisy, their mean spiritedness, and he can do it with humor.

“The more feisty campaign tone is where he’s strongest,” Vietor continued, adding that the president’s recent Kansas City event, “felt like a campaign stop, and it felt like him at his best.”

Obama has a past of running against Bogeymen. In 2008, he campaigned against former President George W. Bush, even has he competed for the White House with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the GOP’s nominee.

And in 2012, he depicted Mitt Romney, his rival in the presidential election, as an out-of-touch billionaire who couldn’t relate to every day Americans.

Obama’s success in 2014 will be measured by one thing: who controls the Senate.

Kirsten Kukowski, a press secretary with the Republican National Committee, said that with Obama’s policies “taking a dive, it’s clear the president and the Democrat Party have nothing left to do than to try to point fingers for political gain.”

Republicans say a do-nothing Senate and Obama are the reasons for Washington’s inaction.

“The reality is, there are 330 bills sitting in the Democrat-controlled Senate waiting for the Democrats to act,” Kukowski said.

Republican strategist Ron Bonjean said Obama is “engaging in partisan warfare” because he feels like he has nothing to lose.

“He’s trying to energize the liberal base to get them to vote this November, and he’ll continue on this path, pointing fingers at Republicans,” Bonjean predicted. “Although he has increased his rhetoric, the playbook is the same.”

But Katherine Jellison, a professor of history at Ohio University, said the strategy to run against a do-nothing Congress was a good one for past presidents, and it could be just as effective for Obama.

“The base loves this kind of thing, and they seem to be eating it up,” Jellison said. “They’re hooting and hollering like they haven’t in quite some time.”

Obama’s approval ratings remain in the dumps, and that will raise questions about his ability to bring out Democratic voters in the fall.

The White House is debating whether to take executive actions on immigration that could defer deportations of hundreds of thousands of people in the U.S. illegally. It’s unclear whether such actions would help Democrats in the battle for the Senate, and some Senate centrists have expressed worries about his strategy.

But it could also help rally the Democratic base, and it allows Obama to use his actions to contrast with Congress.

At the Kansas City event last week, which felt like a campaign rally of sorts, Obama time and again went back to slapping the GOP for “not being that helpful.”

“I know they’re not happy that I’m president,” he said with a laugh. “But that’s okay. I‘ve only got a couple of years left. Come on, let’s get some work done.”

The president blasted Republicans for wasting time and considering the lawsuit against him. And when the crowd began to voice their displeasure in boos, he gladly engaged.

“No, no, no, first of all, here’s something I always say,” he said. “Do not boo. Vote. Booing doesn’t help. Voting helps.”

Read more: http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/214175-obama-wants-to-pit-white-house-against-mean-congress#ixzz39ps1lDWG
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

 

3 Surprising Facts About U.S Presidents That You Were Probably Never Taught In History Class

1 Comment

This is from Independent Journal Review.

 

 

Most of us would think we know a good deal about the Presidents of the United States. Still, there are a few facts that won’t be found in history books:

1.) George W. Bush is a distant cousin with Playboy founder Hugh Hefner.

bush and hef 2

2.) John F. Kennedy was buried without his brain after it was lost during the autopsy.

kennedy

3.) Barack Obama descended from the first documented African slave in colonial America.

obama

4.) George H.W. Bush threw up on the Japanese Prime Minister.

hw bush

5.) Calvin Coolidge liked having petroleum jelly rubbed on his head every morning while eating breakfast in bed.

coolidge final

6.) Jimmy Carter only has one testicle.

carter

7.) Franklin D. Roosevelt’s wife, Eleanor, was actually his fifth cousin.

fdr

8.) Gerald Ford worked as a fashion model during college, appearing on the cover of Cosmopolitan.

ford 2

9.) Herbert Hoover’s son had two pet alligators, which were occasionally permitted to run loose through the White House.

actual hoover

10.) Harry Truman does not have a middle name; the ‘S’ often included as his middle initial stands for nothing.

truman

11.) In one poker game, Warren Harding bet the White House china collection and lost it all in one hand.

warren 2

12.) Bill Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe III.

blythe

13.) George W. Bush was head cheerleader in high school.

bush cheering

Mind blown?

GIF

Always expect the unexpected, even when it comes to the leaders of our country.

Nicholas Oresko of Cresskill, World War II hero, dies at 96

1 Comment

This is from North Jersey.com.

One more of The Greatest Generation has passed on to his reward.

I am sad Nicholas had to see his comrades disrespected by the Obama Regime.

R.I.P. Master Sergeant Nicholas Oresko

 

Nicholas Oresko of Cresskill, the nation’s oldest Medal of Honor recipient, died Friday evening, surrounded by veterans and military personnel who had gathered there all week after hearing on social media that he was in the hospital with a broken leg.

Nicholas Oresko displaying his Medal of Honor citation at Sunrise Community senior center in Cresskill earlier this year.

MARKO GEORGIEV/STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER
Nicholas Oresko displaying his Medal of Honor citation at Sunrise Community senior center in Cresskill earlier this year.

Oresko, 96, was a U.S. Army master sergeant during World War II when, although badly wounded, he wiped out two enemy bunkers near Tettingen, Germany, during the Battle of the Bulge.

He died at 6:30 p.m. at Englewood Hospital and Medical Center of complications from surgery for a broken right femur, said John “Jack” Carbone, a family friend. That was the same leg injured by gunfire on Jan. 23, 1945, as he crawled from one enemy bunker to another.

Oresko had no living immediate family, but he was never alone at the hospital after being taken there earlier in the week from a Cresskill assisted living facility, Carbone said. Veterans and young members of various branches of military service were at his side, with more than two dozen at the hospital Friday afternoon before he was taken to have surgery.

“The kids held his hand and prayed with him,” Carbone said.

One of Oresko’s friends, Richard E. Robitaille, had sent emails about the honored veteran’s condition this week to students at Berkeley College in Woodland Park, where he is the vice president of military veterans affairs. Robitaille said those students posted the information on Facebook and other sites, leading to a massive outpouring of affection for Oresko from people across the country.

“They understood the type of person we were talking about and said, ‘We can’t let him die alone,’” Robitaille said, adding that people have come from as far away as Maine and Maryland to visit Oresko during the week. “He’s loved throughout the Army. He’s an American hero.”

He said that an Army unit in Afghanistan waved a flag in Oresko’s honor on Tuesday and mailed it to the hospital, but it had not yet arrived.

Horrific battle

Another longtime friend who was at the hospital on Friday, Bob Jerome of Park Ridge, said Oresko enjoyed speaking to young people. The high school in Bayonne, where Oresko grew up, was named in his honor a few years ago.

Oresko talked about his experiences in battle for a story published in The Record in January 2012.

In the early morning hours on Jan. 23, 1945, the 28-year-old set off to take out an enemy machine-gun bunker.

“We [had] attacked their positions several times, and we got beaten back,” he said. “It’s terrible. It scares the hell out of you.

“So we figured this time, let’s sneak up on them,” Oresko said. “Instead of getting prepared with artillery fire, let’s just go as it gets dark and sneak up on them and then attack ’em.”

Oresko started out solo at 4:30 a.m. that cold winter morning. And he was resigned to not coming back alive. “I looked up to heaven and said, ‘Lord, I know I’m going to die, please make it fast,’ ’’ he said.

He tossed a grenade into the bunker and then rushed it with his M-1 rifle. Another machine gun opened fire and knocked him down, wounding him in the right hip and leg, yet he managed to crawl to another bunker and take it out with another grenade.

“The machine gunner who shot me thought I was dead,” Oresko said. “I was able to move around, sneak around, so they didn’t see me. They saw me go down. They thought they’d killed me, but they didn’t. I slipped around and somehow got around, and they were in a bunch.”

Oresko killed 12 German soldiers and refused to leave the area until he was sure his unit had completed its mission.

“They wanted to take me back to the hospital,” Oresko said. “I said ‘No, let’s take the position first.’ I didn’t want to give it up after doing so much.”

President Harry S. Truman presented the Medal of Honor to Oresko during a White House ceremony on Oct. 30, 1945.

Funeral arrangements were pending Friday night. Carbone said that Oresko will be buried at the George Washington Cemetery in Paramus toward the end of next week.

– See more at: http://www.northjersey.com/cresskill/Nicholas_Oresko_of_Creskill_World_War_II_hero_dies_at_96.html#sthash.v4sex3mx.dpuf

 

Hagel: US Needs to ‘Reverse Optics’ in Relationship With Israel

Leave a comment

This is from IsraelNationalNews.wh

Chuckles antisemitism is showing even more than ever.

Hagel mirrors Obama‘s views on Israel.

 Israel is our Only True Friend in the Middle East.

American’s should remember God‘s words to Abram,

“I will bless Those Who Bless you,and Curse Those Who Curse You.”

Chuck Hagel: In order to restore credibility as an honest broker in Mideast, US has to “reverse optics” in relationship with Jewish state.

The National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations recently published a recording of a speech given by former senator Chuck Hagel, President Barack Obama’s highly controversial nominee for secretary of defense, in which he said that the United States has to “reverse optics” in its relationship with the state of Israel.

In order to restore its credibility as an honest broker between Israelis and Palestinians, America has to “reverse optics” in its ties with the Jewish state, the former Republican senator from Nebraska said in 2007, as first reported by Breitbart.com.

“There’s no question in the Arab-Israeli issue that Israel is a nation today as a result of the United States,” he said, possibly referring to the decision by President Harry Truman to recognize the establishment of the State of Israel, as well as continued military, financial and diplomatic ties between the two countries.

While his remarks are not entirely clear, in context, it seems that Hagel was intending to reinforce perceptions of Israel as a client state of the United States, according toBreitbart.

It was recently revealed that Hagel made further staggering accusations against Israel, alleging that the Jewish state is keeping the “Palestinians caged up like animals.”

The highly controversial nominee does not elaborate on the claim or explain how he believes Israel is keeping “Palestinians caged up like animals,” according to the Journal Star report. The comment is, however, consistent with his long anti-Israel and anti-Jewish record.

The two-term senator chosen by President Barack Obama to replace current secretary of defense Leon Panetta, has come under intense fire for his record on Israel, Iran, Hamas, as well as his comments about “the Jewish lobby,” homosexuals and a myriad of other issues.

The Senate Armed Services Committee postponed a panel vote that was expected to take place Thursday on the contentious nomination after Republicans demanded that he release additional financial information, including details regarding compensationfor speeches he delivered since leaving Capitol Hill.

Hotels where presidents have slept

Leave a comment

This is from Fox News.

A little presidential trivia.

 

 

It’s only natural for the president to rest their heads at some of the best hotels. These luxurious hotels haven’t just served as a White House away from home for some commanders-in-chief, but they’re places where history –and scandals –were made.

Inn at Crossroads
Charlottesville, Va.

This historic inn, which opened in 1820, was visited by Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt. In the 1930’s Roosevelt gave a speech from the front porch of the inn to the local townspeople during his presidential campaign.

Hale Springs Inn
Rogersville, Tenn.

The Hale Springs Inn was built during the mid-1820’s, and provided shelter for Presidents Andrew Jackson, James Polk and Andrew Johnson. The inn has three presidential suites all named after them.

Historic Rosemont Manor
Berryville, Va.

Rosemont was once the estate of Virginia Governor and U.S. Senator Harry Flood Byrd, Sr. Over the years, it hosted Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Lyndon B. Johnson and John F. Kennedy.

The Brown Palace Hotel
Denver

This famous Colorado Hotel has been visited by every U.S. president since Theodore Roosevelt, except Calvin Coolidge and Barack Obama. The club located on the hotel’s second floor served as President Eisenhower’s campaign headquarters prior to his election, and the dent his miscalculated golf ball made in the fireplace mental of the Eisenhower Suite can still be seen today.

The Greenbrier Resort
White Sulphur Springs, W. Va.

The Greenbrier has hosted 26 U.S. presidents, and you can see memorable moments from their stays at the Presidents’ Cottage Museum. It was also the location of a secret underground bunker for Congress in the event of nuclear war.

Waldorf Astoria
New York

Every president since Herbert Hoover has either stayed at or, in the case of Hoover, lived at this palatial Park Avenue hotel. Barack Obama has stayed in the property’s four-bedroom Presidential Suite—along with every U.S. president since Herbert Hoover. George H. W. Bush reportedly was a big fan of the Waldorf’s cuisine and the hotel served up culinary specialities, minus the broccoli.

Carlyle Hotel
New York

This luxurious Upper East Side hotel has been a favorite of presidents and world leaders since the 1930’s. President Harry Truman, the first U.S. president to say at the Carlyle, was reportedly known for bolting out of the hotel on his “morning constitutionals.” Legend has it that JFK spent the night with Marilyn Monroe in his hotel suite after she sang “Happy Birthday, Mr. President.”

The Homestead
Hot Springs, Va.

The Homestead, which opened in 1766, has been visited by 22 presidents. It is said that Jefferson stayed at the hot spring resort for 30 days in 1818, at the cost of $2.12.

The Jefferson Hotel
Richmond, Va.

Twelve presidents have stayed at The Jefferson since it opened in 1895: Benjamin Harrison, William McKinley, Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge, William Howard Taft, both Roosevelts, Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan, both Bushes and Barack Obama.

The Willard

Washington, D.C.

Called the “residence of presidents,” every president since Franklin Pierce has either slept in or attended an event at the hotel. Ulysses S. Grant used to be a frequent quest and had the habit of visiting for a drink and cigar in the lobby.  There he would be swarmed by those loitering around hoping to seek favors with the president–and thus the term “lobbyist” was born.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2012/11/06/suites-where-presidents-have-slept/?intcmp=features#ixzz2BUHufkL6

 

Would Obama Incite Civil Unrest to Win?

2 Comments

This is from American Thinker.

Obama will use his book of Chicago Thug tactics.

Obama wants desperately to hold on to the power he has.

Obama does not care if he destroys America and destroy people’s dreams.

We must fire him come the 6th of November.

Is President Obama willing to incite civil unrest to win re-election?  As we have all been encouraged to wear our dog-whistle decoders these days, one can hardly be blamed for wondering.  Worse yet, we know the answer.  He is already doing it.

Please bear with me, as this topic requires considerable delicacy.

According to Rolling Stone, Barack Obama has now called Mitt Romney “a bull*****er,” on the record.  His anger at the challenger was palpable — that is, carefully staged — during each of the last two presidential debates.  And he has made a central theme of his campaign the warning that a Romney presidency would erase all of the “equality” victories of the 1960s and ’70s.

Consider these typical words from his October 25 rally in Las Vegas:

You can choose to turn the clock back 50 years for women and immigrants and gays.  Or in this election you can stand up for the principle that America includes everybody. We’re all created equal — black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, abled, disabled — no matter who you are, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from or who you love, in America you can make it if you try.

This, to restate, is his message down the stretch: before the revolutionary uprisings of the 1960s, America only “included” white men.  Romney is a white man who wants to return to that time.  So if you are a woman, an immigrant, gay, black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, or disabled, then you should not merely oppose Romney as a candidate who does not represent your interests; rather, you should fear him, as a man who wishes to eliminate you from the American portrait.

If Romney wins, and you are not an “abled” white male, America will no longer “include” you, according to Obama.  In less than two weeks, you are going to be reduced to second-class citizenship, your fortunes cast back to the bad old days of 1962, before radical feminism, the Nation of Islam, gay rights, the Black Panthers, free love, flag-burning, the “drug culture” — and of course, before the days of America’s first “gay,” black, America-hating, drug-damaged, contraceptive-dispensing, progressive feminist Islamic-Christian president.

And now, after scowling at him through two debates, after his vice-president spent ninety minutes calling Paul Ryan a liar, and in the context of all this fear-mongering about the threat of a return to White Male America, Obama has branded his opponent a “bull*****er.”

From Lyndon Johnson or Harry Truman, this kind of remark might have been regarded as innocuous, albeit unpresidential.  From Obama, the Harvard genius with the well-creased pant leg, the bestselling author and master of political oration, it is an expression of bitter rage and supreme disdain.  And in an era when representatives of Obama’s base are flooding Twitter with threats to assassinate his opponent, such heated rhetoric could be dangerous.

Anyone who wonders whether perhaps Obama just does not want to be president anymore should think again.  He wants to be president.  What he does not want is to have to exert so much effort to retain the presidency.  What he does not want is what Hugo Chávez does not want, what Vladimir Putin does not want, what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does not want: a fair fight, an unobstructed challenger, an unintimidated electorate.

It was so easy in the past.  Swept along on a wave of adulation and enthusiasm, protected by leftist media and academia, and helped out when necessary by an Axelrod-arranged scandal or two, Obama has barely had to lift a finger to gain political office and to climb the ladder.  Authoritarians do not understand why one should have to do so.

So he is angry.  And this anger has become central to his campaign strategy.  The fear he is seeking to inculcate among his base has an even uglier flip-side.  The Obama campaign is attempting to cast Romney and his supporters not as people with the wrong ideas, but as The Enemy.  In this circumstance, fear can easily give way to extreme outrage — and perhaps to violence and intimidation.  This is particularly true when the target audience of this fear-inducing invective is ignorant, emotion-driven, and dominated in its thinking by entitlement greed, rather than by considerations of right and wrong.  Consider Sandra Fluke, Snoop Dogg, Occupy Wall Street, and student leftists (see examples).

When Harry Truman’s daughter, a singer, was panned by critic Paul Hume, the sitting president wrote a letter threatening to bust Hume’s nose if they ever met.  In 1950, however, none of Truman’s supporters would have been inclined to do the dirty work for him, or even to take the whole thing seriously.  Needless to say, Obama’s supporters are quite different from Truman’s.

Could Obama really be reduced to attempting to win re-election through mob protests and intimidation — i.e., through a climate of fear?

Let us examine the broad facts.  According to the recent polls, most of which have been conducted by organizations sympathetic to Obama, Romney appears to be on his way to victory.  Obama’s policy record is insupportable on the basis of its results, and his campaign knows it.  His one ace in the hole, his alleged effectiveness in the Middle East, has been exposed once and for all as a disastrous lie.  And his opponent’s past seems to be scandal-free, thus eliminating the one major comeback technique his inner circle has shown any past skill in executing.

All appears lost for Obama according to normal campaign channels.  It is time for the Hail Mary pass.  But do we have any grounds for imagining that he and his team would stoop so low as to seek to incite mass incivility, on or before Election Day?

Let us examine a few more facts.  Barack Obama’s primary occupation before electoral politics was as a community organizer in Chicago.  He was an adviser to ACORN, the election fraud racket and socialist activism organization founded by former SDS radical Wade Rathke.  His mentors in Chicago included Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, the Weather Underground leaders who staged the Days of Rage in 1969; Rashid Khalidi, apologist for and promoter of anti-Israeli violence; and Jeremiah Wright, whose most famous words are “God damn America!”  In his youth, of course, Obama’s primary male role model was Frank Marshall Davis, a communist and, naturally, a community organizer.

Would any of the people I just named stop short of using intimidation or civil unrest to achieve their political ends, if they believed it would be effective — or that it was their only hope?

Too speculative, you say?  What does any of this have to do with Obama himself, you ask?

A few more facts.  On Election Day 2008, New Black Panther militants, one carrying a billy club, stood threateningly in front of a polling station in Philadelphia.  (See here.)  They were charged with voter intimidation.  Obama’s Justice Department dismissed the charges.  In March 2012, when Florida was on pins and needles over the Zimmerman-Martin case, and the Al Sharpton types were trying to escalate the tensions and incite racial unrest, Obama spiked his presidential message of national “soul-searching” with the race-baiting Sharptonesque observation that “[i]f I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”

Obama has spoken sympathetically of the Occupy Wall Street movement, and, more importantly, embraces its leftist class warfare rhetoric.  His stock line about Romney’s economic plan is, “it turns out that it’s just a one-point plan — a sketchy deal that says folks at the very top get to play by a different set of rules than you do.”  Pure “99 percent” stuff.  Ayers and Dohrn, who hosted his first ever political campaign event, have given presentations to OWS groups.

The Obama administration funded a study redefining domestic terror threats to exclude radical Islamists, while including people who are “reverent of individual liberty” and “suspicious of centralized federal authority.”

In short, the Obama presidency has been consistent in its lack of scruples when it comes to demonizing wealthy people, conservatives, and now Mitt Romney — not opposing them, but painting them as racist, greedy, dangerous potential terrorists hell-bent on doing harm to women, blacks, gays, and immigrants.

But now, most remarkably, we have Obama’s Benghazi gambit.  The focus of the story, of course, has been on the administration’s deliberate concoction and dissemination of a fairy-tale about a video protest to obscure the damaging facts concerning the murder of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans.  That story gets uglier, and more damning, by the day.  (See American Thinker.)

There is, however, another side to Obama’s Benghazi lie — a side most instructive on the present question.

Administration officials knew, on September 11, that the attack was in no way related to the airing of the obscure YouTube video, and that in fact there was no protest in Libya on that day.  In spite of this knowledge, they systematically cited the video as the primary source of the (nonexistent) protest in Benghazi and implied that the murderous attack grew spontaneously out of that protest.

The political fallout of that lie is devastating.  But we must not neglect its practical results for the world beyond the Obama campaign.

By making the video the centerpiece of its various public statements over the days following the Benghazi attack — including of Obama’s September 25 address to the U.N. — the administration itself publicized and aggrandized it.  They repeatedly branded it a “disgusting” and “intolerant” offense against Islam, thereby giving credence to the mock outrage being stoked by a television host on the Egyptian Islamist station al-Nas and Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood government.  In other words, their repeated apology for the video’s offense against Islam, couched as a (feeble) defense of Western values — “we protect free speech, but we hate religious intolerance” — helped to justify, heighten, and prolong the Arab outrage over a video almost no one had seen.

Rather than responding to the Ansar al-Sharia attack with force in real time, labeling it accurately at once, and promising with credibility to crush any copycat incidents — a response which might have defused or defanged any further uprising from the “Arab street” — Obama, Hillary Clinton, and others in the administration told a story that justified and empathized with Islamic anger, while weakly pleading for non-violent protests.  In addition to inviting a bounty on the filmmaker’s head; the administration’s rhetoric helped to swell the protests, to increase the intensity of subsequent violence at U.S. diplomatic missions, potentially to endanger the lives of Coptic Christians in Egypt; and to legitimize the sharia advocacy of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Deaths have been reported at post-September 12 “video protests” in various countries.  At the peak of this Obama-fed furor, even al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri jumped on the bandwagon, calling for more anti-U.S. “protests” against the video.

In short, the administration’s Benghazi cover story, by repeatedly citing and publicizing a supposedly grave insult against Islam, endangered many lives, and risked igniting a much larger outbreak of anti-Western violence in a region of the world Obama claims to admire and respect.

And it must not be forgotten that the inflammatory words with which Obama and his team carelessly stoked Muslim outrage, thereby needlessly endangering so many Arab and Western lives, were a calculated, bald-faced lie, and Obama knew it.

This lie, with all its resulting risk to human safety, was apparently judged to be worth it simply in order to shield Obama’s re-election campaign from harm.

Think about that.  Think about Obama’s attempts to brand Romney a threat to every leftist cause of the last fifty years.  Think of his supporters among the New Black Panthers, the SEIU, and the Communist Party USA.  Think of his condemnation of Romney at this final, desperate hour, as a “bull*****er” from the one percent who wishes to revoke the equal rights of blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, gays, women, and immigrants.

Benghazi teaches us that Obama��is willing to risk inciting civil unrest abroad for the sake of protecting his re-election hopes.  Is he willing to take the same risk at home?

One must hope that the harsh realities of life in Obama’s America have dulled the enthusiasm of even his most ardent supporters, and his “new era of civility” — Chicago-style civility — will come to nothing.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/would_obama_incite_civil_unrest_to_win.html#ixzz2AkA1PGdC

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: