Thursday, November 7, 2013

The Obama Family... Did you say, "Family"?

First you have the "single mother" slip... Frankly I believe she is (or was) for there's no history of her
and Obama having children and raising a family(*See update below).  We do know from earlier reports that her marraige to the man with no past (except for some minor distractions like being a member of the Communist Party) was set up and or recommended to further his political agenda...or more accuratley, the agenda of his handlers.
*Update: Where are Obama’s daughters’ baby pics and birth records?

Then you have Barry's Larry two-night stand having a gay time in Chicago.

And now we have Barry Soetoro, the gay pride foreign kid who hangs out with the men in Hawaii and smoking crack-cocaine.

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

"...the war to overthrow America's liberty approaches its final political battle."

Note: See video at bottom  of page and find out what 95% of the voters do not know.
Obamacare: incompetence, or treacherous genius?
Obamacare website distraction as part of totalitarian strategy
By Alan Keyes @

It must be true that sometimes things are just what they seem. But the elitist faction's general offensive against America's liberty has a thoroughgoing character that should warn liberty's defenders against accepting this assumption without thoroughly thinking things through.

The brouhaha over the Obamacare website offers opponents of Obamacare a gratifying opportunity to vent their spleens in the aftermath of the recently staged funding theatrics in Congress. The funding battle was the first critical chance for Congress to stall the consolidation of permanent government control over America's healthcare system. Is it only a coincidence that the website debacle redirects some of the anger of the GOP's rightly disillusioned constituents away from the treacherous quislings in the GOP leadership (Boehner, McConnell, McCain et al.)?

The GOP leadership's collaboration with Obama offers ever more conclusive proof that, under their direction, the GOP has become the political equivalent of a heat sink. It exists to collect, then redirect or uselessly dissipate, the passions, political energy, and material resources of Americans who want to restore and preserve constitutional self-government. This keeps the heat of their intense opposition from disrupting the sham partisan process whereby the elitist faction aims to substitute their totalitarian control for what is supposed to be constitutional self-government of, by, and for the American people.

I certainly understand the temptation to wallow in the vengeful, if short-lived, pleasures occasioned by the spectacle of Obama's apparent incompetence. But doing so carelessly could be a fatal mistake. The defenders of liberty could end up like the general who hastily commits his forces to all-out pursuit after what appears to be a break in the enemy's line of defense. Too late, he finds that the enemy has drawn his forces into a thoughtfully prepared position that dooms them to annihilation.

Here's the question: Is the competent implementation of socialist totalitarianism better or worse for liberty? Let's assume that, in response to severe criticism of the incompetent launch of Obamacare, the Obama faction takes effective steps to remedy its perceived defects. When the smoke clears, they will announce that Obamacare has been fixed. They will vigorously denounce people who continue to resist it as extreme obstructionists, malcontents with no motive but their implacable (racist?) hatred of Obama.

By thus effectively stigmatizing continued opposition to Obamacare, the elitist faction strategists will give the GOP collaborators a rhetorical cudgel. With it they will proceed to discredit GOP politicians who dare to speak for their constituents' opposition to the elitist faction's socialist scheme. The large, anti-socialist plurality of voters left in the GOP will thus be deprived of representation as the war to overthrow America's liberty approaches its final political battle. For them it will be a contest of sighs and whispers, as they regret the folly that leaves them with no choice for liberty.

Thus the Obama faction's supposed tactical incompetence will be revealed as a supremely competent strategic maneuver, a feigned setback that, by decisively strengthening the hand of the elitist faction's GOP collaborators, prepares the ground for their faction's final victory.

Could this maneuver be thwarted? Only by opposition leaders with the will and ability to make it clear that incompetent execution is not the reason many Americans oppose Obamacare. They oppose it because the competent execution of such totalitarian schemes will only more effectively extinguish the life of Americans as a free people, competently executing the nation in another, more tragical sense.

In this respect, of course, Obamacare is just one aspect of the war on liberty. In every respect, the defense against that assault would be more effectively conducted by people who consistently set the different elements of the assault in the context of the war as a whole, so as to remind those who battle on this or that particular front of the common cause they share with all the other defenders. In the political context, what's needed is a rubric that puts the battle on each and every front in the context of a clear objective that, if attained, will secure overall victory.

No objective better serves this strategic aim than the one that, if obtained, would at one stroke relax the political sinews of the whole elitist faction offensive. By removing the national government's power from the hands of the partisans of totalitarian socialism, their opponents will unplug the generator that provides energy to every aspect of their offensive.

But the continual treacheries of the GOP's elitist faction leadership have made it painfully clear that it does no good to remove one wing of this anti-American elitist faction only to replace it with another. The political objective of removing the elitist totalitarians from power needs to be informed by another, more fundamental objective, which provides a rubric for choice that inoculates against the recurrence of the threat.

What might this rubric be? One hint comes from the behavior of the GOP wing of the elitist faction. Right now, for example, in the 13th U.S. Congressional District in Illinois, the GOP quislings are going out of their way to
suppress the candidacy of Erika Harold in the GOP primary. An attorney, the Harvard Law school graduate is a former Miss America (2004). She also happens to be a black American. It's hard to explain their irrationally prejudicial efforts to exclude and suppress her candidacy. In light of that, some of her supporters make the mistake of trying to play the race card to account for the GOP leadership's efforts to sabotage it. I say, to the contrary, that the more plausible explanation is the notoriety she achieved as a public figure willing unashamedly to stand by her Christian convictions.

I think the GOP's elitist faction leaders are seeking to intimidate her into leaving her Christian identity behind as a condition for participation in GOP politics. Believe me, in this regard I know whereof I speak. I can't say whether Erika Harold will stand firm against this intimidation or not. However, it confirms what I learned from my own experience in the GOP. The GOP's elitist faction leadership has a special animus against people who faithfully adhere to the God-acknowledging founding principles of the United States. They realize that no one steadfastly adhering to those principles will sell out their faithful constituents, because that would mean breaking faith with the authority of the Creator.

As patriot Davids take a stand against the God-rejecting Goliaths of the elitist faction, what better stones to sling than those marked by a proven unwillingness to abandon the liberty wherewith God has made us free?
Are you a fiddler?
If you are an Obama supporter, yes you are!  You may also be blind, deaf, and dumb.   For if you do not know by now what it is Obama is up to you're too far gone.  And when that time comes that Obama surrenders this country to the evils of Communism and the inequities of Socialism, you will never, never, never be free.  There's not that much difference between the two; Communism is led by the political elite and the peons (that's the folks) beckon their every call...Socialism, on the other hand is for the people and not the Socialist elite who will take from your labor and give it to the lazy too lazy to labor.
A wise man once said:
It is surely undeniable that, when a man engages in remunerative labor, the impelling reason and motive of his work is to obtain property, and thereafter to hold it as his very own. If one man hires out to another his strength or skill, he does so for the purpose of receiving in return what is necessary for the satisfaction of his needs; he therefore expressly intends to acquire a right full and real, not only to the remuneration, but also to the disposal of such remuneration, just as he pleases. Thus, if he lives sparingly, saves money, and, for greater security, invests his savings in land, the land, in such case, is only his wages under another form; and, consequently, a working man's little estate thus purchased should be as completely at his full disposal as are the wages he receives for his labor. But it is precisely in such power of disposal that ownership obtains, whether the property consist of land or chattels.
Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life. (circa 1891)
When the powers to be see that its in their power to control the masses they make very good use of that power. One powerful way to restrict those under their control is to limit the successful climb to a better life by making the peons think they are increasing their lot in life by dictating the wages the peons recieve...and also, preventing those that provide the wages from advancing and or expanding their business as they would like to. Generally, or I should say, one-hundred percent of the dictataors (aka politicians) that propose (dictate) wage increases are ideologically, go back and re-read what the wise man said. ~ Norman E. Hooben

Ps: If more Americans understood the following video they would toss out all career why don't you pass it on to the un-informed voters...which is about 95% of all Americans. ...the interview was conducted in 1980 but its significance is very...shall I say, still in play.

God is like a voice in my heart. Meet FaceBook's oldest user.

Obamacare? Will it become unworkable? bet!

Politics Alabama
ObamaCare Supporters Confusing Cause & Effect
Source: Smart Girl Politics (FaceBook)
[Inserted here by Storm'n Norm'n]
As we all know by now, the ObamaCare Exchange roll-out has been a showcase of government incompetence huge enough to boggle the mind. The website simply doesn't work... few can create an account, and even fewer can actually purchase insurance on the exchange. Worse, the insurance companies often get incorrect information, such as spouses listed as children, and are forced to directly contact the applicant to get the correct information... essentially a second enrollment process. This process works only because of the small number of those who are able to purchase plans... as the numbers grow, this process will become unworkable due to volume.

The Federal Exchange also has security issues...
personal information is being revealed to others in various ways, and identity theft on the exchange is a real problem. This is on top of the fact that identity thieves are setting up fake-portal sites to collect your information and ALLEGEDLY send that information on to the exchanges.

On top of all that, and in spite of Obama's fervent and repeated promises that we could all keep our insurance policies if we like them, millions of Americans are receiving
cancellation notices, informing them that ObamaCare regulations force them to cancel the policies and dump them onto the exchange.

All this is leaving ObamaCare supporters scrambling for a defense. One that I've seen and heard numerous times, sometimes even from elected officials, is that
ObamaCare is experiencing problems because of GOP obstructionism. Yup, the party that unanimously refused to vote for the law is being blamed for its failures.

I've heard it a lot, that those of us who have been criticizing the law all along are actively sabotaging it and are therefore to blame for it's failure. This is confusing cause and effect.

Let me be perfectly clear, ObamaCare isn't failing because we criticize or obstruct it, we've been criticizing it because we had some idea as to how badly this law would fail. Many of us understood the law would have numerous harmful effects and we said so loudly and often. That doesn't make us responsible for the failure, it makes us prescient. WE WERE RIGHT!

I bear a similar attitude to those elected Republicans who have long been in favor of abandoning any attempt to repeal or delay the law. ObamaCare, the argument goes, cannot be stopped by the GOP, so they should let the law go into full effect and then let it collapse under it's own weight. Those who argue thusly are almost as bad ad those who foisted this disaster of a law upon us in the first place... those of us who have been fighting since before it became law have been trying to stop the damage. That is MUCH preferable to letting it happen and picking up the pieces afterward.

Anyway, pay attention, ObamaCare supporters... the law isn't failing because of my opposition, I oppose it because I understand how badly the law can fail and how much damage it can cause along the way.

Sunday, November 3, 2013

What is an Alinskyism?

There's an update at the bottom of this page.
Have you ever wondered what an Alinskyism is?
by Norman E. Hooben
Saul Alinsky was is probably the most influential character in American politics during the last half a century. Without getting into his life story suffice it to say that he has injected more hatred for the American way of life into the Democratic Party than any one person. Even Hillary Clinton admired this man so much that she wrote her college thesis about him. Saul Alinsky is famous in the world of liberal academia because his methods fall in line for the ultimate destruction of this Republic. For it was the Communists who took on his tactics to get control of the American educational system...just look at who controls Harvard (John Harvard would be appalled), Yale, Georgetown, UCLA, ...and the politicians they develop.
Alinsky wrote a little red book titled, "Rules For Radicals" and we can list some of them here. But before we do, I can summarize most of the book with one sentence, "Tell them one thing but do the opposite." Most Alinskyites (Alinsky followers) have been doing this since FDR (and before), Johnson did, as did Carter, Clinton, and now Obama. Take FDR for example...during his campaign he was against everything his opponent was for and yet almost all of FDR's policies were that of the guy that lost.
All of the politicians I've mentioned have the ability to preach a good sermon while expressing their patriotism and yet not one of them has ever done one good thing for the Republic for which we (the people) stand. Everything gets progressively worse over the long run (huh, is that why they like to call themselves progressives), especially the national debt and the dwindling loss of freedoms (i.e. by instituting numerous rules and regulations either by fiat, dictates by unelected government agencies, Executive Orders, and occasionally by an actual law passed by both Houses and signed by the president. I might add in this parenthetical space that it would not be illegal to disobey an EO for the president does not have the authority to make laws. You as a citizen have the responsibilty to obey laws and EO's are not laws.)
Now before Obama came onto the national scene the most influential Alinskyite was Bill Clinton who's major agenda was is one world government. He spoke of his new world order on many occasions and most of his legislative wishes were to enhance that outcome; the new world order! While the Clintons were raised in an America that they knew was founded on Judeo/Christian principles and understood that fact while at the same time despising anything to do with organized religions, their Alinsky-like influence on the American voter was accepted because they preached a good sermon. Obama however, was not raised in the traditional American household or neighborhood. His entire life has been influenced by Communists (of which he was a member of the New American Party), Marxists, and Islamists. Obviously he was groomed for the position he now holds and he got their by making use of Alinskyisms...say one thing but do the opposite. The Judeo/Christian definition of that would be a lie. The Clintons understood that. The Islamic or Muslim defintion of that would be....aah lets see, anything you want it to mean as long as the desired outcome fits your agenda. And that's exactly what Obama is doing here: ↓ see video ↓

Obama is preaching a good sermon but does not believe a word of it. Remember, Obama does not have a conscience so lying with every other breath does not bother him in the least...he's after one thing; his agenda! Although his agenda includes a one world government absent of all organized religions except Islam. He's even friends with the guy that wants to place the flag of Islam over the White House, but that's another story. Meanwhile I promised I'd list some of Alinsky's Rules For they are:

Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals

Here is the complete list from Alinsky.
* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
* RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
* RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
* RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

By the way, even reporters have trouble getting the point across to a complacent society of voters as evidenced by the following:
Reporting for World Net Daily, author/researcher Jerome Corsi recently reported, “President Obama is continuing President George W. Bush’s effort to advance North American integration with a public-relations makeover calculated to place the program under the radar of public opinion and to deflect concerns about border security and national sovereignty. ~ See Obama Continues Bush's Sellout Policy
If Corsi would emphasize the point by outright telling his readers that Obama lied instead of using such words as, "a public-relations makeover calculated to place the program under the radar of public opinion and to deflect concerns about border security and national sovereignty"... "Placing the program under the radar of public opinion." Does the average reader voter really comprehend the enormity of such words as "a public relations makeover" or " deflect concerns" ? Why doesn't he come right out and say, "Obama is lying."? And that, my friends, sums up an Alinskyism, say a bunch of words that sound good and nobody will ever know what they really mean once you've said them...confusing huh!


If you're not worried about how your country will look like after you're gone, then you don't need to watch the following...but maybe you should let your children watch for they will be the most affected.

If you are worried, what are you going to do about it?


Has there been a coup? Please America, put this one together.

The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to an 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 us. 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. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.” ~ Author Unknown
Here's an updated brings to light what an Alinskyism really is...note the applause(s) for the lies.

Saturday, July 16, 2016 --Here's an update that squares well with the definition of an Alinskyism. 
In an attempt to downplay Donald Trump's leadership abilities, Hillary Clinton goes off the deep end by describing most of, if not all, Barack Hussein Obama's policies.  Remember, Donald Trump has had no previous political expertise (And that's a good thing!) so how is it possible that he could do all these bad things that fit perfectly with Obama's total political expertise.  When she accuses Trump of ridiculing our military it was Obama's plan to get a civilian national security force greater than our military...and let's not forget all the high ranking officers and NCO's Obama has fired plus lowering our military readiness to levels below that of the start of World war II.  I suppose the only thing you need to remember is that Donald Trump's foreign policy is the exact opposite of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama...if you don't know by now, it was is their policies that allowed all the Muslim terrorists into our country and to infiltrate the military. ~ NEH
Take this video with a grain of salt for none of it is's an Alinskyism  !!!



Forget Obama...Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, Kerry and the rest

All that we are looking for is...

Have you got your Obamacare yet?