syc-o-phant
noun A person who acts obsequiously toward someone in order to gain advantage; a servile flatterer.
by Mychal Massie @The Daily Rant
The other
evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn’t like the Obama’s?
Specifically I was asked: “I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama’s? It seems
personal not policy related. You even dissed their Christmas family
pic.” The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their
ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation. |
| Mychal Massie |
I don’t hate them
per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of
racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America.
They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those
who are willing to admit the same for Michelle Obama’s raw contempt for white America
is transpicuous.
I don’t hate them per definition,
but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are
elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display
disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are
willing to admit same Michelle Obama’s raw contempt for white America is
transpicuous.
I don’t like
them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress. I expect, no I
demand respect for the Office of President and a love of our country and
her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President
and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her
people. The Reagans made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we
could accomplish. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice
Department to act like jack-booted thugs?
Presidents are
politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to
manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard,
the Obama’s have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and
obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry and they
display an animus for civility.
I do not like
them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard
Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly,
and her code speak pursuant to now being able too be proud of America. I
view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide
a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged
progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most
powerful, position in the world. Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage
whites, because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure
her right to do same.
I have a
saying, that “the only reason a person hides things, is because they have
something to hide.” No president in history has spent over a million
dollars to keep his records and his past sealed. And what the two of them have
shared has been proved to be lies. He lied about when and how they met,
he lied about his mother’s death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied
to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family.
He has lied about his father’s military service, about the civil rights
movement, ad nauseum.
He lied
to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. He
berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself
with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today. He has fought for
abortion procedures and opposed rulings that protected women and children, that
even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to
business and aggressively hostile to Israel.
His wife treats
being the First Lady, as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the
most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people
are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family
are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement – as he goes about
creating and fomenting class warfare.
I don’t like
them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them
and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show
our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying
the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for
Congressional authority.
Dislike for
them has nothing to do with the color of their skin, it has everything to do
with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for
their playing the race.
It is my
intention to do all within my ability to ensure their reign is one term. I
could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible
terms the media for refusing to investigate them as they did President Bush and
President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are.
There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his
wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people as
these two are permitted out of fear for their color.
As I wrote in a
syndicated column titled “Nero In The White House” – “Never in my life, inside
or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader.
He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the
low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious
arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated
to sainthood…Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of
color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a
congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire
life, failed policies, intimidation and a commonality hitherto not
witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense
as an entitlement – while America’s people go homeless, hungry and
unemployed.” (WND.com; 8/8/11)
Oh, and as for
it being personal, you tell me how you would feel if a senator from Illinois
sent you a personally signed card, intended to intimidate you and your family.
Because you had written a syndicated column titled “Darth Democrat” that was
critical of him. (WND.com 11/16/04) ...See below
He is eloquent, well spoken, with a
membrane-thin veiled socialist agenda cloaked in flowery speech. But unlike
Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn. – who had to be reminded by Rep. Nancy Pelosi,
D-Calif., that while congressional blacks were no longer relegated to ticket
taker in a cloakroom, they had better not forget their place – Barack Obama,
D-Ill., is just the kind of black man elite liberals can use.
But also unlike Ford, Barack Obama is much
more appealing to blacks nationwide and thus much more formidable when you
combine that with his ability to raise large contributions, his Muslim roots
and education, his ability to rivet national audiences with his snake-charmer
oratory skills and an appealing mien that connects well with liberal voters.
Accordingly, Lord Obama could very easily morph into “Darth Democrat.”
It
should be no surprise that he is from Illinois.
Illinois has a long history (from Capone to Daley) of empowering the
unsavory. This unsavory comes with a smooth veneer that reverberates a thirst
for power.
He
has presidential ambitions stitched into the very fabric of his being, and as a
student of history he understands the danger of remaining a senator if he is to
be successful with his ambitions.
Granted
there are worse things than a black uber-liberal socialist Muslim, supposedly
now Christian Democrat in the White House (unless your name happens to be
Clinton). The question is: Who would want them visited upon this generation?
America
is more ready than ever before to elect a black president, but this is not the
one we want to break that unprecedented historical ground.
In
a speech at his party’s national convention, he spoke of “work” that could be
successfully completed through socialistic intervention and programming. He
also bares the stripes of most uber liberals, i.e., the willingness to make it
up as he goes along.
Speaking
in a U.S. Senate debate (Oct. 26, 2004), Obama emphatically claimed
responsibility for Illinois’ successful welfare reform. The truth – as written
by Steve Stanek a year earlier – finds no relationship with his on the record
accounts. With minimal investigation one finds he not only played no role in
the Illinois reforms, but he was not even in office at the time. (Illinois
leads the nation in welfare reform; Illinois Leader, Sept. 10 2003).
He
is gifted at twisting his verbiage in such a way as to deform the truth. In his
speech at the Democratic National Convention, he spoke of “… measuring up to
the legacy of our forbearers.” While that may sound good, there is a
discernable difference between “forbearers” and the Founding Fathers of our
country.
Obama’s
forbearers are Kenyan, and it is alleged his grandfather was a slave owner. His
reference to “forbearers” had nothing to do with those who sacrificed their
lives life to establish a free society based on equality.
His
statements were code omitting same, referencing instead an Afro-centrism and
Pan Africanism. It was a deliberate attack against the foundation of our
country and what we represent.
Another
trademark of uber-liberal socialists like Lord Obama is complete disregard for
human life – especially the lives of the elderly, physically challenged and the
unborn. Or in Obama’s case, even the “Live-born abortion victims.” He claimed
his reason for not supporting SB1093, the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act,”
was the measure didn’t include the “life and health of the mother” provision.
A
question that begs an answer is where, exactly, does the threat to the mother
lie in said infant protection? Interestingly enough, Obama refused to support
two bans which did include exceptions for safety of the mother. So his refusal
to support anti-partial-birth abortion bills HB382 and SB230 comes as no
surprise.
He
also refused to support SB1095, which creates a cause of action for harm or
neglect that comes to a child “born-alive” after a labor-induced abortion. Add
to that his “no” vote on SB1661, also part of the “Abortion Alive Protection
Act,” which created the “Induced Birth Infant Liability Act.”
His
positions on crime, sex education for grades K-5, homosexual marriage and taxes
are out of the mainstream of the so-called liberal mainstream.
Obama
embraces the darkest interests of the uber-liberal socialist. It can be argued
there are worse things than a Clinton ticket in 2008 – and any ticket with
Barack Obama on it is one of them.
_________________
The following cross-posted from Pat Dollard
Excerpted from The Blaze: The compilation attached here is first product posted online by an amateur video editor. TheBlaze interviewed the project’s creator. The man (who wishes to remain anonymous) told us that he wanted to show his undecided friends (as well as those considering voting for Obama) the stark contrast between what the president has said in the past and what he has said and done in office.
No comments:
Post a Comment