Three More Years!

Yep, just three more years before Obama is gone.  Out the door.  No longer matters.  Can’t screw up things any more – at least, not in a way that we’ll have to care about.

And, Barry, it isn’t racism which is making us dislike you – its the whole incompetent fool thing which is getting us down.

Advertisements

174 thoughts on “Three More Years!

  1. ricorun January 20, 2014 / 10:00 pm

    Noonan: And, Barry, it isn’t racism which is making us dislike you…

    Perhaps not, but it’s posted in the “Barack Hussein Obama” category. While that’s technically correct, I’m sure you appreciate the power of words. So if you really want to stress “the incompetent fool thing” and not the racial or ethnic thing, maybe you should un-stress the middle name. Just sayin’.

    • Amazona January 20, 2014 / 11:49 pm

      …but then he couldn’t finish with mmmmmm mmmmmmmm mmmmmmm

      If you really want to get out of the RRL whine rut, maybe you should stop looking for things to identify as racial or ethnic. Just sayin’………………

      • neocon01 January 21, 2014 / 10:01 am

        reek-0
        perhaps barry soetoro should have kept his real name and not taken the “racist” name of bark HUSSEIN (like sadam) obama.

      • neocon01 January 21, 2014 / 10:04 am

        OR
        he could shorten it to something like……barak X ,
        I mean how could “X” possibly be racist?? Ooh Wait!!

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 22, 2014 / 7:47 am

        What Neocon did they boot you off The Blaze?

      • neocon01 January 22, 2014 / 9:03 am

        no freddy, how about you?

    • M. Noonan January 21, 2014 / 1:46 am

      Ricorun,

      We know – using the President’s middle name is racist. So is calling ACA “ObamaCare”. We dig it. We understand that anything we say which Obama and minions decides is racist, is racist. But, then again, we don’t care what Obama and minions say – all they are doing is attempting to shut down debate, like the little fascists they are.

      • Amazona January 21, 2014 / 11:27 am

        I’m sure the only reason anyone thinks Richard Sherman is a total jerk—had to search for a blog-permissible word——-is because of his skin color.

  2. Retired Spook January 21, 2014 / 11:08 am

    THREE MORE YEARS — What a depressing thought.

    • M. Noonan January 21, 2014 / 3:23 pm

      Hey, better than 8!

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 22, 2014 / 7:49 am

        It’s 11 if you count Hillary’s two terms.

  3. Harley January 21, 2014 / 1:10 pm

    Unfortunately he can still do a lot of damage in 3 years. I hope congress keeps doing nothing until Hussein Obama is gone.

    • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 22, 2014 / 7:50 am

      Damage? Stop being a baby and go back to listening to country music, watching NASCAR and reading Rush’s website. Your millionaire friends in the GOP are depending on your ignorance to keep them in their station.

      • neocon01 January 22, 2014 / 9:06 am

        “millionaire friends in the GOP” ???….like bark, hitlery, nancy, harry, all the kennedys, etc etc etc etc…..Oh Wait!! ROTFLMAO!!!

      • Amazona January 22, 2014 / 1:12 pm

        Awww, Freddy the Bigot is digging down into the archives to come up with what he evidently thinks are stinging retorts and devastating insults. Clearly he shops at Cliches R Us.

    • ricorun January 25, 2014 / 6:03 pm

      Harley: I hope congress keeps doing nothing until Hussein Obama is gone.

      I’d say that kinda proves my point. This “Hussein” silliness is tailor-made to be taken the wrong way — specifically, the way neocon indicated: “as in Saddam”. That’s not likely to attract many fence-sitters to your side. Just sayin’.

  4. Amazona January 21, 2014 / 8:48 pm

    I heard someone on Brian Kilmead’s radio show yesterday explaining that Obama has been rewriting Obamacare as he goes—–and saying it very casually, as if this is just business as usual, nothing at all odd or wrong about it—–and he will be issuing a lot of Executive Orders because he doesn’t want to have to work around Congress.

    Do these people not realize that “rewriting laws as you go along” and bypassing Congress with Executive Orders because you can’t be bothered with the legislative process are signs of a dictatorship, not a presidency?

    Or do they realize it, and just don’t care, because they think Barry is just so darned special and wonderful he SHOULD have complete control and authority?

    In any case, none of this would be irreparable. Any and all of these arrogant and unilateral acts can be undone by a real president. And I took the subtext of this carefree prediction of how Obama will run the country for the next three years as a de facto admission that is is ALL he can do. He already has some Dems nervous, as they have to go home and campaign later this year burdened with the baggage of Obamacare and faced with their refusal to call anyone to account for Fast and Furious, Benghazi, or the IRS scandal. If the Republicans take a lot of Congressional seats and governor seats, those Dems who didn’t have to run in ’14, or who are up again and managed to skate by this year, will be even more nervous. I don’t see him garnering a lot of support for any more big-vote takeovers, especially if the Right makes a big enough splash in ’14.

    He can do some short-term damage, but I hope that is all. And if Congress in 2015 votes to repeal Obamacare, no matter whether or not he vetoes it, it will sting him, and it will send a message to other Dems that he is toxic and they need to keep their distance. Even a repeal vote in one house of Congress will be scary to the tyrants, or at least to those whose votes they need to do more damage.

  5. tiredoflibbs January 22, 2014 / 6:43 am

    “Do these people not realize that “rewriting laws as you go along” and bypassing Congress with Executive Orders because you can’t be bothered with the legislative process are signs of a dictatorship, not a presidency?”

    Nope – these are people who only live in the present and who could care less about learning from history and are not worried about repeating it.

    “Or do they realize it, and just don’t care, because they think Barry is just so darned special and wonderful he SHOULD have complete control and authority?”

    Yes, the mind of a proggy drone is frightening. We have had prominent Democrats in the House and Senate tell us that they want obame to continue issuing Executive Orders and bypass Congress and the “evil” Republicans. Rangel has even said that “we should use Executive Orders for everything”.

    The average proggy doesn’t care because they are the beneficiaries of whatever vote buying scheme put forth by the left.

    • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 22, 2014 / 7:46 am

      Here’s the other half of the Rangel quote:

      “I’ve never [indecipherable] since we’re going to record, how a group of people — a police officer once told me when I get — that the worst criminal to deal with is one that doesn’t mind dying. And if you take a look at what these Tea Party have done, recognize that there’s more sick and poor white folk than there is but they still are resisting everything that the president wants to do. So they can destroy the people in their district in terms of education and jobs, the Congress, and the Republican name and when we had the debt ceiling crisis, they were really prepared to let the United States of America fiscal policy to go to the tubes. How can you talk with people like this?”

      • neocon01 January 22, 2014 / 9:11 am

        freddy

        “How can you talk with people like this?”
        when you and your ilk refer to middle class AMERICAN’s who are educated, work, own businesses, property, PAY TAXES, Love God and country as “people like this” you have already taken your self out of the conversation and proven your self to be a bigoted, racist, Christo – hetero phobe.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 22, 2014 / 1:08 pm

        For one thing Neocon most of the conservatives don’t fit into that group. The vast majority of them don’t own businesses, aren’t educated or own property. The bulk of conservatives are working class and poor whites who have swallowed the Southern Strategy hook, line and sinker.

      • Amazona January 22, 2014 / 1:17 pm

        See post, above, for comments on poor pathetic Freddy’s rummaging around in tired old cliches and talking points.

        “Southern Strategy”?? Seriously? You guys are still using that silly old cliche? I guess when you’ve got nothing else, you have to try to recycle tired old nonsense.

        But thanks for pointing out that you are going to steadfastly ignore the real definition of “conservative” and hang onto what makes you happy, the bigoted biases that draw you to your chosen political model.

        “white folk? You are such a hoot. “There IS more than there IS”??? An illiterate one, to boot.

        Check out that First Rule of Holes, Freddy. (And no, it is not the one you like, the one that says any old hole is fine for anything you want to put in it.) When you find yourself in a hole, sonny, it is time to stop digging. And you really should not let me just keep handing you a new shovel.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 22, 2014 / 1:38 pm

        Amazona there’s no button I have that you can push. I’m far more happy making hash out of your opinions than I would engaging in an insult fest. Tired old cliches? What do you think was the basis for Sarah Palin’s rogue campaign in 2008? It was classic Southern Strategy. Look at the map of the states that Mitt Romney won in 2012 and then look at the states Nixon won in 1968 and then come back and we can talk about the political similarities.

      • M. Noonan January 22, 2014 / 2:12 pm

        Have you looked at the map? Romney won 3 of the southern States that Nixon won. Have you even the foggiest notion of anything that happened prior to, say, 2005?

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 22, 2014 / 2:21 pm

        My point Professor Noonan is exactly that. In 1968 the GOP was terrified of the notion that the votes it would need to secure the White House had been snatched by a 3rd party candidate, Wallace. Kevin Phillips Southern Strategy pushed forth by Agnew and Nixon on the campaign trail made another run by a Dixiecrat or an Independent impossible as it pitted urban whites against urban blacks as if they were competing for the same jobs and economic positions. Fast forward to 2012 and the same Strategy failed as it was used to reinforce conservative voters in Southern cities who sat on their hands. The Southern Strategy worked both in rural areas in the South but as well as in sparsely populated racially homogeneous rural counties in blue states like California, Oregon and New York.

      • M. Noonan January 22, 2014 / 2:28 pm

        Fredrick,

        That is just a bunch of gibberish strung together. It has no meaning. It isn’t based in any facts. Nixon didn’t win the “solid South”; neither did Romney. Three GOPers have done that – Nixon in 1972, Reagan in 1984 and Bush in 2000 and 2004. And Nixon and Reagan were winning 49 States in both those elections, so its not like it was a unique thing. Every other election since the beginning of the GOP as a party has had the GOP failing to win the “solid South”.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 22, 2014 / 2:38 pm

        You aren’t reading with understanding. The shock of Wallace’s victories in the South and the turmoil resulting in the GOP concerned that a populist Democrat could carry the South made the changes in strategy necessary. That strategy has been the same in GOP Southern politics ever since. I never said the won the South every time. My point is that this is their strategy divide and conquer . The GOP just doesn’t realize their voting bloc is shrinking to the point where they don’t have the numbers anymore.

      • M. Noonan January 22, 2014 / 3:13 pm

        Fredrick,

        Each party has a divide and conquer strategy – its how you win elections. And I’d say the racist party is the party which obtains 90%+ of the votes of one particular ethnic group.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 22, 2014 / 3:22 pm

        I would disagree and say that party has a message that resonates with those voters.

      • M. Noonan January 23, 2014 / 1:06 am

        But it is still divide an conquer – you must separate yourself from the other side and show by argument they are wrong. You can do this gently as Reagan did or wickedly as Obama has done, but you must divide and conquer to win in politics…because you’re never going to get a set of policy proposals which will command anything close to unified support.

      • Amazona January 22, 2014 / 7:05 pm

        And the message since 2008 has been “now it’s OK to openly hate people because of their color, if their color is not black”.

        It’s been very popular.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 22, 2014 / 8:57 pm

        It’s the political philosophy held by those people that is hated, not their skin color. It just happens to be a coincidence that the vast majority of people with this political philosophy happen to be white.

      • Amazona January 23, 2014 / 11:59 am

        Freddy, Freddy, Freddy, if you insist on posting lies and nonsense, you ought to at least make a token effort to make them at least remotely believable.

        To say that the racial hatred of blacks toward whites, fed and encouraged by this administration, has nothing to do with skin color is so far beyond absurd, it can only be seen as a bizarrely blatant lie. It is not even in the same universe as the truth.

        Aside from the fact that most of the racial hatred from black people comes from people who never mention politics and never mention anything remotely political, they come right out and use racial terms and references to color.

        Come on, Freddy—not even you are that dumb.
        You are, though, evidently that dishonest.

    • neocon01 January 22, 2014 / 9:17 am

      tired
      the thief, criminal wrangle from harlem? THAT one??
      to quote a lecher-thief like that would be comical and cartoonish if it werent such a sad commentary about those who keep “voting” him in.

  6. Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 22, 2014 / 7:24 am

    I heard someone on Brian Kilmead’s radio show yesterday explaining that Obama has been rewriting Obamacare as he goes—–and saying it very casually, as if this is just business as usual, nothing at all odd or wrong about it—–and he will be issuing a lot of Executive Orders because he doesn’t want to have to work around Congress.

    Well, letting the fact that you were listening to Fox Radio go, I would have to question where this “someone” got their information. I found the report from Fox Radio by Mike Emanuel which quoted Kansas GOP Senator Jerry Moran who said, “Here once again, we have an administration that one more time, without consulting Congress, without legislative changes, is altering their signature piece of legislation, Obamacare: The Affordable Care Act.” I read this as being Senator Moran’s opinion since there have been only three Eos to this point that have anything to do with ObamaCare. The first of those was to reinforce the directives of the Hyde Amendment.

    Do these people not realize that “rewriting laws as you go along” and bypassing Congress with Executive Orders because you can’t be bothered with the legislative process are signs of a dictatorship, not a presidency?

    Virtually every President has “bypassed Congress” within their Constitutional Executive powers with Executive orders. Only two have ever been overturned as being unconstitutional one by Truman and the other by Clinton. There was a Congressional veto until the Supreme Court, in 1983, found that power unconstitutional. Do you notice Amazona how many checks and balances there are in regard to Executive Orders? Can you see that this is working in a constitutionally correct manner? Do you wish you had gotten a little more information before shooting your mouth off? Let’s keep playing!

    Or do they realize it, and just don’t care, because they think Barry is just so darned special and wonderful he SHOULD have complete control and authority?

    The United States Constitution does not allow for a single individual to become vested fully with the power of all three branches of government. Now it isn’t coup d’etat proof but it is by its definition dictator proof. I think Obama is an intelligent man surrounded by an opposition who has decided the wrong path to keep themselves from becoming politically extinct by siding with the base of their party which is already mired in the tar pit. The establishment GOP has to save itself from the TEA Party and ultraconservative wing or the conversations we are having now will be viewed by most Republicans as “the good old days.”

    In any case, none of this would be irreparable. Any and all of these arrogant and unilateral acts can be undone by a real president. And I took the subtext of this carefree prediction of how Obama will run the country for the next three years as a de facto admission that is is ALL he can do. He already has some Dems nervous, as they have to go home and campaign later this year burdened with the baggage of Obamacare and faced with their refusal to call anyone to account for Fast and Furious, Benghazi, or the IRS scandal. If the Republicans take a lot of Congressional seats and governor seats, those Dems who didn’t have to run in ’14, or who are up again and managed to skate by this year, will be even more nervous. I don’t see him garnering a lot of support for any more big-vote takeovers, especially if the Right makes a big enough splash in ’14.

    The phrase “real president” I take it is some sort of mystical dig at President Obama’s legitimacy to be the 44th President of the United States, which, by the way, he is and will remain for three more years. Your opinion of how Obama will run the country is meaningless. It has no bearing on anything. You vote counts; your opinion doesn’t. Sure there are some career politicians who are worried that their districts might have enough people in them who will vote tribally and shift from the moderate camp to the conservative camp. But I disagree with your rationale. I’m betting that there will be no ObamaCare baggage in November 2014 at all. There’s no way the gerrymandered House will come back to the Democrats unless something truly devastating happens on the Right of a more serious nature than a few real shady estate deals in New Jersey and the fact that the former Virginia governor’s wife is a shop-a-holic. That really doesn’t matter because the House can stay with the GOP until 2022 and the only effect this will have is placing more pressure on the Establishment GOP to ward off TEA Party and other conservative challengers. The more the GOP fat cats win in primaries the more it will embolden the TEA Party to bolt and take two thirds of the dying base with them leaving a moderate GOP that will work with Democrats to get things done. That coalition government, starting in 2017, will be what makes Hillary Clinton a two term President. Madame 45. Hmm. I love the ring that has don’t you?

    • Amazona January 22, 2014 / 10:03 am

      Oh Freddy Freddy Freddy, your passion is impressive but your ignorance is astounding, and now you are desperately trying to shore up your blind allegiance to the wrong side by simply trying to be deceptive.

      It may be in your favor that you are so bad at it, but still, you try…………

      OK, you have to get in your mandatory snipe at Fox News. I supposed it was Fox—I don’t know. On Monday all the stations I usually listen to changed their formats and shuffled around the shows they carry, so instead of a local weather and road report I was listening to a strange voice carrying on, in evident admiration, about the ways Obama gets around Congress. His last name, I caught, was Henry. Ed Henry? I could, I suppose, find out, but does it really matter? He is obviously an ardent Obama supporter, out on the airways pushing the Leftist propaganda that there is nothing wrong with the president “rewriting laws”.

      I disagree. And so does the Constitution. Laws can be repealed, but they cannot simply be ignored, or rewritten, by the executive branch.

      You chose to focus on the Executive Orders, because that is a marginally safer area for you. Your comments on EOs is so riddled with nonsense it would take me pages to deal with it all. Suffice it to say that no EO can have the power to overturn or rewrite legislation.

      And in Obama’s case, he has used his EOs to do things like expand the powers of the EPA so far beyond its original scope, and to grant the agency the ability to decide on its own, without scientific research or legislative action, what is “pollution”—-and then the power to do whatever it wants about it. With the stroke of his pen Obama created an agency of unelected political appointees and bureaucrats which is so vast and so powerful it amounts to another branch of government.

      “Can you see that this is working in a constitutionally correct manner?”

      No.

      ” Do you wish you had gotten a little more information before shooting your mouth off?”

      I assume you are looking into a mirror when you snarl this.

      And so on………….

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 22, 2014 / 1:16 pm

        Deceptive? Those are your words in boldface, not mine. I reposted verbatim and replied with facts to refute the opinion of a GOP Senator from Kansas who is the someone.

        Obama isn’t rewriting any laws. Two sections of the US Constitution give the president the power to pen Executive Orders. George Washington did it to the tune of eight of them in his two terms in office. So are you saying that Washington was rewriting laws or does this opinion of yours simply apply to the sitting President?

        Once again no laws are being ignored by the issue of any EO by Obama since 2009. There have been two constitutional challenges in favor of Congress on EOs as I pointed out. If the House Republicans really thought Obama was overreaching don’t you think at least the TEA Party faction could find a willing law firm to march to the federal court house in DC to issue a challenge? You have cast reason aside simply in the name of partisan animus. That is not the sign of an intelligent person. Well you are a conservative . . .

      • Amazona January 22, 2014 / 1:27 pm

        But you did this in the utterly mistaken belief that I was referring to something he said. As I pointed out, unless his last name is Henry, and he was swooning over the prospect of Obama doing all this really cool stuff, some Senator from Kansas is NOT “the someone”.

        Pay more attention to that suggestion that you stop listening to the voices in your head. They are having way too much fun leading you into making a fool of yourself.

        And you did not “refute” what some Senator from Kansas said, you just sniped at it.

        “Once again no laws are being ignored by the issue of any EO by Obama since 2009. ”

        And once again, the two comments—(1) Rewriting laws and (2) Issuing Executive Orders—refer to two different things.

        Duh.

        And once again, it was this Obama kneepadder who was so blissed out that Obama was going to use his Executive Orders to bypass Congress.

        You really do have a hard time keeping up, don’t you?

        Or, more likely, you are not interested in keeping up, preferring to wallow in even more of your delusions and fantasies, which allow you to post endless nonsense in pretended response.

        What I said: “I heard someone on Brian Kilmead’s radio show yesterday explaining that Obama has been rewriting Obamacare as he goes—–and saying it very casually, as if this is just business as usual, nothing at all odd or wrong about it—–AND he will be issuing a lot of Executive Orders because he doesn’t want to have to work around Congress.

        You see, the use of the word “AND” indicates another, additional, thing or thought. Not the same one.

        It’s really not that hard to understand, if understanding is one goal and responding to what is said is another.

    • Amazona January 22, 2014 / 10:07 am

      The Constitution makes the country dictator-proof only when and if it is followed.

      When it is whittled away, eroded and diminished, as it has been, it becomes increasingly impotent. Don’t believe me? Find, in any of the 17 enumerated duties of the Constitution, stating what the federal government must do, anything that has anything to do with providing health care. Find, in any of the 17 enumerated duties of the federal government, anything that has anything to do with establishing, by presidential fiat, agencies which can control vast amounts of personal liberty as well as the economy.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 22, 2014 / 1:19 pm

        Look find anywhere in the Constitution that says anything about an invention that came about after it was written. Helth insurance didn’t exist back then anymore than aircraft carriers did. I’ll stand on the fact that it was passed by Congress, signed by the President and declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. What have you got that makes ObamaCare anything but the law of the land except for your contempt?

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 22, 2014 / 2:05 pm

        Modified? You, Amazona? Really? You the one who has accused Progressives of redefining marriage, you want to modify a definition so it will fit your worldview? Classic. My day is made.

      • Amazona January 22, 2014 / 5:12 pm

        “I’ll stand on the fact that it was passed by Congress, signed by the President and declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. ”

        Yes, I’m sure you will. And you are almost right. It WAS passed by the Democrats in Congress, it WAS signed by the President. But it was NOT declared constitutional by the Supreme Court.

        This is one of those lovely little lies you lemmings cherish. However, it is still a lie.

        The Supreme Court was not asked to rule on the constitutionality of the “Affordable” “Care” Act. It was asked to rule on the constitutionality of using the law to force individuals to enter into contracts, whether or not they want to.

        And the Court, for what is still an incomprehensible reason, said yes, the Constitution does allow the federal government to punish people for refusing to be forced to enter into contracts with businesses, even when they don’t want to do so—IF the punishment is cloaked as a tax instead of a fine or a penalty.

        It has yet to be asked to rule on whether or not having the federal government pay for health care is constitutional. The argument for saying it is not is that it is not one of the 17 enumerated duties of the federal government. The argument for saying that it is is “who cares? We want to do it.”

        The Constitution can be changed. It has been changed 27 times. It was written with the full understanding that the future (that is, the time following the late 18th Century) would have more and different problems than those existing at the time the Constitution was written and ratified, which is why the amendment process was included. When and if something develops that the American people believe should be added to the enumerated duties of the federal government, there is a mechanism for doing so.

        What is NOT in the Constitution, for a very good reason, is a clause that says that if a handful of politicians, dependent on the national political structure of their party, appease the party by voting to have the federal government do something that is NOT a delegated responsibility of the federal government, that’s OK because gee whiz, what they want to do is really cool and those old farts back in the 1700’s just didn’t have a clue.

        The incursion of the federal government into the private business of citizens—that is, into contracts they make or do not make with insurance companies to pay health care costs—-was not voted on by the American people. It was never even fully explained to the American people. As we have seen come out recently, what was told to the American people was a pack of lies, which were known to be lies when they were told. This incursion, not into health care itself but into a vast array of what should be private business of citizens, was in a massive pile of papers never even read, much less understood, by those who voted to make it all law. It might as well have been decided by a coin toss.

        It is simply ridiculous, though illustrative of a basic ignorance of the Constitution and of contract law, to say that a contract can be changed at will, with no process, just because a few people are in the mood for a change.

    • Amazona January 22, 2014 / 10:14 am

      “The phrase “real president” I take it is some sort of mystical dig at President Obama’s legitimacy to be the 44th President of the United States, which, by the way, he is and will remain for three more years.”

      Well, that’s what you get for listening to those voices in your head. It was not a “mystical dig”, it was a “mystical fantasy” existing only in your own mystically fantastical little fantasy world.

      I meant president, as opposed to tinpot tyrant.

      The rest of your breathless, hysterical little snit is nothing more than proof that when faced with facts all you can do is become overheated and overcome with angst, and submit to the need to emote, emote, emote.

      But do keep in mind, while sharing these fantasies of yours is probably as therapeutic for you as sharing the others, and using your silly invented language in posts, etc., it really just comes across to us as a lot of fluttery hand-waving and squawking about your extensive list of wishful thinking.

      Such a long post of yours, full of quotes you pretend to address and may even think you have debunked, yet really nothing but a lot of shrill squealing, indicating that you know this is all you have.

      ” I love the ring that has don’t you?” Actually, what that has the “ring” of is the old comment that every man loves the smell of his own farts.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 22, 2014 / 1:24 pm

        Tyrant–
        1
        a : an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution
        b : a usurper of sovereignty
        2
        a : a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally
        b : one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power

        The first three definitions don’t fit the sitting President at all. The fourth is your out because it is a matter of opinion–not a fact. I don’t have any fantasies as it applies to politics, only facts. And the facts are you can’t do anything about Obama, ObamaCare or any national election that will take place for the next 20 years. You can mock me all you want that doesn’t make your arguments any more factual. Actually, they make it almost impossible for anyone to take you seriously. Attacks on the opposition is what people do when they have no facts or ground to stand on Amazona. Come on you’re better than this.

      • Amazona January 22, 2014 / 1:40 pm

        a : an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution
        b : a usurper of sovereignty

        “Unrestrained by the law or constitution”. For now, that would have to be modified to read “Somewhat” unrestrained by law or constitution. It is not yet absolute.

        One example: Obamacare is, as you guys keep squealing, the “law of the land”. That is, it was voted into law by enough members of Congress, and then signed into law by the President of the United States. Within the thousands of pages of this law are many clauses, conditions, and regulations which are part and parcel of the law. Many of these have been overturned by presidential fiat. The President has simply announced that this law, or that rule, or the other regulation, need not be followed or enforced.

        This is what is meant by “unrestrained by law or constitution”

        Expanding the powers and authority of a government agency, giving it what had been reserved for legislative action, is certainly an example of being unrestrained by the constitution.

        Allowing, and then supporting, declarations from a department of the Executive Branch about which laws will be enforced and which will not, as has happened regarding Eric Holder’s selective approach to honoring his oath of office, is certainly proof of being “unrestrained by law or constitution”.

        “Usurper of sovereignty” All we have to do is look at the times Obama has decreed that state sovereignty is subject to the rule of the Central Authority to see this tyranny in action. From Voter ID laws to Arizona’s efforts to enforce existing immigration laws to the federal government stomping on state laws on same-sex “marriage”, state sovereignty doesn’t even get a token nod from this president.

        And these are simply quick overviews. In reality, any one of them would be adequate to make my point, but to people like you no number of proofs would distract you from your blind adoration and defense of this tyrant.

        But I do appreciate your generosity in providing me with dictionary definitions of the term “tyrant” so I could bring up a few examples.

  7. neocon01 January 22, 2014 / 9:13 am

    freddy

    glad you want to continue the legacy of know nothing empty suits, to know nothing empty pant suites – leftists ruining America…..some of us dont.

    • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 22, 2014 / 1:25 pm

      Hillary is better than anyone you could possible be in support of in 2016. Weren’t you sold on Herman Cain in 2012? Aren’t you a fan of Allen West? You’re lucky they let you near a voting booth.

      • Amazona January 22, 2014 / 1:43 pm

        Racist.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 22, 2014 / 1:43 pm

        No Amazona, realist.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 22, 2014 / 1:44 pm

        This comment makes more no more a racist than my disdain for Sarah Palin makes me a misogynist. Do try to keep up.

      • Amazona January 22, 2014 / 2:03 pm

        Oh come on, sweetie—your disdain for Sarah Palin is based on mindless acceptance of a litany of character assassinations and lies from your minders, and you know it. It, like your other “political” opinions and comments, is devoid of actual political or intellectual content, and wholly dependent on a clutter of silly smears.

        And Sarah Palin is hardly the source of your misogyny.

        And, of course, you are so totally humor-deficient and incapable of self-analysis that you completely missed the joke in turning back on you the Left’s automatic knee-jerk claim that any lack of adoration for any black person is racist.

        I think I am seeing an uptick in votes for “clueless”, regarding an earlier question about you.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 22, 2014 / 2:06 pm

        One my disdain for Palin is because she’s stupid and doesn’t know it and thereby doesn’t get the help she needs to rectify the situation. I got the joke, I just don’t want to play that game, it’s even more stupid.

      • Amazona January 22, 2014 / 2:09 pm

        What does Hillary have to offer?

        OK, she is admittedly a hard-core radical Leftist, who wrote her thesis on the genius of Saul Alinksy, and whose history was one of support ot communism, the Black Panthers, etc. You have to see that as a plus, though you are completely politically illiterate and don’t have a clue about the actual ideology of the Left. You like the words, and she has identified herself as a “Progressive”. Enough said on that front.

        She is sexually ambiguous, which means she can play the woman card when appealing to the feminist demographic and still not offend people like you. (Plural “you”)

        She has a history of being absolutely incompetent, on top of which she has layered a history of being absolutely dishonest. She lacks ethics, she lacks courage, she lacks charisma, she lacks class. All she really has to offer is that she is not a Republican.

        Oh…..I see I have answered my own question.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 22, 2014 / 2:11 pm

        here we go. Alinsky! Hard core Leftist! Communist! Hello! Amazona! it’s 2014 not 1963! Stop already with the I wish I had been cooler when I was young and supported Vietnam tripe. You did what you wanted to do then and you regret it now because you . . . this isn’t the place for that discussion is it?

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 22, 2014 / 2:13 pm

        Sexually ambiguous? What does that have to do with being the Leader of the Free World? people is already plural Amazona no need for the sidebar.

      • Amazona January 22, 2014 / 2:11 pm

        Watching you call Palin “stupid” is quite entertaining.

        She is actually quite bright, and the “stupid” thing was fed to the mindless lemmings eager for more fodder for their hatred and resentment. Clearly you found it quite tasty.

        She sure cleaned Biden’s clock in the only debate the Left would allow, realizing that he had to be kept as quiet as possible and that any comparison to Palin would inevitably harm him.

        Comparing him to Obama was no threat.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 22, 2014 / 2:16 pm

        If she is quite bright then I haven’t seen it. Being able to act on a stage during a debate doesn’t make you qualified to be a heartbeat from the Oval Office. Biden isn’t a genius either but he can surround himself with qualified people, like Reagan did; Palin would have destroyed the Office of the Presidency in short order after taking the oath. America would have suffered possibly irreparably from her lack of foreign policy knowledge. It would have been a disaster of apocalyptic proportions.

      • canadianobserver11 January 22, 2014 / 2:42 pm

        Amazona
        January 22, 2014 at 2:03 pm

        “And, of course, you are so totally humor-deficient and incapable of self-analysis”…Amazona @2:03 pm
        —————————————————————————————————————–
        Oh, the irony. Haha, you are a card, Amazona.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 22, 2014 / 2:48 pm

        Now that’s comedy!

      • canadianobserver11 January 22, 2014 / 2:55 pm

        Amazona
        January 22, 2014 at 2:11 pm
        ————————————————————————-
        Mama Grizzly has given up any ambitions relating to political office. After running away from her stint as Alaska’s governor she set her sights on Hollywood. She’s now a TV reality star with a Facebook account. Her vitriolic opinions have little impact on her targets and just go to make her more of a laughing stock in the eyes of the world.

        Your high estimation of her intellect, Amazona, makes me question yours.

      • Amazona January 22, 2014 / 3:32 pm

        “Palin would have…”

        Yet more brainless wishful thinking paraded as political commentary. And how odd to say that the Vice President would have “destroyed” the office of the presidency.

        Hey, if Barry can’t do it, it can’t be done.

        As for the “narny narny narny I know what you are but what am I?” level of repartee from the allegedly Canadian non observer and Freddy, well, it’s not very impressive.

        And let’s face it, CO, you always question my intelligence. Which has to make the sting even worse, as you have yet to win a sparring contest with me.

        You and Freddy, and your ilk, come storming onto the blog full of bombast and BS, but when challenged to simply explain how you think the United States should be governed, which political system would provide the best outcome, and why, all you ever do is fall back on the same old same old of whining, insulting, deflecting, and so on.

        You expend so much energy, yet accomplish absolutely nothing but emoting of how you FEEL about whatever.

        Freddy here has filled up a lot of room with his words, yet left no trace of any actual ideas.

        It’s all “I like (Obama, Hillary, whoever…”)

        And “I can’t stand (Palin, West, whoever…”)

        And “If you like someone I don’t like you are just a big poopy-head”.

        But never an actual thought, about why this principle of government is better than that, how it has been tried and proved or tried and failed, or anything even remotely similar.

        It’s all just shrill emoting, rapidly degenerating into simple name calling.

        Or, as we call it, “Leftist political discourse”.

  8. canadianobserver11 January 22, 2014 / 10:46 am

    If the accusations the hysterical right wing claim President Obama is guilty of are actually true and he is indeed being unconstitutional in his actions and has introduced a dictatorship rule, why hasn’t the man been impeached? Surely, the President’s opposition have factual evidence that would be more than enough to start proceedings. What are they waiting for?

    The excuse that GOP representatives are wimps and are not doing the job they were elected to do doesn’t hold up as they would be more than overjoyed to have President Obama removed in disgrace from the office of the Presidency.

    Can anyone here explain, without the usual name calling and hyperbole, why he is still your President and leader of the free world?

    • neocon01 January 22, 2014 / 10:52 am

      because of dumbed down fools like you.. NEXT?

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 22, 2014 / 1:27 pm

        CO isn’t an American citizen likely to his delight. You got nothing, clearly, for the millionth time. How do you not just implode from hate and ignorance?

      • Amazona January 22, 2014 / 1:53 pm

        Well, the allegedly Canadian observer of so little may, or may not, be a citizen. As we have seen from you forker personas, it is deemed to be a credential to not be an American, but as we have also seen, these claims are often pure BS. (Remember the supposed Norwegian who was really an American citizen of Iranian descent? Or the pretense of the “lead economist” who always referred to “USD”? All silly juvenile role playing.)

        And neo is quite correct. Obama is president not because of his ability, his qualifications, his accomplishments, or anything else of real note. He is president because he has excelled at manipulating the emotions of the gullible, the dumbed-down, and the ignorant.

        If imploding due to hate and ignorance were possible, we would be wiping greasy bits of Freddy from our computer screens.

        And I think you mean “explode” as a large amount of anything, including hate and ignorance, would create an outward pressure, not a vaccum. An example: One might wonder why your brain does not implode.

    • Retired Spook January 22, 2014 / 11:14 am

      Can anyone here explain, without the usual name calling and hyperbole, why he is still your President and leader of the free world?

      CO,
      The sad fact is that a majority of elected congressmen and senators don’t take their constitutional oath any more seriously than Obama does.

      • canadianobserver11 January 22, 2014 / 12:04 pm

        What about folks like Ted Cruz and other Tea Party favorites, Spook? Surely, they take their constitutional oath more seriously than the majority of elected congressmen and senators. I suppose, however, without the support of other Republicans, they are rather helpless. Do you think if there are more constitutional conservatives elected this year and you have the majority in the Senate and Congress there will be a greater likelihood of advancing impeachment proceedings?

      • Amazona January 22, 2014 / 1:08 pm

        CO, regarding impeachment, see my comments, below.

        The Left would love to see impeachment proceedings, because they could be spun to generate even more racial discord, and the more discord and conflict in a nation, the more disparate groups that can be set against each other, the more “issues” can be ginned up to suck people into warring camps, the better it is for the Left.

      • Amazona January 22, 2014 / 1:10 pm

        What scares you RRL types is the fear that the Right has learned from your antics, analyzed your tactics, and is going to approach the problems of the nation in ways that are harder for you to distort and use.

        This is why you keep taunting us to do what you want/NEED us to do.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 22, 2014 / 1:29 pm

        Oh boo hoo. Spook I really expected better from you. But you know what in November you get to vote and that’s as best as I think you’re gonna get. Primaries are going to be brutal for the GOP and some of the candidates that win will be unelectable in the general. I doubt if anything will change but you know if you get enough TEA Party whack jobs in the general it might blow up in the GOP’s face.

    • Amazona January 22, 2014 / 11:55 am

      I think the real reason is the effectiveness of the preemptive campaign by the Left to portray even the slightest criticism of even the most blatant and documented misdeed of Obama as RACISM.

      They have, very craftily, set up a no-win situation in which law-respecting Americans either tolerate law breaking or take action which is already set up to provide a platform for even more racial divisiveness and possibly even racial warfare.

      If you want to argue that initiating impeachment proceedings against Obama would not inflict even more damage onto the country than the administration’s, and the Left’s, efforts to date to generate racial hatred and distrust, then please do so.

      My opinion is that Obama as president is, in the long run, less harmful to the country than the inevitable outcome of pressing the cases that would justify impeachment.

      I further believe that you know this, and are just coyly posing a bogus question. It certainly is easier than trying to deny his wrongdoing, or defend it, isn’t it?

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 22, 2014 / 1:31 pm

        Okay I’m saving that comment so I can offer it back to you in 2, 5, 10 and 20 years from now when there is no “racial warfare.” Oh so you are one of those people who think there will be riots if Obama is impeached? Stay classy Amazona.

      • Amazona January 22, 2014 / 1:49 pm

        Oh, come on. There were riots when a white man killed a black attacker in Florida.

        Fueled, of course, by comments from the White House, but still……….

        There were riots when a black race-baiter claimed a black woman had been raped, though there was no evidence.

        Every objective criticism of a POLICY of Obama’s has been met by squeals of racism.

        And you think the nation would remain calm while Obama was being examined for misdeeds in office and subjected to hearings?

        You sometimes try to present yourself as sane but sneering at the potential for race riots if Obama were to be charged is hardly a way to maintain that illusion.

        Nice little bitch comment, about “staying classy”. Clearly in your own fantasy world, “classy” has nothing to with being honest, truthful, ethical, or realistic, as this is what you seem to find so objectionable in me.

        But none of your uber-hysterical temper tantrums distract from the fact that for more than a day now you haven’t even tried to discuss facts or policies, and have instead retreated to your default positions of projecting wistful fantasies of what you would like to happen, sneering at people who know more than you do (which is pretty much everyone here on this blog, anyway) and being bitchy.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 22, 2014 / 2:09 pm

        No Amazona, what I find most objectionable about you is your arrogance, smugness and the fact that you are knowingly on the wrong end of history and too prideful to admit it.

      • Amazona January 22, 2014 / 3:55 pm

        You squeal that I am “on the wrong end of history”. What an utterly stupid statement. How the hell can someone be “on the wrong end of history”? You are where you are.

        What you are doing is trying to deny history, or at least to pretend it doesn’t matter. You are trying to say that nothing Hillary has ever done, said or believed is relevant to your adoration of her today, or to her qualifications to be president. That supporting Communism, defending anti-American murderers, choosing as her mentor an avowed Communist and writing her thesis on his advice on how to overturn our government, are all of no import. And to you, they clearly are not. But to one who has a coherent political philosophy, they are.

        It is not really as complicated as you try to make it.

        I believe that the United States of America must be governed according to its Constitution, as that Constitution is written. I believe that any president must share that belief. Therefore, I do not think that anyone whose core political beliefs are contrary to the rule of law set out in the Constitution should be be considered for the office of the presidency.

        So when I look at the historical beliefs of a potential candidate, the actions of that candidate, the statements of that candidate, and find them antithetical to the body of law, as well as the intent and philosophy of that Constitution, I do not find that potential candidate acceptable.

        You seem to work backwards, looking at a snapshot of that person prepared, photoshopped, altered, tweaked and polished and the presented to you, and then just ignoring anything that came before that snapshot because it doesn’t matter to you.

        What is funny is watching you frantically try to justify this refusal to factor in facts when you are joining your fan club.

        And history simply IS. You can admit to what happened, you can try to deny what happened, you try to spin what happened, but you can’t make it unhappen.

        What is so funny about your stumbing bumbling efforts to impugn the fact that I learn from history is that you don’t even know history, much less have the intellectual courage to learn from it. I can see why history is so threatening to you—history tells us, in no uncertain terms, that the system you so ardently promote and defend has not only never succeeded in even coming close to the starry-eyed dreams you have of it, it has failed so spectacularly, so consistently, with such horrible consequences, that only the foolish or the corrupt can still support it.

        That puts you in a very uncomfortable place. I understand that. And I understand that this is why you have to make a choice—-to understand history and change the way you think today, or to deny history and cling to what you think today. And your choice is clear. You have chosen to dismiss history, to believe that Progressivism is new, without a sordid and ugly past, and that although it is untried it just makes so darned much sense it has to succeed.

        (An annoying little factoid you just ignore is that even if you can convince yourself this is not a tired old, always-failed, incarnation of an overall system of failures, you still have to invent a whole new agenda for your fantasy system. Because you claim it will result in more individual freedom, when its underlying philosophy is the subjugation of individual freedom to the Collective. You claim it will result in more religious freedom, when its true ideology is the substitution of the State for God, and its determination to not have any competition for that religion. You claim it will result in economic prosperity, when its goal is to eliminate prosperity in favor of economic equality, where everyone is reduced to the same level, and in which there is no possibility of economic advancement.)

      • M. Noonan January 23, 2014 / 1:04 am

        People on the left are always stating that history is on their side – Chesterton once noted that in a book defending Marxism that the author got one thing right and then another thing absurd. The author correctly pointed out that the people who despoiled the monasteries in 16th century England could claim no moral or intellectual superiority over those they despoiled – but then the author went on to say that they were still right in so doing because it was a historical necessity that the monasteries be despoiled! These people just don’t really understand the words coming out of their own mouths…

    • M. Noonan January 22, 2014 / 2:24 pm

      Depends on what you mean – how did it get in, or how does he stay in?

      Getting in was just a series of bizarre circumstances which worked in his favor. Most importantly, the reason why we refer in 2014 to President Obama rather than President Clinton is that Obama was the “Un-Bush” of the Democrat primary season of 2008. You might recall my article (archived, so it can’t be easily accessed these days) from September of 2007 where I announced that Obama would be the Democrat nominee in 2008 – based upon the fact that of all the candidates, he was the only serious one who hadn’t voted to authorize the liberation of Iraq in 2003. The ignorant and hate-filled base of the Democrat party having been fed lies about Bush and Iraq for years was determined that the Democrat nominee be completely free of the taint of Iraq. Now, to be sure, I thought this was a fine thing because I figured Obama was about the only candidate the Democrats could put up in 2008 who could possibly lose, even to someone like McCain. A complete zero from the corrupt realm of Democrat politics who represented the hard left in ideology, I believed that Obama couldn’t win…I didn’t take in to full consideration how cowardly the GOP would be in face of the first credible African-American candidate for President, nor that the MSM would be quite so unwilling to even provide a bare-bones of the man’s resume’. When the financial crisis hit, the game was up – now with a bad economy added to all else, Obama was a sure thing to get in. And, so, he is.

      2012 went pretty much as I expected it to except for the fact that we lost – all objective factors in 2012 indicated an Obama loss was as certain as anything can be in politics. Bad economy, failed policies, corruption – all of these indicated that in November a new President would be elected. Didn’t work out that way because, once again, a bit of rare luck – a GOPer who decided to pull his punches from the start of October on, a freak storm which allowed a completely unpresidential man to look Presidential (and Christie’s hugs didn’t help here), a bit of voter fraud in Florida and Ohio (which is really our fault – we should have done better in both places to put the States outside the usual “margin of fraud” Democrats bring to elections) and, presto!, Obama is in for a second term.

      Now, as to why he hasn’t been impeached – it is quite simple: there never will be 67 votes in the United States Senate to convict him. It doesn’t matter how many times Obama breaks the law (and he breaks it on a pretty routine basis), the Democrats will never agree to convict in an impeachment trial…and the reason they won’t is because they fear to alienate the African-American vote. As our first African-American President, Obama does pretty much get to do whatever he wants…it is just too bad that when we finally got around to electing our first African-American President we had someone as ignorant, hate-filled, egotistic, arrogant and stupid as Obama.

      • canadianobserver11 January 22, 2014 / 3:03 pm

        “Getting in was just a series of bizarre circumstances which worked in his favor.”…Mark.
        —————————————————————————————————————–
        I was under the impression that he twice became President due to the election process. You know, when the people go to the polls on election day and vote for the leader of their choice. If you consider free elections bizarre, Mark, I just don’t know what to say.

      • M. Noonan January 22, 2014 / 3:12 pm

        CO,

        Don’t be obtuse. The circumstances were bizarre, and thus people decided it was ok to vote for someone who, in the event, is entirely unsuited for the office. Isn’t the first time this has happened, isn’t the last…this is just the first time where the dimwit who slipped in was assigned messianic significance by the most ignorant part of the American population (ie, the liberals).

      • Amazona January 22, 2014 / 3:58 pm

        ….this is just the first time where the dimwit who slipped in was assigned messianic significance..

        Well said………….

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 22, 2014 / 4:11 pm

        Mark so one could say the same thing about the election of 1980 then? Equally bizarre circumstances and the president was elected by the most ignorant part of the population? Or is it because he was the messianic figure for conservative it’s all different?

      • M. Noonan January 23, 2014 / 1:01 am

        No, the economy sucked and Reagan offered an alternative vision which the people were willing to try given how bad things were – and he had an eight year record of successful governance in California prior to trying for President. There was no mystery about the man – we knew precisely where he came from, what he had done and what he proposed to do.

      • Amazona January 22, 2014 / 7:30 pm

        Ronald Reagan was admired, trusted and respected for his steadfast commitment to a coherent political philosophy, which he fearlessly defined and defended. He had a history of being a good executive in government, including a stint as a very effective governor of California.

        His support was based on this admiration and respect. It was not a hysterical personality cult, with carefully placed females swooning on cue at his speeches or mobs weeping in hysteria at simply being in the same room.

        He was an open book. We knew who he was. We knew his past, his family, his history, his entire resume.

        He was an adult. He ran for office as a grown up, applying for the job of president by stating his credentials and his vision for the governance of America. He told us what he believed, he defined his political philosophy, and he stuck to it.

        Barack Obama ran as a rock star, as the head of a cult of personality. He came out of nowhere, with no accomplishments behind him. He served a term as a state senator, in which he usually voted “Present”, and then got into national office after sealed records in a court case involving his opponent were mysteriously revealed, right before the election. From his first day as a senator from Illinois, he was running for the presidency. We never knew anything about him, and still don’t. We don’t know how he got into the schools he attended, what grades he got, what qualified him to step over qualified applicants to gain entrance into the most prestigious schools in the country. We don’t know who paid for him to attend these schools. We don’t know why he and his wife, and his grandmother, have all claimed he was born in Kenya, when he and his wife have also claimed he was not. We don’t know why he lied and claimed a COLB was a birth certificate when it so clearly was not. We don’t know what he did as a “community organizer”. We don’t know who put up the money to get his opponents removed from the ballot so he could run unopposed, after losing his first election, to gain a toehold in Illinois politics. We don’t know who his political mentors are, or were, other than an anti-American terrorist and his murderous wife. We don’t know how he could afford his fancy house in a fancy neighborhood. We don’t know when or even if he registered for Selective Service. We don’t know how many Social Security numbers he has had, in which states. We don’t know who paid for his trip to Pakistan or what nation’s passport he used.

        He RAN as a messiah. He RAN as a rock star, as a cult figure. He had a phalanx of defenders blocking for him, viciously attacking anyone who dared to ask any of the questions I outline above. He had a carefully crafted strategy of personally attacking anyone who disagreed with him, usually by calling them racists.

        He never ran on his accomplishments, because he had none. He never ran on a coherent vision for governing the country, because he knew he could not openly state that vision, so he substituted squishy platitudes like “Hope and Change”. His elections were orgasms of pure emotion—-blind adoration for him on one side and blind hatred for his opposition on the other.

        Headlines spouted overheated gushing such as the magazine with huge letters screaming THE ONE WE HAVE ALL BEEN WAITING FOR !!!!!

        Anyone who tries to claim that the solid respect and admiration for a qualified man who represented the best the country had to offer is or was in any way similar to the mindless hormonal hysteria of the cult following of an empty suit is simply crazy.

        Take a bow, Freddy.

      • neocon01 January 22, 2014 / 7:51 pm

        C0
        Impeachment would be simple, removal from office with a donk controlled senate would be impossible because the wicked donk party would avoid doing their constitutional duty at all costs, We witnessed that with the senate trial of the lying, perjuring, cheating, employee abusing, drug addled, willy boy.

        nice try at acting dumb though….wellll on second thought!!

        PS
        there is MASSIVE innercity voting fraud……the donks know it only takes a few well placed precincts to tip the state, why do you think the varmits oppose voter ID with hair on fire reaction.
        However it doesnt seem to bother the same people who sign up by the tens of millions for welfare, section 8, food stamps, medical care, free everything (all opm) and HAVE TO SHOW ID for those purposes……….not just a bit suspicious to you???
        maybe you and freddy are part of that dumbed down, “useful idiot” group EH??

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 22, 2014 / 8:53 pm

        This excerpt from a speech by Ronald Reagan, and the location in which it was given in the summer of 1980, tells me everything I need to know about your “coherent political philosophy”:

        Today, and I know from our own experience in California when we reformed welfare, I know that one of the great tragedies of welfare in America today, and I don’t believe stereotype after what we did, of people in need who are there simply because they prefer to be there. We found the overwhelming majority would like nothing better than to be out, with jobs for the future, and out here in the society with the rest of us. The trouble is, again, that bureaucracy has them so economically trapped that there is no way they can get away. And they’re trapped because that bureaucracy needs them as a clientele to preserve the jobs of the bureaucrats themselves.

        I believe that there are programs like that, programs like education and others, that should be turned back to the states and the local communities with the tax sources to fund them, and let the people [applause drowns out end of statement].

        I believe in state’s rights; I believe in people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level. And I believe that we’ve distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended in the constitution to that federal establishment. And if I do get the job I’m looking for, I’m going to devote myself to trying to reorder those priorities and to restore to the states and local communities those functions which properly belong there.

        I’m going to try also to change federal regulations in the tax structure that has made this once powerful industrial giant in this land and in the world now with a lower rate of productivity than any of the other industrial nations, with a lower rate of savings and investment on the part of our people and put us back where we belong.

      • percybeezer January 23, 2014 / 8:53 pm

        Wow! I get a thrill up my leg everytime I read those words!

        … bureaucracy has them so economically trapped that there is no way they can get away.
        … that should be turned back to the states and the local communities
        I believe in people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level.
        … by giving powers that were never intended in the constitution to that federal establishment.

        Could you Quote Mr. Reagan some more? If only we recognized what a visionary he was before he was elected in 1980; many had doubts but it was his actions that made believers out of us.

        I just swoon at the very thought.

      • M. Noonan January 24, 2014 / 2:15 am

        Enjoy:

  9. neocon01 January 22, 2014 / 8:01 pm

    c0
    he sealed his birth certificate, he sealed his school records, he sealed his draft notice/status, he sealed his SS number, he sealed his passport, he sealed his student loan status, he sealed his name change info, dont you ever ask WHY????
    this “guy” is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated upon the citizens of the US.sadly the 47% who pay no taxes bolstered the totally blind 12% who voted for the color of his skin and the results are really very simple…..bark HUSSEIN soetoro obama

  10. neocon01 January 22, 2014 / 8:07 pm

    RUT RO – CO & freddy

    Interesting article…….

    January 22, 2014
    Barack Hussein Soebarkah?
    By Jason Kissner

    “One of the unexplained mysteries in the scanty documentation of the early life of the 44th President of the United States is the appearance of the name Soebarkah as his last name on an official document filled out by his mother.

    In a recent contribution to American Thinker, Nick Chase offers very persuasive evidence that the long-form birth certificate released by Obama is a forgery.”</i?

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/barack_hussein_soebarkah.html#ixzz2rAwDSYEN

    • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 22, 2014 / 9:00 pm

      What? Again? Nothing from you about the bribery scandal of the former Virginia governor? Oh wait, that right . . .

  11. neocon01 January 22, 2014 / 11:11 pm

    United States

    Peter Suman, Casper Fritchie, Henry Schell, Adam Graves, Yost Plecker, John George Graves, Nicholas Andrews, 1781, convicted of High Treason July 25, 1781 in Frederick, MD; Suman, Fritche and Plecker were executed on 17 August
    Philip Vigol and John Mitchell, convicted of treason and sentenced to hanging; pardoned by George Washington; see Whiskey Rebellion.
    Governor Thomas Dorr 1844, convicted of treason against the state of Rhode Island; see Dorr Rebellion; released in 1845; civil rights restored in 1851; verdict annulled in 1854.
    John Brown, convicted of treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1859 and executed for attempting to organize armed resistance to slavery.
    Aaron Dwight Stevens, took part in John Brown’s raid and was executed in 1860 for treason against Virginia.
    William Bruce Mumford, convicted of treason and hanged in 1862 for tearing down a United States flag during the American Civil War.
    Mary Surratt, Lewis Powell, David Herold, and George Atzerodt, all convicted by military tribunal and hanged on July 7, 1865 for treason and conspiracy related to the Lincoln assassination.
    Iva Toguri D’Aquino, who is frequently identified with “Tokyo Rose” convicted 1949. Subsequently pardoned by President Gerald Ford.
    Herbert Hans Haupt, German-born naturalized U.S. citizen, was convicted of treason in 1942 and executed after being named as a German spy by fellow German spies defecting to the United States.
    Martin James Monti, United States Army Air Forces pilot, convicted of treason for defecting to the Waffen SS in 1944. He was paroled in 1960.
    Robert Henry Best, convicted of treason on April 16, 1948 and served a life sentence.
    Mildred Gillars, also known as “Axis Sally”, convicted of treason on March 8, 1949; served 12 years of a 10- to 30-year prison sentence.
    Tomoya Kawakita, sentenced to death for treason in 1952, but eventually released by President John F. Kennedy to be deported to Japan.
    Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were Americans executed in 1953 after having been found guilty of conspiracy to commit espionage.

    leftist ho hum
    http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

  12. neocon01 January 22, 2014 / 11:39 pm

    the political lynching of Mr Black has begun

  13. neocon01 January 23, 2014 / 9:32 am

    speaking of dictators…….
    Commanding Generals fired:
    General John R. Allen-U.S. Marines Commander International Security Assistance Force [ISAF] (Nov 2012)
    Major General Ralph Baker (2 Star)-U.S. Army Commander of the Combined Joint Task Force Horn in Africa (April 2013)
    Major General Michael Carey (2 Star)-U.S. Air Force Commander of the 20th US Air Force in charge of 9,600 people and 450 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (Oct 2013)
    Colonel James Christmas-U.S. Marines Commander 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit & Commander Special-Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force Crisis Response Unit (July 2013)
    Major General Peter Fuller-U.S. Army Commander in Afghanistan (May 2011)
    Major General Charles M.M. Gurganus-U.S. Marine Corps Regional Commander of SW and I Marine Expeditionary Force in Afghanistan (Oct 2013)
    General Carter F. Ham-U.S. Army African Command (Oct 2013)
    Lieutenant General David H. Huntoon (3 Star), Jr.-U.S. Army 58th Superintendent of the US Military Academy at West Point, NY (2013)
    Command Sergeant Major Don B Jordan-U.S. Army 143rd Expeditionary Sustainment Command (suspended Oct 2013)
    General James Mattis-U.S. Marines Chief of CentCom (May 2013)
    Colonel Daren Margolin-U.S. Marine in charge of Quantico’s Security Battalion (Oct 2013)
    General Stanley McChrystal-U.S. Army Commander Afghanistan (June 2010)
    General David D. McKiernan-U.S. Army Commander Afghanistan (2009)
    General David Petraeus-Director of CIA from September 2011 to November 2012 & U.S. Army Commander International Security Assistance Force [ISAF] and Commander U.S. Forces Afghanistan [USFOR-A] (Nov 2012)
    Brigadier General Bryan Roberts-U.S. Army Commander 2nd Brigade (May 2013)
    Major General Gregg A. Sturdevant-U.S. Marine Corps Director of Strategic Planning and Policy for the U.S. Pacific Command & Commander of Aviation Wing at Camp Bastion, Afghanistan (Sept 2013)
    Colonel Eric Tilley-U.S. Army Commander of Garrison Japan (Nov 2013)
    Brigadier General Bryan Wampler-U.S. Army Commanding General of 143rd Expeditionary Sustainment Command of the 1st Theater Sustainment Command [TSC] (suspended Oct 2013)

  14. Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 24, 2014 / 2:32 pm

    In the final analysis you have to ask yourselves the question: Are there enough conservative voters in America to stem the tide of rising Progressivism in America? If the answer is no then you have to ask: What can conservatives do with their message to resonate with voters who see them now as having nothing to offer? If the answer to that question is one of anger, or defiance or bigotry then a reasonable person would come to the conclusion that conservatism is dying, a slow death I will admit, but dying nevertheless.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 25, 2014 / 2:41 pm

        As the link points out:
        “As in the past, Republicans do well in red states with lots of land, but elections are won and lost where people actually live even under the Electoral College.”

        This very county map is what made me point out that conservatives don’t have the numbers in urban areas which is where elections are won and lost.

Comments are closed.