Monday, February 01, 2016

Who is This Guy in the Oval Office? (Part 24)


*******
*******

The Alleged Lesbian Porn Films Of Obama's Mother  
Published on Apr 15, 2015
Alex Jones talks with documentary filmmaker Joel Gilbert about the latest news about Obama's past.
*******
An Open Letter to President Obama
By Leave EU • 3/17/2016
March 16, 2016
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear President Obama,
On June 23, citizens of the United Kingdom will decide on whether or not to leave the European Union in an historic referendum.
It is a vote of profound consequence that will decide whether matters of economics, trade, and security are best handled in conjunction with the broad needs of twenty eight member states or the direct concerns of the people of the United Kingdom.
With so much at stake, it is imperative that the question of exiting the European Union is not one answered by foreign politicians or outside interests, but rather by the British people who must ultimately live with change or the status quo.
The benefits of a truly independent United Kingdom begin with the optimistic prospects of a country that can thrive without the obstacles of tariffs and trade restrictions imposed by distant and unaccountable bureaucrats; but also include the responsible and respectable handling of our country's border policy amidst the ongoing migrant crisis.
Faced with a vote of "Leave" or "Remain" the approaching referendum also puts the matter of national destiny in the hands of the citizenship: Are we better served tethered to the needs and restrictions of the European Union or would an amicable break from the EU permit a surge in industry and innovation that would further bolster the U.K. as an economic force?
In the coming months the British public will evaluate the merits of a "Leave" or "Remain" vote and issues of national sovereignty must be decided exclusively by the people of the United Kingdom.
While it is understandable that a sitting U.S. president feels the obligation to speak in the interest of the United States, it must be advised that even a passive diplomatic recommendation in the matter of our national decision will receive the opposite of the intended effect.
The referendum vote is an act of democracy in its most direct form, and the question of whether or not to leave the EU is a rare political topic that is not owned by any one political party. This is a chance for the British people to choose the path of their country. Interfering in our debate over national sovereignty would be an unfortunate milestone at the end of your term as President.
As fellow elected representatives, we would therefore ask that you abstain from any intended advocacy in the matter of the approaching referendum, and allow democracy to take its course. We would therefore respectfully ask that you refrain from further politicizing this debate by intervening in our approaching referendum and instead allow democracy to take its course.
Peter Bone
Member of Parliament
Kate Hoey
Member of Parliament
Tom Pursglove
Member of Parliament
Kelvin Hopkins
Member of Parliament
Sammy Wilson
Member of Parliament
Nigel Farage
Member of the European Parliament
*******
There Is a Cancer Growing in America
Cancer of ignorance and lack of leadership, and it is growing into a malignancy
By Ray DiLorenzo -- Bio and Archives
January 29, 2016
There is a cancer growing in the United States.  It is the cancer of ignorance and lack of leadership, and it is growing into a malignancy.  Too many of us, both in and out of public service, cannot or will not recognize what is threatening our very existence and cannot decide elemental questions like:  Is capitalism better than socialism?
When George Bush (43) left office, the Middle East was stable and al Qaeda was on the run.  Now Iran is on the verge of a nuclear weapon with the means to finish the project and further fund terrorism throughout the world…and we’re helping to pay for it!  AL Qaeda has been allowed to morph and combine with other groups to form ISIS, creating havoc over the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and soon, to a greater degree, the United States.
Syria, Iraq and Libya have experienced hundreds of thousands of dead including a veritable Christian holocaust with millions of refugees pouring into Europe and the United States; many of them creating a hardship for the host country.
Why?  Because our lack of leadership has been nothing less than stunning.  Our president and his administration, with much Democrat support, refuse to see the world as it is.
Even Bill Maher, the liberal idealist, challenged Charlie Rose (appropriate name for the colored glasses that he wears), who said that Christians are much like Muslims in their intolerance.  “No, that’s not true, not true.  Vast numbers of Christians do not believe that if you leave the Christian religion you should be killed for it…To tell me that Islam is just like other religions is naive and just plain wrong.”
Our ignorance is equally devastating in its depth of illiteracy as to what socialism entails.  Bernie Sanders is giving Hillary Clinton a serious challenge for the Democrat presidential nomination and almost half of the Democrat Party believes socialism is either good or are open to it.
Do our schools still teach history and economics?  Do they teach that the only difference between socialism and communism is that socialism is voted in while communism is forced in?  And if they still do teach economics, are they teaching that waiting in line for hours for a pair of shoes (if any are available) is better than a trip to the mall?
Many voters, especially young people are supporting Bernie Sanders.  That tells me that there is a tremendous knowledge gap created by an education system that is antithetical to our very system of government and our Judeo-Christian heritage.  And it has bled profusely into our culture, government, entertainment and institutions.
The disease did not happen overnight.  It has been a long time coming and it has been allowed to grow unrestrained.
The future always belongs to those who are willing to see over the next hill, accept it for what it is and deal with it.  The cancer is growing and it will, unless checked, kill the host.
Ray DiLorenzo is a career pilot having retired after 22 years as a contract fire pilot with the California Department of Forestry (Cal-Fire).  He is presently affiliated with Stand Up America founded by Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely (Ret)
*******
*******
Obama’s War on Car Dealers
The whole point is to ultimately pen Americans in like cattle. Making cars too expensive and difficult to buy is a great start in implementing this.

By Timothy Birdnow -- Bio and Archives 

January 27, 2016
Writing at Net Right Daily, Dustin Howard chronicles an attack by the Obama Administration on car dealers:
“Peter Roff, who writes for U.S. News and World Report, has recently documented how the Obama Administration’s “watchdogs” are waging war on the car dealers of America, trying to destroy their business model. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) organized an event last week that was “designed to show the franchise model on which the industry operates is anti-competitive and results in consumers paying higher prices for new cars than they ought,” wrote Roff.
As Roff noted, the CFPB is alleging that dealerships are employing discriminatory practices to harm minority car buyers. He also noted that they have a “specious” empirical basis to do so.  He instead points to research that overtly contradict the notion that competition is being restricted by franchisees to harm Obaconsumers. Why then do they press on?
Taken with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) flawed modeling to assume that auto dealerships are discriminating against minority consumers, it seems that a full scale assault is underway.
This begs the question, why would they do this and who stands to gain?
Roff came short of saying that the Obama administration is clearing the way for Tesla, who has enjoyed a cozy relationship with the administration. Tesla has obstacles that prevent them from expanding, particularly that they want to have an Apple Store-like, manufacturer to consumer model that is prohibited in many states. Tesla seems to be leveraging their political connections to ameliorate their growing pains, to the point of using them as a weapon against their competition.”
Obama Administration hates the internal combustion engine and seeks its overthrow in our society
And indeed Dustin is correct; the Obama Administration hates the internal combustion engine and seeks its overthrow in our society. Ostensibly the Administration wants to promote “green” automobiles, which means electric cars (which take more energy and generate more greenhouse gases than a regular old-fashioned gas burner) but in the end what they seek is to control the movement of the public. Electric cars, with their limited range, are ideal to promoting restrictions on the movement of the public. That movement is an inalienable right, as I have argued.
Another point to ponder here; what Obama is doing to the auto industry is exactly what his friends in Congress did with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Housing Bubble was generated by government imposed “fairness” to promote minority home ownership. The government, in it’s boundless wisdom, decided that banks should be forced to make loans to people with sub-par credit, and do so in neighborhoods that did not command top dollar. The increase in risk was passed along to investors via bundling of loans and the monetizing of the mortgage industry. The result was a wild west where people without jobs were borrowing hundreds of thousands of dollars and living well beyond their means. The result was the correction of 2008 which saw America drop into the worst economic period since the Great Depression. All of this was caused by government interference in an industry that thought to manipulate.
There is no difference here, except that cars are a little cheaper and are mobile. It’s a lot harder to repossess a vehicle than to foreclose on a home.
This will, of course, drive the prices of automobiles way up, just as it did the price of housing prior to the crash,. That is, in my opinion, the4 whole point; the Feds want to force people out of cars and into Uber or bicycles. It is a part of Agenda 21/30, to get America to eschew the automobile and thus become a sedentary people, one that is easier to control and monitor.
Tom DeWeese has an excellent essay about Agenda 21.
As Scott Strzelczyk and Richard Rothschild point out in an article on Agenda 21 at American Thinker:
 “Community leaders working together in Carroll County recently defended their county against overreaching smart growth initiatives. Richard Rothschild, a candidate for Commissioner, emphatically remarks, “Smart growth is not science; it is political dogma combined with an insidious dose of social engineering. Smart growth is a wedding wherein zoning code is married with government-sponsored housing initiatives to accomplish government’s goal of social re-engineering. It urbanizes rural towns with high-density development, and gerrymanders population centers through the use of housing initiatives that enable people with weak patterns of personal financial responsibility to acquire homes in higher-income areas. This has the effect of shifting the voting patterns of rural municipalities from Right to Left.”
Smart growth plans usurp property rights and constitutional rights. Local officials, at the behest of State Government, revise zoning laws to fit into a “smart code” zoning template. A massive reshuffling of property rights ensues. Farmers may lose subdivision rights; conservation land adjacent to population centers may be rezoned into commercial employment centers; and low-density land in small towns is re-designated as growth area and rezoned to accommodate diverse housing including high-density apartments and condominiums. “
It also has the added benefit of allowing the Federal Government to overturn redistricting in Republican-controlled states by simply colonizing red districts with “blue” people.
And one way to guarantee that the public remain in these high density urban centers is to restrict the means of transportation. That is behind the drive to develop driverless cars that Google - a good friend of Agenda 21 - has undertaken.
Here is an example:
“George Gilhooley, an engineer with consulting firm HNTB, says the effort to attain better, more efficient usage of highways is helping drive the adoption of these new technologies. Apart from optimizing road use, the main issue is one of safety. He feels that the sooner traffic managers can respond to a given situation – and get traffic moving again – the better.
According to RITA, because of the variety of vehicle and infrastructure safety systems installed or planned, the focus must be on consistent and widely applicable standards and protocols. There are two forms of connected vehicles: those which can communicate with other vehicles and those that communicate with the infrastructure itself.”
In either case, the driverless car is under the watchful eye of the authorities - and likely under their control as well. And this article in The Guardian gives us a glimpse into the WHY of driverless cars:
“Point-to-point systems such as bike-sharing programmes allow users to pick-up and drop-off vehicles at different locations. If properly designed these schemes can be complementary to public transport. Users can take a bus or subway train and then transfer to a shared bicycle for the last mile of their trip.
But bikes tend to cluster at popular locations at certain times of the day, while other locations may be devoid of available vehicles. Shared bike programmes solve this problem by redistributing bikes manually via truck. This is very costly and operators can never keep up with the demand for redistribution. Studies point to the significant impact bike redistribution has on total operational costs in running a shared bike programme. Clearly using trucks to move cars is hardly a reasonable proposition.
But with autonomous vehicles, we can solve this problem and release the power of the collaborative consumption economy. Imagine the following scenario: a customer uses a smartphone app to request an autonomous shared vehicle, it arrives at your door and drops you to your destination, and the vehicle then either moves on and picks up another customer or parks itself and recharges.”
So, if the price of cars rises too high we shall go to “shared vehicles”. Uber is a start on that, and Uber-like programs will increase over time. As cars become too expensive (and my brother was complaining that he had to buy a five-year-old vehicle when he has worked for Ford for 20 years!) and traffic more onerous - thanks to bicycle lanes and skinnier streets, two gifts of Agenda 21’s planning - the “shared vehicles” will become more and more attractive. And driverless cars will become more and more of a necessity. Of course, those driverless cars will have restricted travel areas.
With the development of hydraulic fracturing we have seen a worldwide collapse of the price of oil, ruining the careful planning of the internationalists and the environmental lobby.  It now becomes difficult to restrict the gasoline engine with cheap oil and no global warming, and so the Administration must act tan a different level. Car sales and roads are the next battlefront
The whole point is to ultimately pen Americans in like cattle. Making cars too expensive and difficult to buy is a great start in implementing this.
Timothy Birdnow is a conservative writer and blogger and lives in St. Louis Missouri. His work has appeared in many popular conservative publications including but not limited to The American Thinker, Pajamas Media, Intellectual Conservative and Orthodoxy Today. Tim is a featured contributor to American Daily Review and has appeared as a Guest Host on the Heading Right Radio Network. Tim’s website is tbirdnow.mee.nu Timothy can be reached at: tim@timothybirdnow.com
 

*******
Also See:
Who is This Guy in the Oval Office?
(Part 1)
16 February 2009
and
(Part 2)
22 April 2009
and
(Part 3)
16 June 2009
and
(Part 4)
03 August 2009
and
(Part 5)
03 January 2010
and
(Part 6)
20 May 2010
and
(Part 7)
21 November 2010
and
(Part 8)
14 February 2011
and
(Part 9)
03 August 2011
and
(Part 10)
10 October 2011
and
(Part 11)
11 December 2011
and
(Part 12)
18 April 2012
and
(Part 13)
01 July 2012
and
(Part 14)
25 October 2012
and
(Part 15)
14 December 2012
and
(Part 16)
22 May 2013
and
(Part 17)
27 July 2013
and
(Part 18)
07 October 2013
and
(Part 20)
10 February 2014
and
(Part 21)
03 June 2014
and
(Part 22)
22 December 2014
and
(Part 23)
23 October 2015
and
Who will be the Next First Lady?
01 July 2008
and
Is Michelle Obama a Princess?
02 October 2013
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2013/10/is-michelle-obama-princess.html
*******

No comments: