Who are we supposed to be hating on now?

Pardon me for being confused but it seems as if this administration wants us to hate everyone but them.  Not only have I never seen hatred toward Americans of all ilks (single mothers, married mothers, mother you-know-whats, rich people (excluding members and friends of the administration), really rich people (excluding celebrities who everyone knows are far better than normal people), kind of rich people, wall street fat cats (except when they are writing checks to Obama's campaign), bankers (except when similarly writing checks to the Obama campaign), insurance companies (except when they are performing fund raisers for Nancy Pelosi), republicans (who want bad water, bad food, bad air, sick kids, etc.) and don't forget Mitt and Ann Romney, no - we are not supposed to like them at all) but I have never seen this degree of hatred before.

It would be a heck of a lot easier if President Obama and his FOO's (Friends of Obama) were a little more specific.  Perhaps instead of saying "rotten rich people" they could say what they really mean as in "rotten republican rich people".  Then maybe we wouldn't have to sit through a Joe Biden melt down http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/05/17/joe_biden_goes_nuts_in_ohio railing against 'rich guys' who 'don't get us' without having to wonder 1) Ummm isn't Joe Biden rich? and 2) Who don't the rich guys who are not Obama and Biden not get?

Don't get me wrong, I am not blaming President Obama for masterminding class envy. It has been around for awhile and despite all the "hope" and "change" we were promised by a campaigning Senator Barack Obama it seems that the only "hope" and "change" President Barack Obama is generating is the "hope" that Team Obama drops this tiresome campaign gimmick.  In fact it seems that President Obama is determined to resurrect the "two America's" BS that was spun by such sincere guys as Johnathan Edwards http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/John%20Edwards%20%28Politician%29. If this strikes you as phony and insincere then you have a good nose for BS.

Interestingly enough, a very famous document called "The Lynch Letter" http://www.africanamericanimages.com/aai/willie%20lynch.htm could very well serve as a training document for Obama and those like him who would divide our country on any and all lines possible.  The letter contains many of the strategies currently being employed by the left to drive a wedge between American's and explains those strategies in a very clear and concise manner.  The letter was intended to show a method to control slaves and Lynch spoke confidently on the matter saying 

"I have outlined a number of differences among the slaves, and I take these differences and make them bigger. I use fear, distrust, and envy for control purposes. These methods have worked on my modest plantation in the West Indies, and it will work throughout the South. Take this simple little test of differences and think about them. On the top of my list is "Age", but it is there because it only starts with an "A"; the second is "Color" or shade; there is intelligence, size, sex, size of plantations, attitude of owners, whether the slaves live in the valley, on a hill, East, West, North, South, have fine or coarse hair, or is tall or short. Now that you have a list of differences, I shall give you an outline of action--but before that, I shall assure you that distrust is stronger than trust, and envy is stronger than adulation, respect, or admiration.

The Black Slave, after receiving this indoctrination, shall carry on and will become self refueling and self generating for hundreds of years, maybe thousands." 

Does any of this sound familiar?  Of course it does, if you listen to the news at least once a week you have probably heard more than one speech encouraging us to hate somebody and often for the very same traits that the speaker himself possesses.  How silly is it for a man like Barack Obama who had an adjusted AGI of over 1.5 million in 2006 http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/03/obama-releases.html to speak ill of "rich people"?  In my neighborhood if 1.5 million isn't rich, it sure is what we would call 'comfy'.  What about Joe Biden who attacked the dreams of "some rich guy"?  Records show that he was pulling in over a quarter of a million a year, and isn't that above the 'hate' index proposed by President Obama? http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57365416-503544/obama-details-buffett-rule-says-millionaires-should-pay-at-least-30-percent-tax-rate/   So why don't we hate Joe Biden? Can it be because his parent's dreamed better dreams than Mitt Romney's parent's?  Isn't that a little bit difficult to substantiate?  Maybe we are supposed to hate those who like Mitt Romney contribute a significant amount of their incomes to charity, something that both President Obama and Vice President Biden seem loath to do.

As you can plainly see, Sex is on Lynch's list also - sex as in gender, not as in fun.  Heard anything about that lately?  In truth you would be hard pressed to honestly look at the Lynch letter and not draw comparisons between the politics of hatred being practiced (almost to perfection) by the Obama campaign and those practices being employed against slaves many years ago.

It would be nice to think that American's are to smart to fall for this crap, but when you look upon a gathering of the Obama faithful it is far to easy to observe the look of rapture in the eyes of his fan's or disciples or whatever you want to call them, and that should scare us.  It should scare us enough to make sure that no matter what we make it to the polls this November and that we make sure that our friends and family who share our vision also execute the franchise.  Don't do it out of hate, let that be the motivation of the other guys.  Rather do it out of love, love for this great country of ours and the endless opportunities that it provides to all of us.

pma

The Usual Suspects....

Martin Luther King is well remembered for his inspiring words, such as the famous delivery of what is now refereed to as "The Dream Speech".   An oft quoted portion of this speech is "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character".  These words are indeed very powerful.

That being the case, how would one judge some of the  characters who are associated with our President?  Look at William Ayers, here is an individual who has not only been guilty of committing terrorism, but is also guilty of embracing it and glorifying it at every opportunity.  A member of the infamous 'Weather Underground' in their heyday, Ayers and his wife were active participants in the bombing of the Pentagon and attempting to murder a Federal Judge and his family.  Only the fact that the FBI illegally obtained evidence against Ayers has kept him from a lifetime in prison.


Not only is Ayers free - he is unrepentant. He laments the fact that he 'did not do more' as a terrorist.  He has been photographed standing on the American flag and has been the on the cover of "Bomb Enthusiast" magazine. Rather than hide in shame as you would expect a notorious criminal free on a technicality to do, Ayers has reveled in his 'celebrity' status.  


There is also Van Jones, a man who has spent his lifetime in an apparent attempt to find a home for his political beliefs. He has been at one time a self proclaimed Communist and remains a Socialist with some extreme beliefs.  His also signed a petition for a movement that is typically called "Truthers" for their beliefs that the events of 9/11 were the result of a conspiracy involving members of the Bush administration.  This was his undoing insofar as being a member (at least an 'official' member) of the Obama administration.  He remains a very vocal member of the far left and is associated with many 'green' initiatives that have a distinctly socialist flavor.


What is truly amazing is that given the looming Presidential election, one would think that both Ayers and Jones would be (in deference to their friend in the White House) maintaining a low profile, but strangely such is not the case.  It is almost as if President Obama feels that the more distractions from his record, the better his chances for re-election.  Why else allow gas prices to skyrocket, or engage in a senseless war of words with Republicans over a non-existent "War on Women"?

It seems rather reminiscent of the "Death of 1,000 Cuts" (a torturous method of killing one's enemies). Is it possible that Obama seeks to create so many 'minor' distractions that focusing on any one of them will waste time better spent elsewhere?  Can the shear number of distractions spell doom for any Right Wing Candidate?


Ayers has recently made news for his mingling with the "Occupy" crowd who seemingly have embraced the terrorist and his teachings.  Still harboring a deep seated hatred of America's military he has been ranting as of late about the preference that uniformed military personnel receiving while boarding planes http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/middle-class-guy/2012/apr/6/bill-ayers-bashes-courtesy-given-uniformed-militar/ and he has also made the idiotic comment that "I Get up every morning and think...Today I'm going to end Capitalism"

In so far as Van Jones is concerned, the former White House Czar  has also been in the news lately for statements like “I think if President Obama came out as gay, he wouldn't lose the black vote," and "President Obama is not going to lose the black vote no matter what he does.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/02/van_jones_obama_wouldnt_lose_the_black_vote_even_if_he_came_out_as_gay.html"
He also has had idiotic remarks too make such as "Occupy saved the entire country from destruction" http://www.theblaze.com/stories/van-jones-occupy-saved-the-entire-country-from-destruction/


Perhaps Team Obama feels that since Ayers was barely a speed bump in the way of Obama's path to the White House and Jones' dismissal from his position as Czar was accomplished with little fanfare, their man in the Oval Office is safe from the scrutiny that he may receive given these associations (Ayers and Van Jones).  But is this truly the case?  Has America learned nothing and are we determined to once again give the President a pass on his radical associations?

One thing is for certain.  You would be remiss to put anything  past this administration.  The  best advice would be to keep a close eye on what the White House does, and a close ear to the ground.

President Obama cannot run on his record.  It would be foolish to think that he and his henchmen don't know this. It would also be easy to believe the White House to be inept at campaign politics.  But remember, we are talking about Team Obama here.  An organization that has gone to any and all lengths to defeat their political opponents and to silence their critics.  Whereas they may seem like bumbler's in actually running the country, they are anything but in attaining the positions of power that allow them to do so.

PMA

The death of innocence....

March of 2012 has certainly ended in a bloody and tumultuous manner, the killing of Trayvon Martin being the primary news story.  Not only has this death shocked the nation, but it has also served as fodder for those who profit from racial division and racial hatred.


But Trayvon was not the only casualty of March, there was also tiny Aliyah Shell a beautiful six year old girl living in Chicago who was gunned down on her front porch as she sat with her Mother's having her hair done. http://newsroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/19/6-year-old-shot-killed-in-chicago/ Naturally one would think that given the massive media scrutiny and quest for justice surrounding the Martin case, the same individuals who are out for blood in Florida would be demanding justice for Aliyah Shell in Chicago, but unfortunately such is not the case.


Who was to blame for Aliyah's death?  Was it a result of "black on black" crime, the kind that is rarely reported on?  No, as CBS News reported "..two purported gang members — 16-year-old Luis Hernandez and 18-year-old Juan Barraza — each have been charged with one count of murder and two counts of aggravated discharge of a firearm in the deadly shooting."


Apparently Hernandez and Barraza are members of a notorious gang known as the "Latin Kings".  According to the boys the shooting which led to Aliyah's death was supposed to be a hit on a rival gang member that the Latin King's had ordered. 


This is not the first 'mistaken' killing in the long and bloody history of the Latin Kings.  The gang is widespread in Chicago (aka Motherland by the gang) and in New York City.  Even a casual Internet search brings up a myriad of stories about the gang and their illicit activities.


Although both Hernandez and Barraza are of Mexican descent, that in and of itself is not a requirement to belong to the gang which boasts many African American members and surprisingly has also branched out into politics.  In an interview appearing in Vibe Magazine entitled "Anatomy of a King" Luis Felipe aka "King Blood" documents his history with the gang and their foray into politics in a failed attempt to garner a 1994 election to the State Assembly of New York for Nelson Antonio Denis.   The story recounts how "Kings answered phones, carried placards and mobilized voters door to door".


The Chicago based gang has also reached infamy for both 'taking down' a National Guard Armory and for having police officers on the rolls of the gang.  This bizarre story is outlined in George W. Knox's "Gang Profile: The Latin Kings" http://www.ngcrc.com/ngcrc/page15.htm  as follows:

 "The controversy that unfolded in Chicago in the fall of 1995 was not limited to the Latin Kings, but basically boiled down to the fact that there were active gang members who were also Chicago police officers. The information seemed overwhelming, from 1992 to 1995 "at least 15 cops have been charged with crimes, forced to resign" who were from "some of Chicago's most notorious street gangs, including the Gangster Disciples, the Latin Kings, and the Latin Lovers" (see: Jorge Oclander, "Gangs Move Into Police Ranks", Chicago Sun-Times, October 6, 1995, pp. 1, 22-23. For example, two officers charged with robbing a store in the summer of 1995 of $700 to $1000 worth of fireworks were identified by the CPD's Internal Affairs Division as being Latin King members (see: Jorge Oclander, "Something Fishy Going On: Neighborhood Wary of Gangs' Link to Cops", October 9, 1995, pp. 1, 8)."

Some sources (such as Knox) contend that the Latin Kings have operated as a gang for over 30 years.  There are those who proclaim that the Latin Kings are not a gang - but rather a social club with a bad reputation.  Again a cursory search of the Internet provides plenty of documentation suggesting that the gang label has been well earned.


What about the government's role in eradicating gangs?  It appears as though millions of dollars have been spent on task force after task force in a vain attempt to shutdown the violence.  In fact, there are those who accuse the city government (never known for honesty and integrity in the best of times) with having been complicit in the growth of the Latin Kings.


This was the consensus of a story by the Daily Kos when reporting on a crime spat in 2011 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/19/986799/- "The corner of Spaulding and Beach in West Humboldt Park in Chicago. For more than 30 years, the area has been called the "Motherland" by the Latin Kings street gang. Three generations of Chicago gangsters and Chicago police and teachers have known about Spaulding and Beach, but the fact that it remains a center of Latin King northside enterprises in Chicago tells a major story about how the city has allowed the major gangs — the Latin Kings and Maniac Latin Disciples, the Black P. Stones and the Black Gangster Disciples, and the Gaylords and Simon City Royals (to name gangs from the three major ethnic groups) — to thrive in Chicago. "


The story went on to speak of Mayor Emmanuel (Obama's former Chief of Staff) and his lack of leadership during the crisis: "But while the shooting (including firing at cops) was going on across the inner city, from Humboldt Park out to 87th and Damen and beyond), Mayor Emanuel was silent about the gangs. City Hall reported that he was in Baltimore, giving a speech to the National Conference of Mayors on the need for infrastructure repairs. If so, it was an almost perfect irony."


Chicago was once the land of Obama and Emmanuel, Axelrod, Jarrett and company.  Michelle Obama recently spoke on the David Letterman show about maintaining a "south side atmosphere" in the White House  http://globalgrind.com/node/828586 certainly she was not talking about the atmosphere of fear that is so pervasive in the south side now. 


Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming the Obamas or Rahm Emanuel or anyone else for the murder of this poor little girl.  The murder was simply insanity.  The insanity of violence, the insanity of hatred and the insanity that is gang life.  But I also would charge that President Obama who has waxed so eloquently over the death of Trayvon Martin has been remiss not to address this senseless death as well. 



Mayor Emmanuel has attempted to console Aliyah's family and has announced a crack down on gang violence in Chicago  http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/03/26/violent-start-to-spring-spurs-major-gang-crackdown/ but the raids and sweeps seem to always pickup the usual suspects and X dollars worth of drugs and weapons are recovered and photographed and then the Latin Kings and their enemies take over the streets again.


What will it take to eliminate gang violence once and for all?  How do we clean up the inner cities and make them habitable again? How many Aliyah Shell's are going to have to die?  Perhaps Aliyah's death only serves to sadden us and not cause us to lash out in racial hatred and fear that her death has not received the attention that Trayvon Martin's has.  Apparently the Al Sharpton's and Jessie Jackson's, the Rosanne Barr's and the Spike Lee's of our country cannot create hate out of Aliyah's death - and perhaps that is a good thing.  No amount of attention or tears will bring the lovely smile of Aliyah Shell back to us.  But at least her smile has not been a rallying point for hate.


PMA

The "HONOR" of Food Stamps

If you are anything like me you've asked yourself on more than one occasion if liberal thinkers (I know oxymoron) study the same script.  How else to explain the fact that at least two individuals Nancy Pelosi and Jessie Jackson have attempted to attach the word "honor" to food stamps.

Their contention is that Newt Gingrich's labeling of President Obama as the "Food Stamp President" should not be a derisive label but one of honor.  Nancy Pelosi even went so far as to challenge Christians to follow the adages of the Book of Matthew that refer to feeding the hungry and providing for the poor.  It is kind of interesting that liberals spend 1/2 of their time denying Christ and the other 1/2 wanting people to emulate Him.  Video available at: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/03/24/Pelosi-Proud-More-People-On-Food-Stamps

They would have you believe that President Obama is performing an unparalleled work of charity by feeding so many hungry people.  But is it really charity when you are doing your good works with other people's money?  It would also stand to reason that if we were going to be bound to the scriptural adage about feeding the hungry we should probably adhere to the instructions from the Apostle Paul in his epistle to the Thessalonians where he admonished them that "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat."  So if we are supposed to take the Bible literally, both instructions would appear to be binding.

Didn't Nancy Pelosi's daughter make a short film about those she called "Welfare Queens" that showed able bodied men and women who were just looking for "Obama Money"?  One would have to question the "honor" in this wouldn't they?  There is also the story of the Austrian man who cut off his own foot rather than go back to work - but lets stick to this country shall we?

Please don't take this the wrong way, this is not an attempt to brand anyone as a slacker or malingerer but rather to exam what if any amount of 'honor' can be attached to the term "Food Stamp President'.  Are there people who need and deserve food stamps?  Absolutely.  But there is no question that many individuals are on food stamps simply because they can be.

Years ago someone requiring public assistance was looked down upon, this was hardly justified - but it certainly did happen.   Today the stigma attached to receiving food stamps is virtually non-existent and you have to wonder if that is a good thing.  Are we as American's filling a need, or are we simply acting as an enabler and rewarding bad behavior?  Unfortunately the answer is 'a little bit of both'.

Regardless of why food stamps are being provided (and you would be hard pressed not to say something to the effect of "Because the economy is so god awful") how does the President deserve a (quoting Nancy Pelosi here) "Badge of Honor" for becoming the President with the highest number of individuals on food stamps during his tenure?  What exactly is honorable about that?  It would seem that Pelosi and Jackson are desperately trying to put lipstick on a pig, but we all know that when it is said and done a pig is still a pig, lipstick or not.

Let's not confuse our children and grandchildren about what Honor really is all about.  Isn't it about sacrifice and patriotism and the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few?  Isn't it really about stuff like that?

According to Webster:

Definition of HONOR

1

a : good name or public esteem : reputation b : a showing of usually merited respect : recognition <pay honor to our founder>

2

: privilege <had the honor of joining the captain for dinner>

3

: a person of superior standing —now used especially as a title for a holder of high office <if Your Honor please>

4

: one whose worth brings respect or fame : credit <an honor to the profession>

5

: the center point of the upper half of an armorial escutcheon

6

: an evidence or symbol of distinction: as a : an exalted title or rank b (1) : badge, decoration (2) : a ceremonial rite or observance <buried with full military honors> c : an award in a contest or field of competition d archaic : a gesture of deference : bow e plural (1) : an academic distinction conferred on a superior student (2) : a course of study for superior students supplementing or replacing a regular course

7

: chastity, purity <fought fiercely for her honor and her life — Barton Black>

8

a : a keen sense of ethical conduct : integrity <a man of honor> b : one's word given as a guarantee of performance <on my honor, I will be there>

9

plural : social courtesies or civilities extended by a host <asked her to do the honors>

10

a (1) : an ace, king, queen, jack, or ten especially of the trump suit in bridge (2) : the scoring value of honors held in bridge —usually used in plural b : the privilege of playing first from the tee in golf

See honor defined for English-language learners »

See honor defined for kids »

Examples of HONOR

1. These people deserve to be treated with honor.
2. The team brought honor to the school.
3. The building was named in honor of the city's founder.
4. He was prepared to fight to defend his family's honor.
5. She has a keen sense of honor.
6. He would not do it as a matter of honor.
7. He's a man of honor.
8. It was an honor to be invited.
9. Many of the Persians, despite belonging to the Barbarian Other, come off with honor and dignity in his pages, even during the final narrative of Xerxes' invasion. —Peter Green, New York Review of Books, 15 May 2008
10. [+]more

Where do you think food stamps might fit into the above list?

Wouldn't the honor be found in reducing the number of families on food stamps by increasing employment rolls?  It sure seems that way to me.

PMA

Bob Ayers - The Ugliest American Rides again...

What exactly is it with this guy?  Recently Ayers was in the news again for his moronic  remarks about Andrew Brietbart.  Ayers had the audacity to call the recently deceased Brietbart a "bomb thrower" of all things.  I am just guessing here, but in my opinion Ayers was trying to be cute.  Problem is there is absolutely nothing 'cute' about this guy.


Ayers spent many years as a domestic terrorist making real bombs for the Weather Underground.  He has never felt the need to apologize or repent for his past. He has been linked to President Obama in many ways and it is a good idea to 'vett' our President's association with Mr. Ayers before the November election.


How close were Obama and Ayers?  Well, its not like they were friends or anything.  President Obama launched his political career in Ayers' living room, the Obama's and the Ayers' babysat each others children and often had meals together.  Michelle Obama worked in the same law firm as Bill Ayers wife, Bernadine Dohrn at Sidley Austin where  Barack Obama was also an intern. Robert Ayers and Barack Obama also served on a committee together but....wait a moment, they do sound pretty much like friends don't they?


In his defense President Obama said  "..the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects [sic] on me and my values doesn't make much sense."  But it was in 2001 that unrepentant terrorist and certified cretin Ayers tread on an American flag in the infamous photo depicting this despicable act (seen here http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31471_William_Ayers_Stepping_on_the_US_Flag_in_2001)


But in all fairness a lot of Presidents have hung out with guys who hated America.  There was President umm, hmmm,.....it appears President Obama is the only one I can think of. 


You have to ask yourself "Why on earth did President Obama get away with this?" "How was he ever elected with such an association being known?"  The answer plain and simple is racism.  Yes, that ugly word and all it's ugly connotations.  It was made to appear as if the only individuals who would dare question the relationship between our soon to be President and a known unrepentant (can use that word enough) terrorist who tried to kill Americans just like Al Qaeda has tried and done were racists.


What was the connection between racism and questioning President Obama's association with this slug?  Simple - there was none.  So patriotic Americans (you know, the kind that don't like to see the flag stomped on and all that) were made to look like fools, and worse - racist fools.


Hopefully patriots today can shake of the shame of false allegations of racial prejudiced and not feel the need to apologize about being angry when some one desecrates the flag.  If the only thing that President Obama was guilty of was (in the words of Sarah Palin) "palling around" with this guy - that in and of it's self should be enough to remove him from the highest office in this land.  God please if I am not right in anything else, let me be right in this.


PMA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIGZA6girnI