OBAMA HAS CALLED ON HIS THUGS TO GO TO TOWNHALL MEETINGS NOW~WHAT A JERKOFF !

You all need to follow the link to this post. Obama has sent out a email to all his cronny Kool aide drinking followers instructions about going to town hall meetings to defend his HEALTH/DEATH POLICY.
This is unreal what he has had his staff send out to all on his email list. UN BELIEVEABLE !! DAMN...THESE PEOPLE ARE VERY VERY SICK.
TAKE AMERICA BACK FORM THESE THUGS AND MOBSTERS. WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON IN THIS COUNTRY. Be afraid be very afraid.





HCAN Playbook For Thwarting Town Hall Protesters



http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2009/08/hcan-playbook-for-thwarting-town-hall-protesters.php?page=1

OBAMA TAKES ORDERS FROM GEORGE SOROS

At this point, a mere 2 months into the Presidency of Barack Obama, it seems painfully clear that we have not only elected a deceitful knave, but one intent on the complete dismantling of our own defenses, with seemingly very little concern for the consequences.

The icing on this poisonous cake would seem to be that we ourselves will pay for our own destruction.

Boiled down to the dry pot, we must conclude that President Obama, his entire Administration, the Democratic Congress and their favorite benefactor, George Soros, have an evolved form of slavery in mind. It's a type of slavery whereby the productive class is held shackled to the political class's outlandish worldview that there isn't a single problem under the sun, which cannot be swiftly solved with our money, produced by the sweat of our collective brow. They consider our wages and the wages of our children and grandchildren to be their own property, to be squandered in whatever manner they see fit.

And I believe this has a name, even though we modern folks have long forgotten not only its name, but the centuries of toil and buckets of blood that went into dismantling the system than enthroned it. It's called, I believe, serfdom.
SEE DEFINITION OF SELFDOM BELOW....









The Soros Doctrine in Obama Foreign Policy

President Obama is rapidly replacing the Bush Doctrine with the Soros Doctrine, implementing the foreign policy tenets of the principal financier of the American left.

When Charlie Gibson peered pedantically down his nose at Sarah Palin last fall, asking "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?," I could not help but wonder whether anyone in our esteemed mainstream media would have the intelligence or the temerity to ask candidate Barack Obama whether he agreed with the Soros doctrines.

Too late now.

Soros doctrines reign in the Obama White House and we're about to learn firsthand whether they represent the ideology of choice for a safer U.S.A.

Or whether they were just the cockamamie delusions of an aged, amoral currency manipulator put in play by a neophyte politician with a staff-scripted teleprompter glued to each hip.

But first, a little review of the Bush doctrine and its track record.

This is for you, Charlie Gibson.

In a piece titled, "Charlie Gibson's Gaffe," Washington Post writer, Charles Krauthammer offered the most succinct summation of the Bush doctrines (There were four.), stating emphatically that Gibson's smug definition came up quite short of the mark.

Krauthammer (who was himself the first to use the term, "Bush doctrine") delineated four distinct and superceding elements to Bush foreign policy:

#1 (pre-9/11) - unilateral withdrawal from the ABM treaty, the Kyoto protocol and other international initiatives, which were deemed by President Bush harmful to U.S. interests.

#2 - the "with us or against us" speech to Congress nine days after 9/11, which quickly resulted in the 7-point ultimatum given to President Musharraf of Pakistan, demanding his withdrawal of support for the Taliban.

#3 - in the wake of our invasion of Iraq, President Bush gave his justification for preemptive war for defensive purpose.

#4 - enunciated in President Bush's second inaugural address, that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to aid the spread of democracy throughout the world.

The bottom line for America is that we know for certain the Bush Doctrines kept us safe for seven whole years, kept our IslamoFascist foes magnetized in Afghanistan and Iraq and kept other enemies balanced on their toes with the full knowledge that any belligerent move would be met with U.S. force.

Say whatever you will, Charlie Gibson, the cowboy kept us safe.

Soros, the Anti-Bush

"I have made rejection of the Bush doctrine the central project of my life."
-- George Soros, Wall Street Journal; March 3, 2004

The relevant question here would seem to be, Why? What was it, specifically, about the Bush Doctrines that so roiled George Soros?

Soros published his own book on the subject in 2003: The Bubble of American Supremacy: The Cost of George W. Bush's War in Iraq. The Soros Doctrine boils down to a short list of simple tenets:

President Bush's reaction to 9/11 was an extreme over-reaction. The Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been counterproductive in the world scheme of things, causing far more harm than help.
The Global War on Terror was ill-conceived, ill-fought and ought to be dismantled, the sooner the better for international relations.
The desire to spread American democracy to other regions is based on a false set of documents, namely the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Soros' belief that there is no such thing as a universal truth, that all things are relative and all moral systems are essentially equivalent leads him to conclude that our founding documents are fundamentally flawed in that they claim to rest upon "self-evident truths."

These might be called more accurately, anti-tenets, as they merely serve to refute the Bush Doctrines. But any careful observer would be inclined to make special note of Soros' ever-present insistence that American foreign policy be formulated in a way that puts international objectives ahead of U.S. objectives. Soros expects the U.S. to subjugate herself to what he believes will help the whole world, not merely us and our interests.

So, what doctrines does Soros specifically advocate?

The United States should use its position of financial and military might to "lead a cooperative effort to improve the world by engaging in preventive actions of a constructive character."
The United States should increase foreign aid to all who need it. Soros believes that by giving grants, as opposed to loans, to developing countries, we make friends and give people what they need, thereby decreasing the incentives for making war against us.
Terrorists have always been with us, Soros insists, and terrorism requires "police action," not wars based upon "imperialist intentions."
Only an international body (such as the U.N.) can solve the problem of terrorism as it is an inherently international problem.
The Bush Doctrine of holding host nations responsible for their support and protection of terrorist entities shuts down the necessary diplomatic channels, which would otherwise lead to joint solutions.

The bottom line is that George Soros is an internationalist; he always has been. He has even said that the only thing the U.S. does for him is issue his passport, which is itself an obsolete instrument of the even more obsolete nation-state concept.

Soros Doctrines and President Obama

President Obama's Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has begged the Chinese to support our debt, while sloughing off human rights abuses by the communist regime and has praised the environmental efforts of our Mexican neighbor, while making no mention of the flood of Mexican illegal immigrants invading our southern borders. Madame Clinton has finger-wagged our Israeli allies, while securing $900 million in American aid to the beleaguered Palestinians (read Hamas) while there are no demands on them to stop firing rockets into Israel. Madame Clinton has additionally pledged a $200 million scholarship fund for Palestinians.

Buying friends is a staple of Soros foreign policy. Greased palms, he seems to believe, provide a great deal of "cooperation."

Candidate Obama echoed this view in his Berlin citizen-of-the-world address, stating,

"Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity."

Adhering to Soros doctrine again, President Obama has declared that the United States is no longer engaged in a "Global War on Terror." We are now conducting "overseas contingency operations." For seven long years, George Soros vociferously attacked Bush for declaring war on terrorism, calling the Global War on Terror a "false metaphor," which inevitably resulted in catastrophic civilian casualties, in turn creating more terrorists for the future.

In addition, Obama has echoed Soros' objection to Gitmo and has declared that it will be closed within the year. Obama seeks to revert to the failed Clinton policy of treating terrorism as an international policing problem, and plans to rely on the Soros doctrines of cooperation, international law and law enforcement actions that do not use military force except for police functions.

Interestingly, President Obama's intention to deploy 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan falls into what Soros counts as a police function. The original intention of Operation Enduring Freedom (War in Afghanistan) was to capture Osama bin Laden, destroy al-Qaeda, and remove the Taliban regime which had provided support and safe harbor to al-Qaeda. If bin Laden is ever captured, then presumably the Afghan "contingency operation" will end and President Obama will work out a peace accord with the "moderates" of the Taliban, as Pakistan has done.

When President Obama announced last week his intention to add 4,000 troops to the earlier declared 17,000 additional forces to Afghanistan, he added that he intends to garner Congressional approval for a $15 billion aid package for Pakistan. The $15 billion for Pakistan's leaders will most likely be approved, in spite of our own intelligence evidence, which concludes the Pakistan government is using our money to finance the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Taliban is killing U.S. soldiers, using our own money, funneled through the middleman, Pakistan.

One must surely wonder whether Soros and Obama have ever read the Koran. It certainly appears that they have not.

At this point, a mere 2 months into the Presidency of Barack Obama, it seems painfully clear that we have not only elected a deceitful knave, but one intent on the complete dismantling of our own defenses, with seemingly very little concern for the consequences.

The icing on this poisonous cake would seem to be that we ourselves will pay for our own destruction.

Boiled down to the dry pot, we must conclude that President Obama, his entire Administration, the Democratic Congress and their favorite benefactor, George Soros, have an evolved form of slavery in mind. It's a type of slavery whereby the productive class is held shackled to the political class's outlandish worldview that there isn't a single problem under the sun, which cannot be swiftly solved with our money, produced by the sweat of our collective brow. They consider our wages and the wages of our children and grandchildren to be their own property, to be squandered in whatever manner they see fit.

And I believe this has a name, even though we modern folks have long forgotten not only its name, but the centuries of toil and buckets of blood that went into dismantling the system than enthroned it. It's called, I believe, serfdom.

(Serfdom) is the socio-economic status of unfree peasants under feudalism, and specifically relates to Manorialism. It was a condition of bondage or modified slavery which developed primarily during the High Middle Ages in Europe. Serfdom was the enforced labour of serfs on the fields of landowners, in return for protection and the right to work on their leased fields.

Serfdom involved not only work in fields, but also various other activities, like forestry, mining, transportation (both land and river-based), and crafts. Manors formed the basic unit of society during this period, and the lord and his serfs were bound legally, economically, and socially. Serfs were labourers who were bound to the land; they formed the lowest social class of the feudal society. Serfs were also defined as people in whose labour landowners held property rights. Before the 1861 abolition of serfdom in Russia, a landowner's estate was often measured by the number of "souls" he owned. Feudalism in Europe evolved from agricultural slavery in the late Roman Empire and spread through Europe around the 10th century; it flourished in Europe during the Middle Ages but lasted until the 19th century in some countries. The Black Death broke the established social order and weakened serfdom. For example, serfdom was de facto ended in France by Philip IV, Louis X (1315), and Philip V (1318).[1][2] With the exception of a few isolated cases, serfdom had ceased to exist in France by the 15th century. In Early Modern France, French nobles nevertheless maintained a great number of seigneurial privileges over the free peasants that worked lands under their control. Serfdom was formally abolished in France in 1789.[3]

After the Renaissance, serfdom became increasingly rare in most of Western Europe but grew strong in Central and Eastern Europe, where it had previously been less common (this phenomenon was known as "later serfdom"). In England, the end of serfdom began with Tyler’s Rebellion and was fully ended when Elizabeth I freed the last remaining serfs in 1574.[2] There were native-born Scottish serfs until 1799, when coal miners previously kept in serfdom gained emancipation. However, most Scottish serfs had been freed before this time. In Eastern Europe the institution persisted until the mid-19th century. It persisted in Austria-Hungary till 1848 and was abolished in Russia in 1861.[4] In Finland, Norway and Sweden feudalism was not established, and serfdom did not exist.

According to the census of 1857 the number of private serfs in Russia was 23.1 million.[5] By comparison, the United States had approximately 4 million slaves by 1860,[6] and the British Empire had 776,000 slaves when it abolished slavery in 1834.[7]

Feudalism, according to Joseph R. Strayer, can be applied to the societies of Iran, ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt (Sixth to Twelfth dynasty), Muslim India, China (Zhou Dynasty, and end of Han Dynasty) and Japan during the Shogunate. James Lee and Cameron Campbell describe the Chinese Qing Dynasty (1644-1912) as also maintaining a form of serfdom.[8] According to Pierre Bonnassie, feudalism could also be seen in Spain. Although serfdom is believed to exist in all these regions, it was not uniform throughout them. Tibet is described by Melvyn Goldstein[9][10] to have had serfdom until 1959, but whether or not the Tibetan form of peasant tenancy qualified as serfdom was widespread is contested.[11][12] Bhutan is described by Tashi Wangchuk, a Bhutanese civil servant, as abolishing serfdom officially by 1959, but Wangchuk believes less than or about 10% of poor peasants were in copyhold situations.[13]
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/04/the_soros_doctrine_in_obama_fo.html

UNITED SOCIALIST STATES OF AMERICA=Democraps

Watch the movie here. Click below ON THE LINK. See what has been going on with the Democraps that will bring AMERICAN DOWN.
These people are criminals. CROOKS, CHEATS AND LIARS. I am appalled.

http://objllc.com/USSA.htm



Also, below, Obama is going to disarm America so, come on over you terrorists.....
It is open season now with our New President. He doesn't care what you do.
HAVE AT IT.

THE DEMS DID IT~FINANCIAL CRISIS IN AMERICA

The Dems did it!
Sunday, October 5, 2008


When Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and other upstanding Democrats point to the “failed policies” of the Bush administration as the cause of the current chaos in the financial markets, they are deliberately trying to transfer the spotlight from their own party’s mistakes. The current crisis can be traced directly to President Clinton’s revision of the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).

The revision essentially required banks to expand their loan portfolios, to include more low-income customers. Bank examiners rated banks on their compliance with these revisions. Community organizations such as ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) were empowered to comment on bank compliance. Banks quickly learned that a generous donation to these organizations was easier than defending themselves against complaints filed by these organizations. Loans made to low-income borrowers were immediately sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose policies also were revised to allow the purchase of these loans.

The task of revising Fannie Mae’s regulations fell to Herb Moses, Director of Product Initiatives, who was also the homosexual “lover” of Rep. Barney Frank, who was a member of the House Banking Committee which had oversight of Fannie Mae. These policy revisions were, in hindsight, spectacularly stupid. Rather than income verification, and standard debt-to-income analysis, a welfare check stub, or enrollment in a credit-counseling program were acceptable as “proof” of ability to make mortgage payments.

Freddie Mac specialized in the repackaging of these mortgages into securities which carried the federal government’s seal of approval, and resold them through the financial markets.

The structure of disaster was almost complete. The Clinton administration directed federal agencies to expand credit, particularly home loans, to low-income buyers. ACORN, and other community organizations were empowered to promote loans and encourage banks to make them, and Fannie and Freddie were instructed to buy the loans. The Federal Reserve joined the parade by reducing interest rates to help facilitate these loans.

No wonder the housing market exploded.

Countrywide, once heralded as the nation’s largest CRA lender, with $600 billion in sub-prime mortgages, was among the first to fall. Lehman Brothers, an eager buyer of Freddie Mac securities, also collapsed. Then fell Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; the ripples are still rippling across the financial markets.

As early as 2004, the Bush administration tried to increase regulation of Fannie and Freddie, but ran into stiff opposition from Democrats, especially from Barney Frank, who was afraid that lending activities would be sacrificed in the name of market risk. Now, Frank is blaming the Republicans for failing to enact reforms that he and his party blocked.

During the high-flying days at Fannie and Freddie, more than $200 million was spent on lobbyists and political contributions. Chris Dodd, Democrat Chair of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, collected $165,400. Barack Obama received $126,349, and Barney Frank got $42,350, of the $4.2 million the two housing giants gave to Congressmen.

Clearly, the Democrats caused the problem by insisting that mortgage money be made available to people who could not qualify for a mortgage under normal banking procedures. Democrats, led by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, blocked Republican efforts to tighten the regulations that governed Fannie and Freddie. Now, Democrats point the finger of blame at the Republicans.

The current crisis is yet another example of the mess government makes when it indulges in social engineering by trying to manage a free market. The declaration that all people have a “right” to housing was a popular theme among liberals in the 1990s. So popular, in fact, that in 1994, a lame-duck Democratic Senate ratified a U.N. treaty which effectively adopted the obligation to provide housing to everyone. Relaxation of the lending requirements at Fannie and Freddie was one way of meeting this new U.N. obligation.

The division in Congress, and in the country, about what caused the problem and what to do about it is a bright line between the people who believe government power must be limited by the people who are governed, and the people who believe government must limit the power of people who are governed. The people who subscribe to unlimited government power have achieved ascendency in Congress, and in the country. This philosophy results in disaster.

On the other hand, people who believe that the power of government must be limited by the people who are governed, may see the urgency of getting angry, active, and involved in government at every level. The people who share this belief are the people who have the power to unseat socialist politicians and unleash another era of freedom and prosperity.

American Congress out of Control ! DEMOCRATS GONE MAD !

THEY CAN TAKE THEIR PORK AND SHOVE IT !

IS THIS THE KIND OF CRAP THEY DO ALL DAY UP ON THE HILL OF HELL ?















Wednesday, March 28, 2007
In Case You Missed It: In Iraq Vote, Congress Is Casting Aside The Constitution
From USA Today

By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey
Op-Ed
March 28, 2007

[W]ars cannot be run, at least not successfully, by committee, and one decision-maker is more accountable than hundreds of members of Congress. ...

The House's $124 billion Iraq spending bill -- a version of which is working its way through the Senate this week -- would violate the Constitution's separation of powers principle by interfering with the president's ability to exercise his powers as commander in chief.

The fact that the House bill also is larded with pork, including subsidies for such critical wartime industries as spinach growing and dairy farming, simply adds insult to injury. ... [T]he Democratic leadership must bribe its own members with new spending, or even -- as reported by The Politico -- threaten them with yanking the earmarks for their districts, to obtain enough votes for a raid on the president's constitutional authority. ...

As commander in chief, the president is entitled to make the strategic, operational and tactical decisions relating to combat ...

The House action, in addition to setting a firm deadline of Aug. 31, 2008, for the exit of all U.S. combat troops from Iraq, raises serious questions about how Congress can properly go about forcing the president to end the war. ...

[T]he United States finds itself today in a global struggle with an enemy who is entirely prepared to come to us as they did on Sept. 11, 2001. If Congress did block U.S. combat operations in Iraq, there is every reason to believe that it would quickly be transformed into a new al-Qaeda sanctuary. ...

[C]ongress appears willing to grant the power for the president to prosecute "counterterrorism" operations in Iraq, even while cutting off the funding for combat missions. ... [T]his language ... makes the problem even worse. It would amount to true congressional micromanagement ...

This type of militarily nonsensical splitting-the-difference compromise, of course, is a perfect example of war by committee -- and confirms the Framers' wisdom in vesting the power to direct America's armed forces in one individual, the president of the United States.

To View Entire Article, Please Visit:
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070328/opcom28.art.htm

ONE OF THE BEST PRESIDENTS EVER!!! President Bush, I am a 15 year-old from Arkansas. I believe you are one of the best presidents ever to reside in the White House. I thank you for your courage to stand by your beliefs and convictions no matter what the democrats or liberal news media try to do to you. I also thank you for bringing your Christian beliefs into your politics. We NEED a man of God like you in Washington. Keep a strong stand on the issues like abortion, cloning, and gay rights(marriages, etc.) You have SOOO much more support than the media tells America you do. I personally think that the war was just even if no WMDs are found---we liberated an entire country from an evil dictator that cared nothing about his people, only himself. God has truly blessed you and your family, as well as America by putting you in the White House. I am confident He will do it again in November. Thank you for all you have done. I pray for you almost every day, and I am confident you have almost every vote from the members of my church-----nearly 15,000. In the name of the Lord God Almighty who controls everything I say these words. Amen. A future Republican voter and Christian Evangelist or Pastor What a change!! I grew up thinking that because my family was Democrat then I was also Democrat. As a single mom of 30, I started paying attention to politics and our nation. I soon realized that I was in fact a Republican. What an astounding understanding. My Father, who wasn't able to raise me the way a father should due to mental illness would, over the years, drop hints that I should change my political views, while my mother who had been a democrat all her life would argue with the television. I chose to shut it all out and ignore my great country and the privilege I had as a citizen of these Great United States of America. Through out my entire family tree, I had men that served these Great United States of America. In every war, from as far back as WWI, I had a relative willing to give to his nation. As my father passed away in 2001 I realized that the ideals of the Republican Party were my ideals. I believe in smaller government, lower taxes, and the moral standards that we as Christians must adhear to. I fell in love with our President George W. Bush, and I fell in love with America. For the first time in my life, I understood the sacrifices that were made to keep me and my family FREE!!! And what an awesome responsibility it is to be a citizen of these Great United States of America. The passing of a Great Man to all Americans, President Ronald Reagan, has given me greater resolve to support our President, and to LET FREEDOM REIGN in America. Thanks be to God, through my prayer and change of heart my mother has now also changed her views and become what God always intended her to be a Republican!! To those who oppose this War on Terror and the resolve to protect, defend, and help all those that are oppressed by terror, to them I say... Pray that you are never in an oppressive situation where your Freedom and Liberty are taken away. March on President Bush, March on... there are 2 women in Kentucky that support and pray for you with every passing day.. Kensyl and LynnAnn Lawrenceburg, Kentucky

Iraq A lot of people think the 26 nations envolved with Iraq is not a worldwide effort. Let them know that in the Korean Conflict there were only 30 nations with troops envolved. 4 million Koreans were killed, 1 million Chinese and 400,000 Collition troops lost thier lives. (55,000 Americans) I belive Presedent Bush has achieved great success. World Peace and stability has never been easy. Thank all of those who have gave the ultimate sacrifice for our basic freedoms.
Give your Opinion: editor@republicans.org
Questions I am a registered Republican, however I have some questions following:QUESTIONS - QUESTIONS - QUESTIONSWhy do most folks, when they become successful, become CONSERVATIVES?Why do most folks, when they learn to speak proper English, become CONSERVATIVES?Why are most ambitious and motivated folks CONSERVATIVES?Why are more LIBERAL public officials "caught with their hand in the till" than CONSERVATIVES?Why are CONSERVATIVE gatherings so much better dressed than LIBERAL?Why are LIBERALS for higher taxes? Could it be that most don't pay any taxes?Why are so many LIBERALS on the "dole"?Why are so many government employees LIBERALS?Why are so many public school teachers LIBERALS?Why do we find so many social problems where we find LIBERALS?Why do we find so many CONSERVATIVES in quite, peaceful neighborhoods?Why are virtually all "rappers" LIBERALS?Why are so many LIBERAL politicians so anti-American?Why are LIBERAL politicians so shrill and antagonistic? Could it be that their constituents do not react as expected to normal behavior?
I KNOW THE ANSWER TO MOST OF THESE QUESTIONS BUT DO YOU?
Give your Opinion: editor@republicans.org
President Bush and the Media I support President Bush one 100%. His leadership, how he stays focus on National and International issues, his patriotism. What really disgusts me is the hate that the news media shows. How hypocritical! Blaming and pointing fingers to the government and it's policies. Going overboard with the pictures of the prisoners in Iraq, hypocrites why wasn't the picture of the beheading shown? The polls that show the Democratic contender ahead, I like to know where are this polls been taken at, because I'm sure that there are a lot of people like me who has never taken part in a poll and our Vote would go to President Bush. I do not believe in polls. I listening to the news from conservative news media. I am sick and tired of the hatred and disgrace that they (news media) brings to the country and how they make us look before the whole world. I am sure that the terrorists love it! And you know I'd rather see us fighting the terrorist in their countri! es than in our country. Further more I'm a single parent I raised three children on my own and I point out to them the Hate and how the left media wants to brain wash us. Go Mr. President! We are with you! GC; CHICAGO, IL
Give your Opinion: editor@republicans.org