NNY912

FREE: Glenn’s expose on Barack Obama and his “fairy tale” story

Chris_N — Thu, 17 May 2012 01:28:29 +0000

Last week on GBTV, Glenn ran one of his most popular and important shows – an episode dedicated to peeling back the mask of Barack Obama. On what will be only the first in a series of specials that will focus on the President, Glenn focused on the lies that Obama and his inner circle have told in order to create the narrative of a man who represents hope and change – when nothing could be further from the truth. Barack Obama’s story as told by the media has been one of half-truths, cover ups, and outright lies. His story is a fairy tale to help accomplish one thing: the fundamental transformation of the country.

This episode is not full of conspiracy or crackpot theories. These are the President’s own words placed side by side with the “fairy tale” the media and the White House have been selling the country since 2008.

This is the true story of Barack Obama in his own words – and it is a story he would rather remain untold.

The Blaze has summarized much of this research in Part 1 and Part 2 of their expose on President Obama.

http://bit.ly/KsQT4Q

The American Spectator : Obama Steals Mao’s Slogan

Chris_N — Fri, 04 May 2012 02:17:21 +0000

Forward!

Comrades, you can’t make it up. Can you say “campaign blunder”? Or is it a blunder? Is it deliberate? The socialist mind at work in campaign mode?

The Obama campaign has picked a portion of one of the most infamous socialist slogans of 20th century history to use as its own new campaign slogan.

“Forward” is the new Obama slogan, Team Obama borrowing boldly from none other than the late Communist Party of China leader Chairman Mao.

Mao’s slogan? “The Great Leap Forward.”

Rather than describing this myself, let’s take a tour of various descriptions of this wonderful, Communist slogan.

via The American Spectator : Obama Steals Mao’s Slogan.

Fourth Turning – Skies Darkening | Shanon Brooks

Chris_N — Fri, 04 May 2012 00:17:33 +0000

The economic news worsens by the day. Worldwide tensions grow. There are fingers of instability throughout the system. All it will take is a grain of sand falling on the wrong part of the pile to initiate an avalanche of pain and suffering. Our Archduke Ferdinand moment awaits.

“Thus might the next Fourth Turning end in apocalypse – or glory. The nation could be ruined, its democracy destroyed, and millions of people scattered or killed. Or America could enter a new golden age, triumphantly applying shared values to improve the human condition. The rhythms of history do not reveal the outcome of the coming Crisis; all they suggest is the timing and dimension.

A Fourth Turning harnesses the seasons of life to bring about a renewal in the seasons of time. In so doing, it provides passage through the great discontinuities of history and closes the full circle of the saeculum. The Fourth Turning is when the Spirit of America

re-appears, rousing courage and fortitude from the people. History is seasonal, but its outcomes are not foreordained. Much will depend on how tall we stand in the trials to come.”

via Fourth Turning – Skies Darkening | Shanon Brooks.

Plain Speaking

Chris_N — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 19:45:49 +0000

from: http://www.libertyextra.com/commentary/2012/04/plain-speaking/

Saturday, April 7, 2012

Plain Speaking

By Lisa Fabrizio

I was speaking the other day to my friend Charles who’s a very intelligent man; in fact, a brilliant polyglot, who opined that the U.S. Constitution, like the Declaration of Independence, is written in language that is far too difficult for the average person to understand. Now, this man can best me in many, many languages, especially New Testament Greek, but I told him in plain English that this is simply not so.

While it’s true that the Declaration was crafted in language designed to compete with and impress the Crowned Heads of Europe and was thus replete with flowery verbiage—my favorite is “consanguinity”—the Constitution was written to and for the American people in a manner they could easily understand. Indeed, its supporters and detractors waged the war over its ratification in the nation’s newspapers, which were eagerly consumed by a rapt citizenry.

Unfortunately down through the decades, our betters in Academia—who believe that it is outdated and irrelevant anyway—have convinced the rest of America that the Constitution, which consists of six typewritten pages, is far too complex for them to even attempt to digest; a ploy that has succeeded beyond even their wildest dreams. Consider this from an anonymous cyberspace leftist: “Troglodytes think we can run the country on nothing but the Constitution. Idiots. The owner’s manual for my coffee maker is longer than the Constitution.”

But again, it’s not entirely their fault. I have a niece who took a course on the Constitution in college; the only problem was that reading the document itself was not required; it was for extra credit only. Such is the state of citizenship in our nation that most folks feel they have done their civic duty by letting late-night comics advise them on their voting choices. So no, it is no surprise that too many of our countrymen do not understand the Supreme Law of our Land, but that’s no excuse for those who should and who have indeed sworn an oath to do.

One of the ways that lawyers and college professors have convinced the nation that the Constitution is way over their heads and way out of touch, is to claim that, as originally written, it is far too fragile to encompass the ways and means of modern DC mudslinging; as if politics weren’t written into the document itself. The Founders did not live in some ivory tower where the stench of politics never befouled the sacred air. On the contrary, the system of checks and balances was established to create an electoral friction with this very thing in mind. They knew that their plan for a representative republic was not in itself a guarantee against governmental tyranny. Here’s James Madison in Federalist 58:

An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.

What this means is that the framers never intended the Supreme Court to be the final word in the day-to-day governance of America; that is the purview of the people through the two elected branches of government. But should the Executive and Legislative arms overreach the boundaries so carefully laid out for them by the Framers, it is precisely the job of the Court to chastise them for it. I will let Mr. Alexander Hamilton, from Federalist 78, explain:

No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

Now, does it get any plainer than that?

- – - -

Lisa Fabrizio is a columnist who hails from Connecticut.

The Original First Amendment

Chris_N — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 16:52:25 +0000

You know the First Amendment, right? It’s the one about free speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion, right?

Nope. I am talking about the First Amendment. That is, the original First Amendment. And it was not about these freedoms—vital as they are—but rather about adequate representation in Congress.

The Original First Amendment | American Vision.