The Republican Party

Recently I read an article by a man in a local newspaper who implies that the Republican Party is responsible for all the obstruction in the United States of America because they are anti-immigrant, racist, and radical. Even though I am a registered independent voter (not a republican or democrat) those are pretty serious accusations, if they were, in fact true. But they are not. He must be listening to too many voices on his free Obama phone that some of us are paying for.

The fact is this guy has truly misrepresented and is not speaking the truth about the Republican Party’s views on issues facing this country. I think the Republican Party has the right ideas on how this country should be governed. The only problem with the Republic Party is they just will not stand up and let their “NO” be no and stop giving in to the dictator because of his threats and his scare tactics. But radical and racist they are not.

Their position on immigration is one hundred percent correct. They do not mind legal immigration because that is how our nation was founded. But they are against illegal immigration. The United States of America is a Republic and the country was, for the most part, until Obama became the supreme ruler, a nation governed by the rule of law.

Republicans are supportive of and encourage legal immigration. The operative word here is “legal.” And that is what people like this man and the democrat party in general do not get. And what’s radical about sticking to and adhering to the Constitution? For hard working Americans that believe in their country there is none. But our country has been hijacked by progressives, liberals, and socialists. It has been hijacked by people who want the government to do for them instead of them doing what is best for the country. There are people who would sell their birthright and their freedom for a free Obama cell phone. And most of all let us not forget a want to be dictator who will stop at nothing to get his way.

So the question to be asked: Is the United States of America being hijacked by the Republican Party or has this great nation been hijacked and being destroyed by people who are just way out there in their thinking. Or are there some people who just want to destroy America as we know it? I chose the second because Obama and his followers have already proved that.

It is time for this nation to become a Biblical correct nation, once again and not a political correct nation. It is time for this nation to use the rule of law instead of the demagogy that is going on now. And, finally, as a nation we need to have the dreams of our father’s (The ones who made this country great through, sweat, toil, and hard work, The ones who believed in the rule of law, not the dreams of Obama's father.

Gun Control Solution

1865 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States.
In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States who later died from the wound.
In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States.
In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.
In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan.
In 1984 James Huberty a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.
In 1986 Patrick Sherril a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.
In 1990 James Pough a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.
In 1991 George Hennard a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 23 people in a Lubys cafeteria.
In 1995 James Daniel Simpson a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.
In 1999 Larry Asbrook a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 8 people at a church service.
In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President
of the US.
In 2003 Douglas Williams a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.
In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech .
In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.
In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.
In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.
In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza shot and killed 26 people in a school.
One could go on, but you get the point, even if the media does not.
Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns.
No NRA member, Tea Party member, or Republican conservatives are involved.
SOLUTION: It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns

Voter Identification

 

I have been reading lot of articles, pro and con about voter identification in a local newspaper that covers most of the area where I use to live in for a big part of my life and it amazes me the issues some people have.

Some people maintain, and I agree, that requiring the showing of proper ID is acceptable for just about everything that we do except at the polling place because the right to vote is guaranteed to all citizens by the U.S. Constitution. Even if the right to vote was guaranteed in the Constitution, which by the way it was not, I’m confused as to why being asked to properly identify yourself when you come to the voting booth to exercise and use that right is wrong and inappropriate?

Some of you who read this will say will say that I’m ludicrous and absurd, when I say the right to vote isn’t in the Constitution? If you think that you might want to see what the Supreme Court, who has ruled on this, has to say about it. “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote.”

The 15th Amendment based on voting says that a citizen’s “race, color, or previous condition of servitude. “This amendment only forbids certain forms of legal discrimination in establishing and making qualifications for suffrage.” Some people in this debate on the voting issue want to ensure that every eligible voter who wants to vote can. That is for the most part the Republican Party. Even though I am not a Republican, but a registered independent voter, I agree with the grand old party!

The other party, better known as the Democrats, wants to ensure that every voter who is ineligible to vote can do so. Hard to believe isn’t it? They do not have much of an argument but they will keep it up.

Everywhere a person goes in the United States there are certain things that require photo identification. When a person opens a bank account the bank must ask for your photo I.D. The Patriot Act requires the bank to do that and if they do not ask for it that bank is in a world of trouble and could be liable for a very big fine. You must prove who you are by photo I.D to purchase an airplane ticket, to buy a car, or to buy a house. And the list goes on and on. Where would this country or any sustainable economy be without identification?

Only an extreme radical group of people (people who know that they are wrong from the start) would insist that any state who is trying to remove dead people, illegal aliens, dogs, cats, and who knows what else from the voting process are violating the constitution. And let us not forget those who vote multiple times like the woman who lived in Chicago who voted for Obama 18 times in the last presidential election. If she had a photo I.D. it would never have happen but of course that would be (according to our Democrat friends) an example of suppressing the vote.

Putin Wins, Obama Loses

During the recent dialogs and discussions with Russia, the United States goal and what they wanted was to get Syria to turn their stockpile of nerve gas over to international control to dispose of. They wanted it done quickly. There is a problem with this dialog with Russia.

The Russian objective in any discussion is very clear. The Russians want to prevent a military strike by the United States on Syria, and another reason is to keep Syria’s nerve gas weapons accessible. The Russians have already achieved their primary goal because Obama has called the missile strike on Syria off. The United States should have never been involved to begin with and this was because Obama spoke without thinking like some school kid.

Furthermore, the United Nation Resolution against Chemical Weapons plays into the hands of the Russia and Syria’s objectives also, in that it permits a flexible schedule for Syria to hide some or most of its weapons of mass destruction and it will take years, if not decades, to find all of and destroy them. So what has Obama accomplished?

The United States is trying to force the Syrians and Russians to agree to a process that would make Syria immediately surrender control of the chemical weapons. The real problem here is only a credible, clear warning of an overwhelming military attack could make the Syrians or Russia to agree to get rid of the chemical weapons that Syria now has.

However, our little general (Obama) has already said that any strike would not degrade the Syrian military, and because of his weak statement has failed to get the backing of the United Nations (the sewage on the east end of New York) , the United States Congress or the American public.

The Russians, who according to Obama present no hindrance to American interests in the Middle East, have just outsmarted us and Obama does not even have a clue! The American people should not be surprised to see Putin receive the Nobel Peace Prize for blocking American aggression in Syria and it is all because of Obama not shutting up or putting up. We can add this to the list that makes Obama the worst president in American history. And by the way for those of you who read this and call me a racist, YOUR WRONG!

Remembering The Fall of 2012

How many American can remember back to the fall of 2012; when Obama made reference to a “red line in the sand” signifying to the Syria leader (Assad) that if he used chemical weapons on the Syrian people during their fighting among their selves, he (Obama) would strike back at him for the chemical attract. This statement by Obama was just a few weeks before the presidential election and this, most likely, appeared to be a good campaign statement that would help him with the votes and his re-election.

It is no doubt in the minds of most Americans that Obama felt it was most unlikely that Assad would resort to using chemical weapons on the Syrian people, and that would give him a convincing image to the American people without really taking any action. But what Obama did not know was that Assad would, in a heartbeat, use the nerve gas on his own people and he did use it. Now, for over a week, the whole world looked to Obama to see what he would do and as usual, like with any other issue, he did the side step polka.

Obama talked of using missiles, and then he said he would not do anything to under mind or destabilize Assad, and then he said it would be just a small attack, and then he wanted to get the international inspector’s report on what happened. And now, at last he has decided in all his wisdom that it was a decision that Congress should make. But that presented more problems for Obama because Congress was not going to support an attack against Syria. Finally, for once, Congress listened to the majority of the American people. That rejection, if it came to a vote in congress would be a big embarrassment for Obama.

As luck would have it here comes Putin with a solution to the whole problem. Russia will take over control of Syria’s chemical weapons and once they had control turn the weapons over to an international commission. Obama is saved from embarrassment and being thought of as a weak president by his supporters. This could, for the most part, take months to finalize and should take care of the problem and let Obama off the hook for shooting off his big mouth and then not backing it up.

Most Americans think that Obama's foreign policy is confusing, lacking vision, lacking initiative and determination. They might be right, but I see things differently. I believe Obama foreign policy is this; He wants to see a Muslim world controlled by the Muslim brotherhood. Every time there is a conflict in the Middle East he always sides with the Muslim Brother Hood or whoever side the Brother Hood is on.

We are no longer respected by the rest of the world because of Obama’s actions. Our allies do not trust us because of Obama and our enemies are not scared of us anymore because of Obama. We can only hope that the world will remain somewhat stable for the remainder of his term in office.

Why is Syria America’s Responsibility?

What a lot of Americans and I do not understand about this debacle in Syria is; Where is the outrage from the Muslim countries over the use of chemical weapons on their own people? Why are they not saying anything? Why are they not stepping up and demanding answers? Why are America and the Western world expected to end the violence and the bloodshed in the Middle East? When will the Arab countries look out for their own people?

The thought here is maybe instead of the United States going into every Muslim country of the world to stop the madness that exist in just about every Muslim country, we should ask (or even demand) the Muslim world to deal with their own problems or even better let Allah take care of it for a change.

Muslim extremists blame the United States for all their problems that have been created by their own leaders. It is time to force the Muslim leaders in the Middle East to deal with their issues and problems that they have created their self. Let them build an army and send their young men to fight, to be maimed, to bleed, and to die. Let them take care of their own problems with their religion of peace.

The Man You Call President

 Obama is way in over his head as president, especially about the Syrian conflict. As the president of the United States he has lost whatever credibility he has with the American people and world leaders. They look at him as a joke. The president of the United States must be a trustworthy and creditable person no matter who he is. The past five years of Obama living in the White House tell us that he is neither trustworthy of creditable. It just so happens that Obama is the president at this time in history and as far as credibility goes he has none.

Obama has irresponsibly and carelessly endangered the trustworthiness of not only American presidents in the future, but the security of our country also, by his superficial words and his puny acts as president in the area of foreign affairs. He is either missing something or he knows exactly what he is doing. (Destroying America) I think it is the latter.

Any person with any sense at all, even though they do not want any American involvement in Syria will tell you that we must back up Obama’s threat now, just to prevent any dangers in the coming future from a loss of American credibility in the eyes and minds of our enemies. The people who hate us, as well as our allies who have a lot to lose also by Obama making threats and then taking forever to back them up. We have a big problem with this man we call president. His big mouth and his narcissistic ego.

Most Americans cannot see why a single American soldier should be killed as a result of a weak foreign policy or a U.S. military strike, merely to spare Barack Obama the embarrassment of doing nothing, after his ran off of the mouth in public and demand the Syrian government to not use chemical weapons and he was ignored by Syria. How many lines in the sand does he need to draw?

Some people say that some military response is now necessary, not to spare Obama any embarrassment for not backing up what his big mouth puts out, but to spare the American presidency, all future presidents, and the American people from losing all credibility around the world to deter future threats to the United States without putting boots on the ground and bloodshed. We need a president that thinks before he opens his mouth. Something Obama apparently does not know how to do.

At this point and time in the Obama administration a token military strike will do nothing more to preserve the United States credibility than to do nothing at all. Years of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan by American troops and still nothing much has changed Why should soldiers or civilians get killed just to spare Barack Obama (The little general who lost his pants) a personal humiliation? Because that is what they would be doing.

Obama and his narcissistic ego have already put into place too many disasters not only in America but around the world also. It is very clear that his earlier actions in the Middle East were not thought out, unless he was deliberately trying to weaken the position of America in the Western world with her allies. Sometimes I wonder if this might not be the case. Is this his plan? Is this one f he changes that he talks so much about?

The real truth about Obama’s policies in Libya, Egypt, and other Mideast countries have led to replacing stable regimes (They might not have been perfect), that were at peace with America and for that matter with Israel, and they were also tolerant with Christians in their country and now they have been replaced with chaotic regimes in which fanatic anti-American terrorists that Obama has backed such as The Muslim Brother Hood are now in control.

How many Americans have yet, after nearly five years, to learn and to distinguish between his narcissistic words and his wretched record? There are a lot of problems in America and this world that hang on the answer to that question. Just think we have three more years of this man and we can only hope that there is an America left as we know it.

No Syria For America

This is the second article that I have posted about the conflict in Syria. Obama said that it would not be like the strikes in other Middle East Countries. The American people cannot believe that statement because for the most part it is the same words that we have heard before about the Middle East.

Secretary of State John Kerry has said more than once that Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian (Syria’s leader) used chemical weapons against civilians is “undeniable,” Kerry said the poison gas attack last week in, Syria, is a “moral obscenity. But the reaction of most Americans is; a U.S. military strike on the Syrian government or its military would be the wrong answer. There is little doubt that Assad and the rebels are both guilty of war crimes, including bombing, displacing and raping civilians. To date, Syria’s civil war is believed to have claimed more than 100,000 lives. The uprising against Assad began 29 months ago as mostly a peaceful demonstration to protest Assad. This happened in the midst of other Arab Spring uprisings in the Middle East which Obama was all for.

Although these protest would not have been nearly as dangerous to U.S. interests as the use of chemical weapons Obama should have stepped in then but he waited for the Muslim Brother Hood to get heavy involved before he decided to take action and then went to the side that the Muslim Brother Hood is on and that is completely insane. All Americans should be able to plainly say; people we have a problem here” and lets not go there.

Any intervention by Obama should require a careful strategy and plan of action if an intervention is even warranted. Where the Middle East is concerned there is not much in the way of a policy from the Obama administration, except that he seems to always want to side with whatever side the Muslim Brother Hood is on. The al-Qaida factions fighting alongside the same Syrian rebels that Obama wants to support are responsible for the deaths of more than 6,700 Americans which have died fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. But Obama and people like Kerry want to support such people as the Muslim Brother Hood. For a fact both sides are about the same. Both hate America and both are capable of using chemical weapons or for those matter nuclear weapons.

All Americans should keep in mind that civil wars in the Middle East have lasted, in some cases, for decades. In many ways, such civil wars never really end and they have been going on since Biblical times and even though there might be a truce it is almost always short lived. It is no big surprise or great wonder that the number of Americans who support and back Obama for American intervention in Syria is even lower than the approval rating for Congress. Now that is something to think about! According to a Reuter’s poll only nine percent of the American people want the U.S. to intervene. That is because the majority of the American people knows it would be useless and it would only be aiding the people who hate us.

Unless the American people are willing to go to the extent of sacrificing this nation’s sons and daughters in yet another Middle East conflict where more of our sons and daughters will die or be maimed, the calls for intervention, by Obama and such people as Kerry ought not to be heeded.

From A Line In The Sand To A Debate In Congress

Obama has to be the most careless president that the American people have ever had or else he knows exactly what he is doing during his term as president (destroying America) and even more so about the situation in Syria. Why are we even talking about taking military action in Syria? What is the military action, that Obama wants, supposed to accomplish? What great thing will it do? And what is the probability that it will in fact bring about whatever that unknown goal might be? The Syrian government and rebels have killed over 100,000 people during the past two plus years of civil war.

All of a sudden after shooting off his mouth about Syria, Obama for some reason made an about face and is now demanding that Congress approve his plan to attack Syria. Obama most likely would already have attacked Syria, without any thought, at all about Congress’s approval or what they think, but he also plays the blame game. That has been the way he has done with any other issue or business he has wanted done. He does all his business, like all narcissistic people do, by executive order.

Most Americans are unwilling and do not want to begin yet another military intervention in another Mideast civil war. More boots on the ground to die and for what? Those people, in the Middle East have been fighting among themselves for centuries and they will be fighting until Jesus comes. Most of the middle east, except Israel, hates the United States so why are we even going there?

We should not back any side in Syria. The leader of Syria is evil, hates the American people, hates Israel, and hates Christians. The other side has the Muslim Brother Hood and we all know what they are. They also hate America, Christians, and Israel. Obama backed the Muslim Brother Hood in Egypt and what do we have now? CHAOS. Why would any American president want to back a group of people, like the Muslim Brother Hood who hate Americans? Like I said he knows what he is doing.

Obama’s is a narcissistic about what he thinks his superiority to Congress. He considers it insignificant as to what congress thinks about what he wants. He finally has matched his hypocrisy and two-facedness regarding his absolute and completely narcissistic understandings of the proper guidelines regarding use of military force. Now he asks from the Congress, who he despises, an authorization he considers of great importance. And surely he understands that congress might deny his request for the approval that he has sought, then being that he is a big time narcissistic he might treat the denial from congress as neither here nor there and just do what he wants anyway. Obama is the infection against what he wants everybody to believe that he is the immunization for. He is becoming a bigger joke to most word leaders every day. We can only hope that he does not destroy this country before he gets out of office.

In the Illinois Legislature, before he was elected president, he voted “present” 129 times to avoid difficulties of making a decision; then he steps down from his perch to lecturer Congress on accountability. When will the American people or congress ever hold him accountable? Obama wants Congress to give him the okay to make war against Syria, but for everything else he insists that, given the urgency of everything he wants, he “can’t wait” for Congress to vote for his programs or to confirm persons he nominates to put his failing programs in place. The intrinsic worth of his policies is, according to him, are self-evident, needed, sufficient and he has given good enough reason for him to impose them by executive decrees. (You know like dictator)

He reprimands Congress about Syria and wants them as a partner while he is talking about accountability. He needs congress so he can play the blame game if something goes wrong or for any failure that might happen in Syria because this is one thing that he cannot blame Bush. As we all know Obama is never wrong.

Let Allah Take Care of It

The whole world is waiting to see what Obama will do about the situation in Syria. Most of the world has warned Obama not to use any military force against the Syrian government and that doing so could result in punitive retaliation. The British parliament voted not to take any action against the Syrian government because there was no smoking gun evidence against them, so, will somebody, please tell me why Obama wants to bomb Syria? Why would Obama or any American want to help either side in that country? The truth of the whole matter is this: Does anyone really know for sure who is doing the killing with chemical weapons in Syria. The truth is either side would use the chemical weapons if they had them and had the opportunity. The question to be asked is why Obama is so willing and ready to help the people in that country that oppose the Syrian government. Those same people, for the most part, are the very people that hate Americans and will sooner or later try to kill us. They would have no problem in using chemical weapons on America.

The smart thing to do is let Allah, not Obama, straighten things out in Syria. With Obama, it seems that whatever side the Muslim Brotherhood is on that is the same side Obama takes. The same thing happened in Egypt he took the Muslim brotherhood's side. Why take the side of people that hate you and want to see you destroyed? There has to be a reason behind it because there is no reason for Obama's intent to wage war without a strong rationale for his reason to validate such a war and there is no reason to bomb Syria just because Syrians are in a war with each other.

Obama's foreign policy strategy is all wrong. For one thing he has no foreign policy except one that is for the people that hate us and against the people that are our friends. There are two questions to be asked regarding Obama's intended help for Syria. The first question is whether or not such action, as Obama proposes, would help the Syrian people or the Muslim brotherhood and the second question is what impact, if any, an attack on Syria would have on United States national security.

Obama wants to punish evil acts (not really sure if that is the real reason) in the form of an air strike on Syria to serve as a deterrent but the fact of the matter is the United States, along with other countries, invasion of Iraq with a massive army of foot soldiers, tanks, airplanes, and warships wasn't enough of a deterrent to stop evil men from using chemical weapons on their own people, why should Obama think this will be?" There is no clear mission in Syria. What important American interests are we protecting? NONE

What we are really seeing is still another struggle between violent radical Islamists that has been an ongoing problem in that area of the world for hundreds of years and that will be going on until time ends in this world. The United States has no business getting involved in Syria or anywhere without first asking what is the vital interest here. Obama needs to give the American people some sort of validation before he intervenes in Syria. Starting with asking Obama who is he really behind in all this?" That question is easy to answer, THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD

Either the information is blatantly wrong about who used the gas for the mass destruction of the people or it is as made up and phony as Barack Obama's personal background and we all know how phony that is. This also implores one to ask why Obama would go to such measures to manufacture or invent evidence just to go to war against his half-brother's employer, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. With Obama it makes a person wonder.

The Liberal Newspapers

I recently read in an editorial by a liberal newspaper that stated the people who oppose the United Nations treaty on banning firearms are merely misled and are deceived, or they are trying to scam the American people. Sad to say the liberal newspaper is the one doing the scamming and the deceiving. They only tell the people what they want the people to hear and they also tell it in a deceiving way. They always seem to leave something out of their reporting.
Missing from the article that I read was the fact of what our constitution reveals, to the American people, in Article VI:
"This constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
What if this "archaic (outdated and pre-historic) document, that is known as our constitution" as Obama proclaimed, when he was a member of congress, and declared to the American people in 2008, is ignored and overlooked. How will the judges, in this country, rule on this new law that the United Nations Wants to impose on the American people if they believe the constitution is a "changing document" and how will they decide what the foundering fathers meant?There are two things that Obama and his liberal friends would like to change and that is the Bible (which will always be because God's Word changes not) and the constitution of these United States which the American people have lived by for hundreds of years. I submit that the liberal news. The liberals, and Obama are the ones that are mislead.
The editorial then mentions that the treaty says small arms would be managed and controlled by "international standards." It also quotes that the treaty "recognizes the right of nations to control arms within their own territory." Recently, we have heard politicians say that if they had the votes, they would tell the American people to "turn all their guns in. So much or the constitution.
Lastly, it informed the American people that this treaty will make no difference one way or the other. So my question is to the liberal newspaper, Obama, and the liberals is this, why have it? Why has such a treaty if it makes no difference? The truth of the matter is nations that do not get all the facts before passing new laws never make a good example for the rest of this world.