OBAMA SAYS IF REPUBLICANS WIN THERE WILL BE HAND TO HAND COMBAT

 

As reported byThe LA Times

 

A Republican majority in Congress would mean “hand-to-hand combat” on Capitol Hill for the next two years, threatening policies Democrats have enacted to stabilize the economy, President Obama warned Wednesday.

Speaking on Michael Baisden’s syndicated radio show, Obama also made a direct appeal to African Americans about the importance of the November vote, even though he’s not on the ballot himself.

“The reason we won [in 2008] is because young people, African Americans, Latinos — people who traditionally don’t vote in high numbers — voted in record numbers.  We’ve got to have that same kind of turnout in this election,” he said.  “If we think that we can just vote one time, then we have a nice party at Obama’s inauguration, and then we can kind of sit back and suddenly everything’s going to change – that’s just not how it works.”

Obama called into Baisden’s show, syndicated to 71 radio stations in 21 states, as part of his effort to rally core Democratic constituencies with less than four weeks before the election.  Although his campaign itinerary is limited by sagging approval ratings in key states, Obama is making a more-targeted effort focused on supportive venues like Baisden’s show.

“Everybody in the barbershops, the beauty shops, and at work — everybody’s got to understand: This is a huge election,” he said. “If we turn out in strong numbers, then we will do fine. If we do not, if we are and decide, well, you know, Barack’s not running right now, so I’m just going to stay home, then I’m going to have my hands full up here on Capitol Hill.”

Days before the release of a key jobs report, Obama said most of the job losses his administration gets blamed for occurred before “any of my economic plans were put into place,” and that the country is still “experiencing the hangover from the misguided policies” of the last decade.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-base-20101008,0,25...

Views: 4100

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Mr Usurper bring it on we the people are waiting

Fear not Lady Leslie,

We are 320 million strong and most have guns and bullets - there is no way they can win a armed conflict - all military will refuse and if some do not they will not last long against all the millions of Vets that are armed and trained  .. . we are not defeat-able by force.

Agreed.

Mangus --

". . . all military will refuse . . ."

We can hope, but I'm sure he would call in his buddy UN peacekeepers to lend their Muslim armies and equipment. That's the Agenda 21 takeover and Caliphate that he's aiming (pun intended!) for after declaring martial law. And, there are leaking reports of military training desensitizing our troops to the possibility of fighting and killing Americans in America, because, remember -- under the obamanation's NDAA, anyone opposing the government is "a racist, a traitor and a terrorist."

I must admit, he's played his hand brilliantly -- if he loses, he will simply incite civil unrest designed so he can declare a "national emergency." He then can impliment Executive Order 13603 that he was so anxious to write and quetly slip into the Friday White House "Document Dump" of 16 March 2012 hoping the American people wouldn't notice -- and most didn't. Read it carefully, especially the last about four pages. View it here:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-03-22/pdf/2012-7019.pdf

Personally, I have NO DOUBT why he was so determined to sneek EO 13603 into the Federal Register at the very point when Romney's numbers were rapidly closing in on him. I believe the election is a moot point, the obamanation has no intention of forfeiting his power by stepping down, even if his corrupt election fraud tactics fail to secure his re-election.

Hey Wes,

I hate to break it to ya, but our nation has been under a delcared National Emergency since 9-11-2001. Why do you think Obama has gotten away with so many of these "seemingly" unconstitutional Executive Orders. It's because, while under a declared State of Emergnency, the presidency CAN.

If we can take back the Senate and hold the House, the National Emergency Act needs to be reworked, to retract some of the "congressional pre-consent" that's in it, so that no other future president can pull the crap that Obama has.

Then you need to address the state of war that exist between Iran and the USA and several other nations that have allowed or attacked our sovereign soil - the embassies. In the case of Iran they took captives - pure declaration of war - note that there has never been a truce so the war is still active. What about Libya and Egypt this past month? 

Seems the international law supports the state of war . . .

Mangus --

I don't think I said anything about there not being a "state of war" -- that's obvious, just as you say with Iran, Libya, Egypt . . . and several others if the truth be known.  But, they are primarily covert wars and certainly not wars formally declared by Congress. 

I fully agree that we're fighting covert wars all the time, just as covert wars are being waged against us all the time -- like China's cyber-terrorism against our government, corporations and national infrastructure.

Thanks for the note!

Wes, I did not intend the post to be towards you . . should have been more clear - my fault - sorry.

I only  pointed out the "APPROVED WAR" - War is on when they attack your sovereign soils and endanger of harm our citizens . . once war is on it is automatic and only a FORMAL TRUCE CAN END THE ACTION . . 

Many think that Congress must declare war for there to be a state of war - with the war posers act and the fact that Congress did vote for military action [aka WAR] and then they voted each year to provide the funding required - so they approved of all actions each year over and over and over again . . 

Like congress always does they defer to the the Executive as they are forced to face the people each two years - the President can be blamed then just like the Democrats that voted close to 100% for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars at one time or another. Then they blamed the entire thing on BUSH - oh really?

Magnus --

Definitely on the same page. 

"Like congress always does they defer to the Executive . . . "

Why do we bother to continue to pay them?  To pretend we're a republic not a dictatorship?  I'm tempted by term limits, but I would hate to see the few 'really good' senators and representatives  forced out.

Personally, I think those in Congress should be paid a salary equal to the average American citizen, should be required to live under the same laws they impose on the rest of us, retire with the same Medicare and Social Security -- I think if they had to live under everything they impose on us, we would have a much better country and we wouldn't have these career politicians unless they were truly dedicated to improving the American condition.

Appreciate the reply!

 

Term limits IMO and using the California model - they do not work in fact they give much more power to the Civil Service bureaucrats and the Executive . . . it left the legislature without and strong leaders and the result was a BK State with little hope of solutions . . 

No it is up to WE THE PEOPLE to kick the bad Legislators out  . . like underwear change and wash frequently.

Jerry --

"I hate to break it to ya, but our nation has been under a delcared National Emergency since 9-11-2001."

Appreciate your intent, but you're not telling me anything I haven't already known and have tried to educate people about since the last presidential election.  We're on the exact same side here.  Don't have time to look it up right at the moment, but there actually is a recent Obama EO formally declaring a "national emergency." 

Appreciate the reply. 

BB,

Are you legal? You mean like this guy? Interesting fellow . . 

https://play.google.com/store/search?q=Lysander+Spooner&c=books

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by Tom StiglichPolitical Cartoons by Tom Stiglich

ALERT ALERT

Yikes !!! Ocasio-Cortez: We Need A ‘Multigendered, Multigeographic’ United States

The United States of America needs to be “multigendered” and “multigeographic,” according to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who endorsed fellow socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) at the “Bernie’s Back Rally” in New York on Saturday.

The freshman lawmaker and “Squad” member officially endorsed Sanders during a rally in Queensbridge Park in Long Island City, New York, on Saturday and called for more diversity in the U.S., arguing that it should not only be “multiracial” and “multigenerational” but “multigeographic” and “multigendered.”

“We need a United States that really, truly, and authentically is operated, owned, and decided by working – and all – people in the United States of America,” Ocasio-Cortez said to applause.

“That is what it – it is multiracial, multigendered, multigenerational, and multigeographic,” she said, failing to elaborate on what that specifically looks like.

“We have to come together, not ignoring our differences but listening to them, prioritizing them, understanding injustice,” she continued.

The socialist lawmaker also implied that rampant racism is still alive and well in the U.S., telling the crowd that it is essential to understand “that we operate in a context where slavery evolved into Jim Crow, evolved into mass incarceration, [and] evolved into the realities we have today.”

BONUS VIDEO

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service