Obama promised, once he took office, to transform America. He didn’t mention how. It has come to my attention that many Americans don’t see anything wrong with socialism. Your problem is that you have failed to sort out your good intentions. It is my task, at this time, to set you straight.

As defined in my dictionary, collectivism, the socialist principle, control by the people collectively, or by the state, you must understand—control by the people—giving the individual equal opportunity, giving the individual the freedom to use his resources to his own best advantage, collectively—in fact, constitutionally—you understand, we’ve found in America that society is more productive, of course leaving out the state, because the state collects the fruits of society’s labor and redistributes it for its own best advantage. The distinction is that state controlled collectivism, or progressivism, ultimately like cattle, government driven into a chute and slaughtered if you dare to disobey your masters, or at the very least lose your freedom, we bear witness to that many, many times in numerous places.

Only 25 percent of the American people approve of Congress. Want to know why? Knowing Members of Congress for the self-serving frauds they’ve become, not one statesman left, we, the people, naturally vote for the representative we feel will get our district the most from government. Under the circumstances, what else can we do? Actually, what we get is a government protection racket, an Obama,his czars, Pelosi-Reid mafia. Only such dirt-bags as these would pull such a stunt as they are pulling. One finds it hard to make the connection with that bunch and human beings. The gall of those skunks talking about taking from the rich and giving to the poor! With millions sucking hind tit, bringing about great division in America, this is exactly what the statist team of criminals now in power wants. I never would have thought it possible in America.

With Obama law, part natural; that is, the individual doing the best he can for himself, and part political, the group doing the best it can for itself, a monster is born. Mr. Roosevelt brought you people who don’t see anything wrong with socialism a state duty, actually an unconstitutional duty to the individual Mr. Roosevelt called it the “New Deal.” Mr. Roosevelt considered it his duty to create a welfare state, a state duty bound to take care of you people with so little? Wasn’t that nice of him? No, I don’t think so.

It didn’t work, folks. Understand that necessity is the mother of invention. All we need is equal opportunity. We come equipped to do the rest. Equal opportunity is what made America the greatest nation on earth. We don’t have equal opportunity when government takes half of our sweat and redistributes it. When government has a duty to keep you, necessity—that need to find a way to exist—doesn’t exist. Mr. Roosevelt caused the Great Depression to remain in place years and years. And now Mr. Obama is doing the same. We’ve got government bailouts, unsustainable debt creation, and the unemployment figure higher now that when Obama took office. Once again, it is Mr. Roosevelt’s flawed answers.

Thanks to Mr. Roosevelt, your tax dollars are now providing me—not you—with a living. And thanks to Mr. Roosevelt’s flawed answers, Mr. Obama is building his depression, too. And keep this in mind: I’ve been retired since I was 65. I’m now 84 and still going strong. I’ll probably live to a 100. When Social Security became law the average age was 64, and the birth rate was very low. Naturally the cost of the government entitled is skyrocketing. And too, with Government growing by leaps and bounds, as is government pay and government pensions, the cost of government far exceeds the taxpayers ability to pay. Clearly a monster is devouring America’s free enterprise system, exactly what the Obama mafia is shooting for. The carefully planned deception: we, the people, totally dependent on Obama. And what about the government entitled? Well, we try not to think about that. Let me remind you that in state regulated socialist nations it is not a pretty picture.

But what about the prosperous, those who have so much, those greedy, grasping people who leave you with so little, namely, the uncaring, immoral rich? Greed and immoral behavior is not confined to the rich. You are being deceived by the frauds in power. By eliminating those so-called greedy, grasping peoples’ control, through spreading of the wealth, it means that you, the not so prosperous, do not have more, you have less. Think about it. Where does the money come from that is redistributed? The more the resourceful the more the money, as money merely represents human energy. As there is no limit on human energy, or human awareness, there is no limit on the amount of money. It has never yet happened that the not so rich have received more in the long run by taking from the rich. It’s a short-sighted Marxist answer politicians have implanted in the poor. Instead of encouraging people to depend on others, the current political game in Washington, by encouraging the resourceful, we all have more. Encouraging dependence on the state causes everyone to have less and the state to have more power and control. That’s what politicians want. State collectivism, don’t you see, kills the goose that laid the golden egg, and leaves your freedom gone with the wind.

So what is the answer? Mr. Roosevelt said you only have fear itself to fear. A big change is in the wind. A better idea than state controlled collectivism is collectivism controlled by the people: the individual, not coerced by unaffordable government mandates, but collectively working to bring the good life to everyone. The Tea Party promotes the “Higher Law,” the background of American constitutional law. I ask you to carefully consider what I’ve brought to your attention, that by listening to Washington’s answer it is at your own peril. I invite you to join the Tea Party, collective control of the people, by the people. Lend a hand in helping bring peace and prosperity to everyone. Help the world, rather than through the Obama crime family, to beat a path to America’s door our Tea Party way, the American way, Providence’s way.

Views: 11

Comment

You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

Comment by Joseph Whitworth Smith on May 23, 2010 at 10:24am
Thanks guys! I'm glad I'm provoking thought. You are going to need to be ahead of the hounds.

I grew up in Highland Park, Texas, the most desirable place to live in Dallas Country. I know how the cream of society thinks. I know intelligent people who voted for Obama. I listen to them and ask if they ever listen to Fox News. The answer is alway no.

Is it any wonder they remain in support of Obama? They listen to the mainstream news. Most of these people I mention have strong faiths in God. They are chruch-goers, and active in civic organizations. They are prosperous and have bright children. You could call them the salt of the earth.

But the one thing these good people do not have is strong wills. Although they will tell you otherwise, they've never had it really very tough. Their lives are very well organized. Many have inherited their wealth. They are establishment influenced. They do not like boat-rockers. They fear change. They are sophisticated Democrats, the kind that Harvard University teaches, with special knowlege ordinary people don't possess. You might call them America's ruling class.

These good citizens compartmentalize. Religion is one thing, the law another, science another. They seldom, if ever, allow their imaginations to wander from the staight and narrow. Naturally, they don't connect with the consciousess of the universe; they remain seeing no evil, hearing no evil, and speaking no evil, even with the current ill wind that blows no good. God in Heaven will work it all out. There's nothing to worry about. Just leave it to God, or Obama.

These good people have never experieced poverty. They live in secure neighborhoods.
They've never been locked out for non-payment of rent. I know what it is like, but these good people call themselves charitable--for social justice. Naturally, they oppose Arizona's discriminatory law, even though they have not read it. They never consider that their authorities are expedient to their own desires. They follow their leaders without question--and the God their leaders have drummed into them.

When I think about the world these good people limit themselves to, and all of my dreams have come true, I wonder. We can't all live in their world.

With nothing better to do with my time, I'm retired, and living a quiet life in the tall timber far from the glitz of the city. I've put the majority of my time into putting the pieces of the puzzle together. I'm getting a picture of the future. We are going to find out who is right and who is wrong, the same way I learned, the hard way. These good people I mention are in for a rude awakening. Their world compares with the south's world in Gone With the Wind.
Comment by Joseph Whitworth Smith on May 22, 2010 at 3:33pm
Setting aside opinion for a moment and talking about the law, America's law; that is, constitutional law based on the "Higher Law;" that is. substantive law, how does Obama's law line up? Under "lawful," in Black's Law Dictionary, Legal; warranted or authorized by the law, having the qualifications prescribed by law; not contrary or forbidden by law.

The principle distinction between the terms "lawful" and "legal" is that the former contemplates the substance of the law, the latter the form of law. To say of an act that it is "lawful" implies that it is authorized, sanctioned, or at any rate not forbidden, by law. To say of an act that it is "legal" implies that it is done or performed in accordance with the forms and usages of law, or in a technical manner. This would say that legal does not necessarily line up with the Constitution.

Further, in Black's Law Dictionary, the word "lawful" more clearly implies an ethical content than does "legal." The latter goes no further than to denote compliance, with positive, technical, or formal rules; while the former usually imports a moral substance or ethical permissibiltiy. A further distinction is that the word "legal" is used as the synonym of "constructive," which "lawful" is not. Thus "legal fraud" is fraud implied or inferred by law, or made out by construction. "Lawful fraud" would be contradiction in terms.

Under Black's definitions of "lawful" and "legal," Hitler was "legal." When an international court weighed the idea of Nazis merely following the law in Nazi Germany, the court held it to be "legal fraud" and convicted every one of them.

Weigh that which is "lawful" with the Ombama Administration's stand on Arizona's law concerning illegals, along with the fact that is is against federal law to enter the United States undocumented.

It is reported here that a top Department of Homeland Security official said his agency would not necessarily process illegal aliens Arizona turned over to the feds. He didn't think Arizona's ideas on undocumented Mexicans was the right way to go, regardless of the law and the fact that the feds are doing little or nothing to stop the entry of undocumented Mexicans.

How would you judge Obama? Is he adhering to his constitutional oath of office, or is Obama a "legal fraud," as above explained in Black's Law Dictionary? Like Nazis before the law, should Obama be prosecuted as a con artist, a "legal fraud" and traitor to his country?

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

Horrible: Democrats Set The Constitution On Fire With Fraudulent Impeachment

House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday morning after an investigation that violated fundamental provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The investigation of the president began with the complaint of a so-called “whistleblower” who turned out to be a rogue Central Intelligence Agency employee, protected by a lawyer who had called for a “coup” against Trump in early 2017.

Democrats first demanded that the “whistleblower” be allowed to testify. But after House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was found to have lied about his committee’s contact with the “whistleblower,” and after details of the “whistleblower’s” bias began to leak, Democrats reversed course. In violation of the President Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser, Democrats refused to allow the “whistleblower” to testify. They argue the president’s procedural rights, even if they existed, would not apply until he was tried in the Senate — but they also invented a fraudulent “right to anonymity” that, they hope, might conceal the whistleblower even then.

Schiff began the “impeachment inquiry” in secret, behind the closed doors of the Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) in the basement of the U.S. Capitol, even though none of the testimony was deemed classified. Few members of Congress were allowed access. Schiff allowed selective bits of testimony to leak to friendly media, while withholding transcripts of testimony.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), having allowed the secret process to unfold, legitimized it with a party-line vote authorizing the inquiry. The House resolution denied President Trump the procedural rights enjoyed by Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and denied the minority party the traditional right to object to witnesses called by the majority.

Rather than the House Judiciary Committee, which traditionally handles impeachment, Pelosi also deputized the House Intelligence Committee to conduct fact-finding; the Judiciary Committee was turned into a rubber stamp. Schiff held a few public hearings, but often failed to release transcripts containing exculpatory evidence until after they had passed.

In the course of the Intelligence Committee’s investigation, Schiff quietly spied on the telephone records of his Republican counterpart, Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA). He also snooped on the phone records of a journalist, John Solomon; and on the phone records of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, acting as President Trump’s personal lawyer.

Schiff’s eavesdropping violated both the First Amendment right to press freedom and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Yet he proceeded undeterred by constitutional rights, publishing the phone logs in his committee’s report without warning, confirmation, or explanation, alleging that Nunes and the others were part of a conspiracy to assist the president’s allegedly impeachable conduct. When Republicans on the Judiciary Committee asked the Intelligence Committee’s majority counsel, Daniel Goldman, to explain the phone logs, he refused to answer,

Ironically, Schiff had done exactly what Democrats accuse Trump of doing: abused his power to dig up dirt on political opponents, then obstructed a congressional investigation into his party’s and his committee’s misconduct.

Democrats’ articles of impeachment include one for the dubious charge of “abuse of power,” which is not mentioned in the Constitution; and one for “obstruction of Congress,” which in this case is an abuse of power in itself.

Alexander Hamilton, writing about impeachment in Federalist 65, warned that “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Democrats have fulfilled Hamilton’s worst fears.

The Trump impeachment will soon replace the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson — which the House Judiciary Committee staff actually cited as a positive precedent — as the worst in American history.

In service of their “coup,” Democrats have trampled the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Republic has never been in greater danger.

You don't get to interrupt me

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service