After long thought and consideration, I have decided to make this piece my last for this blog until further notice. I want to share my personal thoughts and feelings for this decision and will do so at the close of this piece. But first I’d like to go back and cover something our putative president told us on the 2008 campaign trail.
Perhaps there is nothing more frightening than the thought of a military-like presence in a residential neighborhood. It’s even more chilling than seeing lines of squad cars cordoning off a street to check drivers to see if they’re drinking and/or not wearing a seat belt, the latter being a blatant unconstitutional violation of the 4th Amendment.
The images of a group of law enforcement officers walking thru a community sends a message that a crime is about to be averted or if in place, shut down. In such cases, most residents of that community would relish such a presence or at least not be bothered or intimidated by it, unless it becomes a regular pattern.
But seeing military commandos walking down our sidewalks or cruising down our streets would like send shivers up most any normal human being. Yet as disturbing as this would be, the thought of some largely unknown civilian army (with no direct ties to either the U.S. military or traditional law enforcement agencies) parading thru a city would possibly not only send shockwaves thru its residents but create massive and likely unprecedented panic and fear. Most any rational headed man or woman would equate such activity to that of a police state with images of what occurs in many foreign nations coming to mind.
I know. Because when I first heard Obama mention this civilian army at a campaign stop in Colorado, those thoughts and images raced through and plagued my entire being. I could envision the gross and blatant violation of our 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th Amendments.
And mind you, I’m no conspiracy theorist. I don’t see how any normal minded law abiding individual could not be fearful of possibly being escorted from his or her dwelling to a prison or makeshift concentration camp by a law enforcement officer or military official, let alone a civilian army official, however that may be defined.
But a couple recently surfaced items have compelled me to reexamine what Obama might have implied when he was making his run for the White House. Mind you, these are only observations. And mind you, I know as so many of you do that Obama is a serial liar. He is the equivalent of the little boy crying “Wolf!” on steroids. He should not be trusted on pretty much anything. He is perhaps an instrument of the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya.
But what if Obama meant what he said in this regard? What if he truly wants to assemble an army that is as strong as our current military forces, if not stronger? We may not have an idea of what his true intent is but if it begins like with the expansion of the Americorps as Michael Savage points out here, or with this idea, or even with this one (worth viewing since it incorporates excerpts from both previous videos, plus more), we better sober up.
One of those items introduces us to the new Barack Obama Male Leadership Academy. The question that begs for an answer upon seeing the name of the school is this: what leadership skills does America’s allegedly legit president possess that entitles his name to go on a school building and set as an example for others to emulate? But beyond that, since Obama has sealed all his papers from public purview via executive order, his very first upon assuming office, we don’t have any transcripts as a student, awards as a teacher (if he so was one) or any other related documentation from his classroom or teaching days as examples of why a school should be named for him. Therefore, we don’t know what caliber of an individual this mystery man possesses other than of the unproven hearsays from talking heads on radio, TV and the Internet.
The limited information on the schools website doesn’t reveal much of anything different than we might read about a traditional public school. Dancing Czars exposes a few tidbits of details about its chief administrator there as a result of an unlinked story posted there.
Other details that might be revealed thru a Google search pans out nothing out of the ordinary, though a short video (volume quality is poor) gives the indication that this will probably be an all black school. Based on the school district’s testing criteria, curricula here would seem to be that of any other middle school and high school in the Dallas district. So maybe there’s nothing here.
But I do have this gnawing feeling, given the army videos and what is known about Obama, that there could be something more sinister in the brewing, like:
Will the school attract Muslims and teach about Islam in any capacity?
Will there be political activities on campus, particularly ones that will endeavor to recruit students to government service and some form of military combat?
Will the school be a recruitment source for Democrats? With Obama’s name on the outside and his political prowess, I wouldn’t put this past him, despite the fact that schools are not supposed to be tools for political party organization. Recall the hubbub from Sept. 2009 when Obama used his bully pulpit to speak to public school students from the Oval Office upon their return to school.
With this being an all male school, was the gender segregation done to keep young impressionable students disciplined towards their studies? Or realizing how Obama is the most pro-homo (putative) president ever in office, knowing how he seeks to promote the agenda at every turn and how he may have such tendencies himself, will this be a subtle effort to teach and homosexualize pupils? Don’t laugh. Massachusetts has been the one state subsidizing taxpayers to do so.
It does seem a bit peculiar in a strong conservative Republican state like Texas that a school named for our alleged president (and who is largely unpopular there) now exists. Perhaps I’m reading too much into it. Maybe I’m going overboard politicizing it. But what if I’m not? There may indeed be nothing to this. But with Obama being who he is, a homosexual embracing Muslim and a person who has done nothing, despite widespread concerns, to prove he’s a natural born citizen, I’d rather be safe than sorry in saying this.
The second item is in all likelihood a bigger consideration for Obama’s civilian army. And that pertains to the tragic December repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) in the U.S. armed forces. It was a horrible decision by Congress to approve of it but it fits right in line with who Obama is and what he supports. Sadly, it’s being implemented right before our very eyes. And if you want to know how repulsive the results of repeal are showing itself to be, here you go. You have to read it to believe it.
4 months ago, Gen. James Amos, commandant of the U.S. Marines, our best of the best in uniform, made a strong case against the DADT repeal to Congress. Less than two months after, he and one of his juniors have been apparently brainwashed to do the 180 (upper video – can also be seen directly on You Tube here).
It’s a terrible blight on our nation, both the acceptance of homosexual conduct as federal policy and the foisting of it on the men (and women) in uniform. We can thank most of the Democrats as well as a few Republicans and the likely bogus POTUS for the repeal.
I know, some of you may be asking, “What does the DADT repeal have to do with Obama’s idea of civilian army – the federal military would have nothing to do with that”.
It all starts with one word as I alluded to two paragraphs ago: brainwashing.
Now let me hasten to add that I don’t know if there will be a correlation between a civilian army and the U.S. Armed Forces. But if you can “convert” a prized and principled military leader like James Amos into accepting openly degrading and unnatural sexual behavior among the men (and women) who wear the uniform, well, you might be able to “convert” anyone.
We don’t know what went on behind the scenes with Obama, Defense Secretary Bob Gates and other high ups to cause Commander Amos to alter his apparent previously strong position on homosexuals in the military. If you didn’t know how principled it was, just read the second paragraph here. Not only was he opposed to repeal but so were the chiefs of the Army & Air Force. And back in May, so was the head of the Navy.
So with our military’s finest now deluded to accept degrading and unnatural sexual acts and to allow such practitioners to openly serve, it appears we’ve reached the end of an era of integrity. What has been both historically and Biblically viewed as verboten is now publicly tolerated, if not enthusiastically embraced, as part of our “brave” new military.
So how does the DADT repeal square with Obama’s concept of a civilian army as powerful as our actual military? This is a theory but follow along.
No matter how hard the left and homosexuals on the left try to mainstream homosexual activity as normal and safe, the facts completely undo such thinking. Most rational kids with normal childhoods do not enter puberty with raging hormones to engage in sexual activity with someone of their own gender. Those who participate in such activities (more so men) find themselves personally conflicted and confused, both from a moral standpoint as well as a natural one. Those who persist in such activities find themselves dug in to it and gradually become firmly entrenched, generally believing from both a moral and natural standpoint that there is no issue with homosexual conduct. Such people cannot distinguish right from wrong and this is why there is grave danger with the change of the DADT policy.
As is known by those of us who watch and read what is going on in the White House, we know that Obama has more homosexuals and homosexual sympathizers and allies than any previous president and perhaps more than all presidents combined since Reagan. It would be too lengthy to detail all the groups and events with a homosexual “flavor” that have been part and parcel of the Obama agenda but suffice it to say that it is extensive and if you’re not sure of it, just plug it all into your favorite search engine.
With our military in the process of being brainwashed on homosexual conduct, it stands to reason that Obama may be making plans to have America’s military leaders train public outcasts to be part of his civilian army. And what better way to do so than train avowed homosexuals as well as Muslims, to the extent the two can coexist?
Radical homosexuals and radical Muslims do not like America as it is and want to make it into an image that our Founding Fathers could never envision. To do away with traditional marriage in favor of any faux form of it and to attempt to mainstream Islam and the Koran in America would drastically alter our national fabric. Yet that is exactly what Obama is doing, given the sizable number of homosexuals and Muslims in his administration. To put the two generally disaffected groups together would seem to be a Herculean task, given the views of some Middle Eastern nations towards homosexual and given how many hard core homosexuals view any religion, be it Islam or Christianity.
Yet that’s what Obama seems to be achieving, which is partly why I believe that if he is not the antichrist, he is at least paving the way for him. What other discrete and divergent groups are so enamored with this empty suit?
So if homosexuals and Muslims are heavy in the Obama Administration, more so than all previous (legitimate) presidents combined, and our U.S. military is being brainwashed on homosexual behavior and Islam, why would such individuals not be considered to be part of an Obama civilian army? Add to that the illegals currently residing in the U.S. that he enthusiastically embraces as well as disaffected black youth (which have been seen in military-like training exercises on You Tube) and you may have some form of civilian army full of outcasts beyond our wildest imaginations.
Of course, this is a theory and I accept that I could fully be in error here. But think about it. What kind of folks would consider being part of a civilian military led by an anti-American “president” other than the disaffected or those who view themselves as such? Would your normal every day Americans, even liberal ones, who go to work and raise families consider taking up arms against their fellow Americans? I’m not even sure you can get your hardest of hard core Democrat leftists in public office (the Nancy Pelosis, the Barbara Boxers, the Harry Reids, Dick Durbins, etc.) to do so.
But if you’re not an American citizen, as Barack Obama is suspected not to be, then what’s to keep you from taking arms against the country you live in. Lack of allegiance would be a dead giveaway to someone thinking of putting together a civilian army. But who’s to say Obama has any? Remember, there was likely a reason he didn’t cross his hand over his heart during the playing of the national anthem. It wasn’t an accident.
The volumes of evidence showing Obama not to be constitutionally qualified because he’s not a natural born citizen are almost insurmountable. And there is scant little, if any, evidence that Obama would not take up arms against the American people if it gets really bad. And that is getting nearer to reality, especially as Americans are looking at whether Obama really met the constitutional requirements for the presidency.
I’m not going to address the FEMA camps that have been alleged where Americans may find themselves as a result of rebelling against the Obama Administration. It has been viewed as conspiracy thinking. It may well be. But what if it’s not? Although I don’t plan to discuss it in this piece, is it out of the realm that Obama could not use these facilities against us by rounding us up and putting us there? I would not be too quick to dismiss it. A call for a civilian army arouses the wildest of imaginations, many of which should not arbitrarily be dismissed.
One last point. Some folks may think Obama was conjuring up every thought he could when he was on the campaign trail, including the civilian army. And now from what we know about Obama since taking office 2+ years ago, a good many of us know that he’s a serial liar who cannot be trusted to tell the truth on virtually anything. So is it possible that he could be lying about the civilian army as well? Yes, he could.
But what if this is the one rare exception whereby Obama tells us the truth? We would be remiss if we pooh poohed it.
As those of you know and have followed me for years, you know I love writing. I believe God has gifted me to do so. From my days of writing for The Reality Check and Alan Keyes Renew America to my Seat Belt Choice website (inactive) to my Stop the ACLU website (also inactive) to my blogs and miscellaneous places, I have cherished getting the word out on so many items. I have been blest with a rich knowledge of all the news and resources the Internet has to offer as well as the Holy Scriptures which has shaped my thinking and world view of what I have gleaned from being online for nearly a decade. It’s long been my hope, prayer and passion that what I have shared, both via e-mail and my websites and blogs, would make an impression and impact on all I’ve come to meet.
Make no mistake about it. Those of you whom God has put in my path have helped shape my thinking and world view. Your knowledge and analyses of public figures, national and world events and spiritual matters have blessed me to no end. Being able to spread the word on these items and compel lawmakers to address them for the betterment of the states and country we live in is something I am proud of.
However, there gets to be a point where one has to ask themselves (as I have) how much more we need to spread the word on something to get our message out. I have now come to that point. I no longer want to be an armchair quarterback or general, either to you, my readers and supporters, or to our elected officials. I want to be where the action is.
I can no longer sit at my computer for hours on end composing and sending compelling messages, be they in the form of e-mails, news items for my website or blog, or for action items to lawmakers at the state and federal level.
Last month, I wrote this piece. At the suggestion of a fine patriotic woman and contact, I outlined how we all must come together to encompass all the district offices of every Congressman and woman and U.S. senator in America for the purpose of impeaching or otherwise removing Barack Obama from the White House. I originally thought it would be a fabulous idea if we all went to Washington (like 20-50 million of us) to force the usurper out. I still think it is a great idea. But not too many folks can make the long trip to DC, because of jobs (for those who still have them), finances, families or simply the distance to travel to DC, especially those who live more than a few hours north, south or west of the capitol. It simply becomes not feasible because of the logistics involved.
So I proposed this idea to the many contacts I have from my Stop the ACLU days as well as others I’ve come to know since my active days there. I thought we finally had something tangible we could make an impact for. We wouldn’t have to go across the country to Capitol Hill. We could just go to the district offices of all our Congressional officials and hold up signs, demanding action from them on Obama. The pressure for Congress to act would be too great to ignore if all 535 elected officials in Congress had their local offices blanketed with impeachment and removal signs. Doing this on a daily basis would be something that could not be ignored.
As a result of my e-mail, I cannot tell you how dismayed I was when the number of responses I got to the idea on my blog amounted to less than one hand’s fingers. I thought this idea was a sure winner. But by the deafening silence conveyed from my e-mail, it was clear that a good many of my contacts did not think so, preferring to do nothing or be little more than armchair generals operating from their keyboards. We can no longer keep the status quo. Unfortunately, some of us are content to be so, despite the country being stolen from us by the likes of Obama, Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano and a House Speaker (John Boehner) who doesn’t have the balls to tell Obama to show his papers or quit, nor to insist that taxpayer abortion funds and EPA funding be removed from budget considerations.
Though we must never cease educating our friends, families and others on the numerous agenda items the country faces day in and day and the dangers Obama poses to us both individually and corporately, there comes a time where we absolutely have to leave the keyboard behind and take to the streets. This is that time. America is in crisis mode with a dangerous man in the Oval Office and a Congress with a speaker who “takes Obama at his word” instead of investigating himself whether he’s a natural born U.S. citizen.
We can call, write, fax and e-mail Congress all we want but with few exceptions, its members will not listen to us. The only way they will hear us (along with the media) is if they see a sustained presence outside their 1200-1500 offices across the fruited plain with signs demanding Obama’s removal. It’s cheaper than going to Washington and requires nothing except wheels to get to their offices and makeshift signs demanding they act immediate. Not everyone can go every day to a Congressman or senator’s office. But we can ensure that coverage is consistent six days a week. There needs to be at least 100 men and women outside of every congressional and senatorial office in America on a daily basis (Monday thru Saturday) if we’re going to have a chance to save the nation. Obama, Holder and Napolitano will not go if we stay home. Patriotism demands action now!
As the venerable conservative Jewish columnist Don Feder wrote, “Where’s the Outrage“?
Unless and until we are willing to adopt the details laid out on my previous article, America will likely further sink into oblivion. Lots of well-intentioned folks have great ideas to restore the constitutional republic via different methods. The problem is many of those methods are largely not understood by the public. The ideas are in many ways compelling. However, most are not readily comprehended and virtually none get rid of the petulant man child in the Oval Office. The idea listed on my blog is easily understood and requires no experience, just patriotism and perpetual calls for Obama to go.
The issue is not can we do it but will we? If patriotism is still alive and you want to get involved in this national effort, you’ll contact me. If it’s dead and you don’t want to get involved, you won’t. But think about what you will leave for those behind you if you decide that saving the country for your children and from a bogus president doesn’t warrant a little time and sacrifice on your part.
This is my last call to everyone. I pray for an unprecedented response. Because without it, America’s finest days may well have passed us by. And without it, my activist days will likely go into the annals of American history.
Many of us are familiar with the Whitney Houston classic “The Greatest Love of All” (also sung by George Benson). Though it is new agey in a way, there is a lesson to be grasped. Consider these lines:
Everybody’s searching for a hero
People need someone to look up to
I never found anyone to fulfill my needs
A lonely place to be
And so I learned to depend on me
For years, America’s conservatives, patriots and for that matter, anyone who wanted an impartial view of the news and wanted a media heavyweight behind it could depend on FoxNews.com and the Fox News Channel. When we couldn’t get it from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, we could rely on America’s “hero”. If we couldn’t get the story at all (other than on lesser known websites and blogs), we knew we could find it on Fox.
Some folks have been saying for quite some time now that Fox has discarded its moniker “we report, you decide”. Yes, it could be seen in some respects. Perhaps no one was more biased on some issues (albeit not all) than the true pinhead, Bill O’Reilly.
But there still existed a consensus from Fox reporters and hosts like Britt Hume and Sean Hannity that we could get both sides of a story and the public would figure out what was truth and what was not.
Those days at Fox are pretty much over. Fox has been one of the last media venues to address the issue no one there dared touch, that being Barack Obama’s birth certificate (BC) and presidential eligibility. The issue percolated when Hawaii’s Gov. Neil Abercrombie earlier this year publicly announced that he wanted to put an end to it all by ordering the release of the alleged BC.
But when he ran into circumstances that forced him to backtrack, the media was forced to sit up and take notice. The burst of entrepreneur and tycoon Donald Trump onto the 2012 presidential scene and his outspokenness on the absence of any proof of natural born citizenship of America’s putative prez quickly kicked the issue into high gear. Suddenly he was getting interviews on media outlets across the spectra. With Fox sticking out like a sore thumb on its then non-participation, it was forced to cover what it cringed doing.
These became Maalox moments for O’Reilly, Hannity, Greta Van Susteren, Neal Cavuto, Megyn Kelly and others at Fox shunning to discuss what the public is increasingly concerned about (besides jobs and high gas and food prices).
But instead of running with the issue and giving both sides of the story, the talking heads at Fox were acting like politer versions of PMSNBC’s Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough, CNN’s Suzaane Malveaux, the New York Times Gail Collins and others, treating Trump and his supporters with skepticism as to why this should be a national issue.
And then Fox comes out with this hit piece yesterday, the “coup de gras” to its previous history of impartiality. And boy, as you will see, it is loaded with disdain at those of us who not only question but seriously doubt the presidential credentials of Barack Obama.
A quick summary of the Fox blatant bias comes in four parts:
- “Polls show that the billionaire reality star’s popularity has been on the rise as he’s taken up the so-called “birther” cause”. As Trump points out, the term “birther” has been, in his words (and mine), a “pejorative” (AKA slur). Anyone using this term in an article, other than in a quote, is likely using it as a point of mockery and disdain. Fox repeats the term in the third to last paragraph, not as a quote from someone but inserting its own two cents.
- “appealing to a fringe movement”. So people like me who question Obama’s lack of natural born citizenship appear to be “fringe” folks (AKA extremists). Funny but that doesn’t seem to jive with some recent polling. Perhaps Fox is the one on the fringe.
- “Most mainstream politicians have rejected this conspiracy theory as hokum, but Trump has embraced it”. So questioning whether Obama lines up with being a natural born citizen, according to Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the Constitution is now viewed by Fox as conspiratorial and “hokum”, another word for nonsense.
- “Though the president has produced a certificate of live birth”. This is disingenuous reporting on the part of Fox. There are countless articles from experts debunking the so-called birth certificate, too many to list here, but if you have lived in a hut over the last 2-3 years and haven’t seen an example of a truly bogus document compared to a bonafide one, compare Obama’s phony BC to Trump’s legitimate one.
(Is Fox so far removed that they want its readers to believe that the one Obama originally posted on his Fight the Smears website is authentic? Puhleez!)
In the top left corner of the Fox page (as well as all its news pages) you see below its logo “Fair and Balanced”. Frankly, there’s zilch that’s fair on this piece and if this is balanced, then I have a bridge for sale in New York I can offer you for next to nothing.
If those questioning Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president is viewed as fringe, then maybe Fox staff should view the 10,500+ comments (and counting) in just over a 24 hour period (at the time of this writing). Granted, there are opposition posts to those of us who believe Obama is ineligible but by far, the vast majority of posters here see a big problem. And Fox thinks the 9-10,000 who do are fringe? How many other articles of theirs at any time get posted comments into the five figures? Look at the “Most Commented” list to the right and try to find ones there (or any other recently past article) with anything remotely close.
Perhaps someone could ask Fox why no one individual wants to put his or her name as the author of this hit piece since none is listed.
And maybe someone could ask Hannity (if you can get thru to him) how prior to the 2008 election he could dig up so much dirt on Obama and his shady character pals like Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, and Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his arguably racist church but then make a boneheaded statement on this past Thursday’s show, saying to his so-called great American panel (web link cannot be found but the show was seen by this writer), “I assume the president was born in the United States”.
Memo to Sean (if he’s listening): Hey, buddy, why don’t you do the same research on Obama’s questionable natural born status in the same way you did his connections three years ago instead of just assuming? And if you come up with the same things so many of us have come up with, why not use both your radio and TV shows to report your findings? If Ruppert Murdoch or Roger Ailes fires you for doing so, consider it as a badge of honor to God, country and your audience. You will have done a heroic service to America and you will be highly valued and respected for standing on principle instead of with the hush hushers at the Fox hierarchy who appear to prefer to bow to Obama and his FCC instead.
You’re financially set with the nice six figure salary you get at Fox. Because of this and other reasons, isn’t the possible loss of your job at Fox worth it as a sacrifice to get the truth out on Obama and his ineligibility? Wouldn’t you want to be a hero to your audience, constitutionalists, conservatives and other patriots? Or is the Rodney King mentality, “can’t we all just get along” more important to you?
If you wish to e-mail the last paragraph to Hannity, his address is email@example.com. However, do not expect a reply or comment unless it’s in the multiples of thousands. He doesn’t advertise his e-mail address any more. At least O’Reilly still does, though don’t expect him to respond to this matter if you write him on it. But if you wish to do so, firstname.lastname@example.org.
Unfortunately, it appears Fox is not alone among the prestigious so-called conservative news sites when it comes to Barack’s ineligibility. The Washington Times also came up with this slightly slanted piece, albeit not as heavily so, this past Friday. The term “birther” was injected twice and “talk show conspiracists” once. But at least the writers’ names were provided and there was a little more objectivity here than the Fox story.
Memo to WT writers David Eldridge and Ben Wolfgang: Why does this issue not command your investigation? Are you unaware that constitutional lawyer Mario Apuzzo, one of those suing the Obama Administration, has advertised several times in your paper, including as recently as last month? Have you read his ad. Is it not compelling? Or is Mario a kook in your opinion? Don’t you think you could take a little time to talk to him (his contact info is readily observable on his home page. I assure you, he does interviews.
E-mail info for Mr. Eldridge and Mr. Wolfgang are noticeably absent here but if you’re interested in contacting them thru the paper or by fax or submitting a letter to the editor, details can be located here.
I won’t yet lump the WT into the category Fox now officially belongs to, the “Unfair and Imbalanced” one, since there is a general fairness in their writings – the ones on repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, or DADT, in the military (like this one) are very sound. And it is good on most other matters. But it is one we need to keep our eyes on.
That said, our hero sources are dwindling, those that have significant name recognition. It’s becoming more fashionable to read the lesser known sites and blogs for they have readers to gain. Sources like Fox, the WT, NewsMax and others have large reader bases. With biased reporting like seen in the above news story, Fox’s audience will likely drop some of its support, at least from those who watch its shows. The online site will likely maintain a high volume because unlike with the TV, you can pick what you want to read and view anytime. You don’t have that luxury on the boob tube, unless you switch the channel.
But it must be said that the Fox News Channel is not one of us any more. It doesn’t fulfill our needs that much any more. And so we will learn to depend on others for fair and balanced. Because Fox has abandoned it. And it must now pay the price in its ratings until such time it decides to cater to its audience and not Obama and the Saudis who are helping Mr. Murdoch in veering away from its previously refreshing coverage.
So now that I’ve reported the facts, it’s up to you to decide whether to believe them.