This You tube video shows how a so-called educator forces her absolute reverence for Obama on her class (or else).
She has no qualms about attempting to suppress any opposition to her view that clearly demonstrates her apparent belief that God sits at the right hand of Obama's throne.
Please go to this You Tube link to hear the unbelievable exchange and her willingness to lie to her students in order to put down any lack of awe for our current occupant of the White House.
Here is the link to the story and link to the video:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/21/nc-teacher-captured-on-video-suggesting-student-could-be-arrested-for-obama/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjpWaESn_9g&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Monday, May 21, 2012
Sound Familiar?
Totalitarinanism (or totalitarian rule)is a system where the state recognizes no limits to its authoriy and strives to regulate every aspect of public AND private life wherever feasable.
Totalitarian regimes stay in political power through an all-encompassing propoganda campaign; which is disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that is often marked by political repression, personality cultism and control of the economy, regulation and restriction of speech, mass surveillance and widespread use of terror.
-- author unkown but it sounds accurate. But that's just me.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Ever wonder what would happen if the Obama administration were to ignore the Constitution of the United States? You should. Did you know the U.S. Air Force just decided to authorize itself to fly drones over your home? They have also ruled that if they happen to capture a photo of you while supposedly looking for something or someone else that they can keep those photos of you. What happened to 4th Amendment? What happened to the Constitutional requirement that they have a court order or the Congressional authority to do this? Who knows; maybe this administration will declare a state of national emergency and stop the Presidential elections indefinitely. Just remember the audacity and hubris of this President.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Prosecutors: Democratic campaign treasurer embezzled at least $7 million from multiple clients
Imagine that... a Democrat embezzling money! The Democrats have been doing that for decades. The only difference is this time it was from other Democrats instead of the rest of us. You know what they say about, "No honor among theives".
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/28/prosecutors-court-filing-could-hint-at-looming-plea-deal-in-kinde-durkee-case/#ixzz1qT82EJAw
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Russia's Chief Negotiator overheard on hot microphone
Russia’s Chief Negotiator Makes Slip On Hot Mike
Russia’s chief negotiator, Barack Obama was caught on tape telling Russia’s President, Dmitry Medvedev that he’d have more flexibility to negotiate missile defense after he is re-elected.
A few of things come to mind for me.
a. It shows his arrogance to presume he has already been elected.
b. Why would we want to reduce our nuclear missile arsenal to 300 when the Russians have already admitted to having over 5,000? Keep in mind that doesn’t even address the ones owned by the North Koreans, China, Pakistan or the ones Iran aspires to have with the aid of the Russians.
c. Since when has being weak served as a deterrent against aggressors?
d. Am I the only one who believes Obama has done more to marginalize the U.S. in the world and make us more susceptible to attack from our enemies in three and a half years than our enemies could ever have hoped to achieve in decades?
e. Am I the only one who isn’t sure who’s side Obama is on?
f. Am I the only one who believes the Narcissistic egomaniac wannabe rock star we have for a President is seen as a joke by our enemies? And I mean that in the nicest possible way.
Russia’s chief negotiator, Barack Obama was caught on tape telling Russia’s President, Dmitry Medvedev that he’d have more flexibility to negotiate missile defense after he is re-elected.
A few of things come to mind for me.
a. It shows his arrogance to presume he has already been elected.
b. Why would we want to reduce our nuclear missile arsenal to 300 when the Russians have already admitted to having over 5,000? Keep in mind that doesn’t even address the ones owned by the North Koreans, China, Pakistan or the ones Iran aspires to have with the aid of the Russians.
c. Since when has being weak served as a deterrent against aggressors?
d. Am I the only one who believes Obama has done more to marginalize the U.S. in the world and make us more susceptible to attack from our enemies in three and a half years than our enemies could ever have hoped to achieve in decades?
e. Am I the only one who isn’t sure who’s side Obama is on?
f. Am I the only one who believes the Narcissistic egomaniac wannabe rock star we have for a President is seen as a joke by our enemies? And I mean that in the nicest possible way.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
New York tax-payer funded group teaches how to break and enter
New York tax money teaches homeless how to break and enter apartments
Tell me again about how who isn’t paying their fair share.
Legal residents of the New York community of Arlington Village are outraged to find their tax money is going to a non-profit organization that calls itself, Picture the Homeless.
Ok, picture approximately 20 homeless folks at one of Andres Perez’s classes on how to break and enter a vacant apartment and squat. Of course in true liberal politically correct fashion he doesn’t call it squatting – it’s wresting “control” of the apartments. He calls it “homesteading” No, Andres, homesteading would imply they had something invested in the apartment, rather than just one of your courses that say, and “The best time to enter a building is in the late hours.” Or, “You make sure you have your proper tools. You remove the chains and padlock, and then you go in.”
Perez goes on to tell them about filling out a change-of-address form at the post office and setting up utilities. Gee, Andres, may I be so bold as to inquire who is going to pay for those utilities, now that you’ve used tax-payer funded money to teach these freeloaders how to break and enter?
I would surmise it would be with the same tax-payer money that funds that go to fund Picture the Homeless. You mean people who actually work for a living pay for this jerk to teach other lowlifes how to break the law? Glad you asked. In a word; YES.
In the past 5 years the liberal establishment of New York has done what liberals are so good at – Put other people’s money where their mouth is and then convince other liberals that it was somehow their money and compassion that did it. Yep, Picture the Homeless has received $240,000.00 over 5 years. For those who want to do the math that computes out to $48,000.00 per year or $4,000.00 per month of taxpayer money going to teach the non-taxpaying folks how to break the law.
Of course these non-taxpaying folks are all poor, downtrodden good people who have just fallen on hard times because of the evil Republicans like George Bush and Dick Cheney, right? Not so much.
Pete Rolon, a 64 year-old resident who has lived there for 35 years says pimps have wrested “control” (as Mr. Perez would put it) of two of the apartments. He goes on to say, “They were smoking crack. There were condoms all over the floor. There were hundreds of them.” How nice.
I’m thinking Picture the Homeless could take that $4,000.00 per month that the city of New York extorts out of honest tax payers and use it to rent or purchase an apartment building for these poor crack-dealing victims of George Bush and the Republicans (yes, I’m being facetious) and maybe even have enough left to hire a janitor to clean up the condoms from the floor. Silly me, what was I thinking? The city of New York can have tax-payer funded janitors do that.
I’m thinking that maybe they should have those fine crack-dealing pimps use their entrepreneurial talents to help support some of their fellow pieces of human debris. But that’s just me.
Tell me again about how who isn’t paying their fair share.
Legal residents of the New York community of Arlington Village are outraged to find their tax money is going to a non-profit organization that calls itself, Picture the Homeless.
Ok, picture approximately 20 homeless folks at one of Andres Perez’s classes on how to break and enter a vacant apartment and squat. Of course in true liberal politically correct fashion he doesn’t call it squatting – it’s wresting “control” of the apartments. He calls it “homesteading” No, Andres, homesteading would imply they had something invested in the apartment, rather than just one of your courses that say, and “The best time to enter a building is in the late hours.” Or, “You make sure you have your proper tools. You remove the chains and padlock, and then you go in.”
Perez goes on to tell them about filling out a change-of-address form at the post office and setting up utilities. Gee, Andres, may I be so bold as to inquire who is going to pay for those utilities, now that you’ve used tax-payer funded money to teach these freeloaders how to break and enter?
I would surmise it would be with the same tax-payer money that funds that go to fund Picture the Homeless. You mean people who actually work for a living pay for this jerk to teach other lowlifes how to break the law? Glad you asked. In a word; YES.
In the past 5 years the liberal establishment of New York has done what liberals are so good at – Put other people’s money where their mouth is and then convince other liberals that it was somehow their money and compassion that did it. Yep, Picture the Homeless has received $240,000.00 over 5 years. For those who want to do the math that computes out to $48,000.00 per year or $4,000.00 per month of taxpayer money going to teach the non-taxpaying folks how to break the law.
Of course these non-taxpaying folks are all poor, downtrodden good people who have just fallen on hard times because of the evil Republicans like George Bush and Dick Cheney, right? Not so much.
Pete Rolon, a 64 year-old resident who has lived there for 35 years says pimps have wrested “control” (as Mr. Perez would put it) of two of the apartments. He goes on to say, “They were smoking crack. There were condoms all over the floor. There were hundreds of them.” How nice.
I’m thinking Picture the Homeless could take that $4,000.00 per month that the city of New York extorts out of honest tax payers and use it to rent or purchase an apartment building for these poor crack-dealing victims of George Bush and the Republicans (yes, I’m being facetious) and maybe even have enough left to hire a janitor to clean up the condoms from the floor. Silly me, what was I thinking? The city of New York can have tax-payer funded janitors do that.
I’m thinking that maybe they should have those fine crack-dealing pimps use their entrepreneurial talents to help support some of their fellow pieces of human debris. But that’s just me.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Understanding Unemployment -- Obama Style
Understanding Unemployment – Obama Style
The following was emailed to me:
They were one of the most popular comedy teams of the 1940’s and 1950’s.
(Today Obama and the Democrats are the comedy team.)
COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.
ABBOTT: Good subject. Terrible times. It’s about 9%
COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?
ABBOTT: No, that’s 16%
COSTELLO: You just said 9%
ABBOTT: 9% unemployed.
COSTELLO: Right, 9% out of work.
ABBOTT: No, that’s 16%
COSTELLO: Okay, so it’s 16% unemployed?
ABBOTT: No, that’s 9%...
COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 9% or 16%?
ABBOTT: 9% are unemployed. 16% are out of work.
COSTELLO: If you are out of work, you ARE unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, you can’t count the “out of work” as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.
COSTELLO: But… they ARE OUT OF WORK!
ABBOTT: No, you miss my point.
COSTELLO: WHAT POINT?
ABBOTT: Someone who doesn’t look for work can’t be counted with those who look for work, it wouldn’t be fair.
COSTELLO: To whom?
ABBOTT: The unemployed.
COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work!
ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work… Those who are out of work stopped looking. They gave up and if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.
COSTELLO: So if you’re off the unemployment roles, that would count as less unemployment?
ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. ABSOLUTELY!
COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don’t look for work??
ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That’s how you get to 9%. Otherwise it would be 16%. You don’t want to read about 16% unemployment do ya?
COSTELLO: That would be frightening.
ABBOTT: Absolutely.
COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means they’re two ways to bring down the unemployment number?
ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.
COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?
ABBOTT: Correct.
COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?
ABBOTT: Bingo.
COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier way of the two is to just stop looking for work?
ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like an economist.
COSTELLO: I don’t even know what the hell I just said!
And now you know why Obama’s unemployment figures are improving.
The following was emailed to me:
They were one of the most popular comedy teams of the 1940’s and 1950’s.
(Today Obama and the Democrats are the comedy team.)
COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.
ABBOTT: Good subject. Terrible times. It’s about 9%
COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?
ABBOTT: No, that’s 16%
COSTELLO: You just said 9%
ABBOTT: 9% unemployed.
COSTELLO: Right, 9% out of work.
ABBOTT: No, that’s 16%
COSTELLO: Okay, so it’s 16% unemployed?
ABBOTT: No, that’s 9%...
COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 9% or 16%?
ABBOTT: 9% are unemployed. 16% are out of work.
COSTELLO: If you are out of work, you ARE unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, you can’t count the “out of work” as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.
COSTELLO: But… they ARE OUT OF WORK!
ABBOTT: No, you miss my point.
COSTELLO: WHAT POINT?
ABBOTT: Someone who doesn’t look for work can’t be counted with those who look for work, it wouldn’t be fair.
COSTELLO: To whom?
ABBOTT: The unemployed.
COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work!
ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work… Those who are out of work stopped looking. They gave up and if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.
COSTELLO: So if you’re off the unemployment roles, that would count as less unemployment?
ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. ABSOLUTELY!
COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don’t look for work??
ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That’s how you get to 9%. Otherwise it would be 16%. You don’t want to read about 16% unemployment do ya?
COSTELLO: That would be frightening.
ABBOTT: Absolutely.
COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means they’re two ways to bring down the unemployment number?
ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.
COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?
ABBOTT: Correct.
COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?
ABBOTT: Bingo.
COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier way of the two is to just stop looking for work?
ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like an economist.
COSTELLO: I don’t even know what the hell I just said!
And now you know why Obama’s unemployment figures are improving.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
