Welcome to the First Coast Tea Party
American Thinker: Will Obama Keep Power 'by Any Means Necessary'?
Very scary, but you better read, because I for one have wondered in some nstances. I know Obama would love to get all those young Mexicans he is giving amnesty to into the polls on November 6. Although we here in Florida have been making huge strides to clean up voter registers and do require ID, many states like California do not require ID and even encourage people to commit voter fraud just by virtue of the system they use. There in lies the reason Obama wanted to get rid of the electoral college, so he could just count popular vote which would include all the fraudulent votes from the states who have representatives who support this arrogant dictator in chief and all his far left radical ideas for destroying this country and everything we hold dear. You might want to pop over to some of the articles this timely piece links to as there is definitely reason to be concerned when you tie it all altogether.
......................................................................
August 21, 2012
Let's go there: if Obama thinks he's losing, will he allow safe and fair elections on November 6? And if he does lose, will he peacefully turn over power to Mitt Romney on January 20, 2013? Or will he cling to power "by any means necessary," as a highly placed insider alleges?
Now, I'm truly sorry to raise such disgusting, un-American, crazy-sounding questions, but, alas, they're not crazy, and I've got a disquieting amount of evidence. The Democrats have already accused Romney of murdering a woman with cancer, financial felonies, and not filing taxes for ten years -- the last charge delivered by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on the Senate floor, on the basis of absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
By Democrat standards, I've got enough proof to put away Obama, et al. for life without parole.
Whatever chicanery Obama and his investors may be contemplating, it will probably unfold against some gargantuan crisis, manufactured or otherwise. So cast your mind back to September 11, 2001, the day of the New York mayoral primary.
In the chaos after the attacks, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who was term-limited from running, pleaded that his leadership was essential and that he should be granted an extra three months in office after his term ran out on January 1. Giuliani's unprecedented power-grab was rightfully scorned by his eventual successor, Michael Bloomberg. So what did Bloomberg do when he ran into term limits? He deployed his multi-billion-dollar fortune to manipulate the law and buy himself a quasi-legal third term, claiming that only he had the expertise to handle the 2008 financial crisis.
My point? Politicians a great deal more conventional than Obama have loathed giving up power, and they have used crises and unethical machinations to try to keep it.
Now, let's look at just some of the disturbing evidence that indicates that Obama and his investors are plotting something big:
Super-High-Level Trial Balloons
USA Today reported that on September 27, 2011, Governor Beverly Perdue, Democrat of North Carolina, told a Rotary Club audience, "I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won't hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let
them help this country recover[.] ... You want people who don't worry about the next election." When outrage greeted her suggestion, she retreated to the standard defense: she was just joking. What a kidder!
Meanwhile, that same month, Peter Orszag, Obama's former director of the Office of Management and Budget, published an article in The New Republic titled "Too Much of A Good Thing: Why We Need Less Democracy." In it, he posited that the country was too polarized; hence, "radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic."
Please note that these suggestions to suspend elections and radically reduce democratic control did not come from basement-dwelling bloggers. They came from the governor of the very state in which the Democrats are holding their national convention and from one of Obama's most prominent Cabinet members. Their close timing suggests that these ideas were circulating at the highest levels of the Democrat power elite.
"Whom Does the Government Intend to Shoot?"
That's the question recently posed by retired Major General Jerry Curry in the Daily Caller, in light of horrifying reports that the Social Security Administration is buying 174,000 rounds of hollow-point bullets for distribution to 41 locations in the U.S.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/will_obama_keep_power_by_any...
Views: 415
Comment
-
Comment by amanda choate on August 29, 2012 at 3:02pm
-
Roma and Tom, I do not agree with "smaller government and lower taxes."
My position would be efficient government and pay our bills. Most people in the tea party, 62% in fact, want to protect Medicare. And there is no way that protecting Medicare can be equivocated with smaller government. It just can't..
And charge a tax rate sufficient to pay our bills. That way you will get more people involved.
Also, if we go to war, let there be a draft and a tax rate increase.
Make expenditures tied to taxes.
And we have 16 trillion on debt. If we are going to pay that down, we are goingto have to raise taxes.
-
Comment by Patricia M. McBride on August 28, 2012 at 6:49pm
-
Actually, Romney did not lose every election? Where did you get that? He won enough of the time to get enough delegates to win the nomination which is why I truly didn't understand the clever handiwork of today. It would appear the folks in the local RECs will have to double down somewhat. They don't like our message and today's move was a move to silence folks and put the power in the hands of the nominee which is not how our country works! Or shouldn't work ..............
-
-
Ken, I think you are wrong. Neither McCain nor Romney was appointed. Both won the nominations. Huckabee and Santorum were runners-up. Not a hint of libertarianism in the four. Libertarians have to learn that they cannot command enough of a plurality within the Republican party to control the debate. They will have to go all in order to make it happen. The tea party is heavily tilted toward a socially conservative agenda that is at odds with libertarians. Libertarians must go it on their own if they expect to have their argument carry the day. Unless libertarians can peel off democrats and independents they simply do not have enough people to make it work.
-
Comment by Barry Lee Phillips on August 28, 2012 at 6:57am
-
A point about using statistics.
Amanda used a graph that purported to show that Republican presidents are bigger spenders than Democrat presidents. Roma and Tom pointed out that the numbers on the graph left out some very important figures to arrive at those numbers and cited Daniel J. Mitchell's column in Forbes, titled "Mirror, Mirror, on the wall, Which President Is the Biggest Spender of All?
Mitchell then goes on to come up with four tables of his own and concludes that, "Reagan and Clinton were relatively frugal and we can also say that Nixon, LBJ, and Bush 43 were relatively profligate." Obama is described as a tugboat trying to push the big rusty cargo ship of the federal government in the wrong direction.Mark Twain popularized the expression, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." All statistical data can be manipulated to give a result that allegedly supports an argument. Mark Twain knew that as should we.
-
Comment by Helen on August 27, 2012 at 10:26pm
-
Ken, once is enough! If I earn a sum and pay taxes on it, what I do after that should be tax free. Once is enough!
-
-
Romney's move to alter nomination rules shows how he prefers the rules to work. Rules should favor those in power. Paul wouldn't even be mentioned in this year's convention under these rules.
-
-
Didn't say I didn't, nor does it matter. Patricia's point was on double taxation and as my example shows there isnone in this case.
-
-
Patricia, here is the problem with your argument.
I make two million dollars in a year, spend a mil on expenses and put the rest in an investment account shorting the mortgage market. I get a ten percent return. $100,000. That income has never been taxed. It has not created one job and yet it gets taxed at a preferred rate. How is that fair?
Capital used to build jobs I am willing to see taxed at a preferred rate.
-
-
Amanda, here is what you said and what I wrote in response to:
We have the lowest tax rate in sixty years. As a rsult, we can't pay our bills. That is the fact. Not taxed to death, taxed fairly. Warren Buffett pays a lower rate than me. Unfair.
Warren Buffett income is money earned by investments not from earned income. He has already paid the "income taxes" on that money and what you propose is for him to pay income tax rates on interest and profits from investments which would do more for the economy rolled back into more investments in the private sector not spend by the big spenders in Washington on more foolish crapola.
-
-
Patricia, did you read any of what I wrote? I
National Debt Clock
The First CoastTea Party is a non-profit organization. We have no deep-pocketed special interest funding our efforts.
You may contact us at:
First Coast Tea Party
1205 Salt Creek Island Dr
Ponte Vedra, FL 32082
904-392-7475
Helpful Links
Blog Posts
RYAN NICHOLS - Hardened Criminal?? Seriously??
If you're not already aware. This is what's going on in DC while dangerous criminals are allowed back out on the streets. It's horrifying that this is happening to our citizens and veterans for protesting the hijacking of our election process. This is still happening! They are STILL being tortured and treated like full on terrorists.
You may not be aware of the typical things they're forced to go through...…
ContinuePosted by Babs Jordan on August 14, 2022 at 8:44am
© 2024 Created by LeadershipCouncil.
Powered by
You need to be a member of First Coast Tea Party to add comments!
Join First Coast Tea Party