What do we know about Obama

[yesitsloaded]

I have come up with a list to use as a guide when I talk to obamatons, I decided to post it here.

1. Against 2nd amendment (all kinds of evidence on this one)
2. Pro- killing babies that survive abortions
3. Reverend Wright
4. Campaigned for Odinga, who then committed genocide (plenty of evidence on this one too)
5. May not even be a legal citizen (still in court, DNC and Obama's lawyer have asked for a delay instead of just submitting documents)
6. 10 state RICO case connects to ACORN  voter fraud -may connect to Rezco-may connect to Obama, Pelosi, Dean, and others.
7. Ayers
8. Member of Socialist Party ( plenty of evidence on that one too)
9. Thinks health care is a right
10. More than likely committed several felonies including selling drugs.
11. Has received a lot of funds from overseas from shady characters.

Way too much stuff out there. If even one of the big things can be proven concretely it would sink him.

[Monkeyleg]

There's already ample proof that Obama had his first fund-raiser at Ayers' house, that Michelle Obama and Bernadine Dohrn worked together at the same law office before Obama and Ayers met, that Obama was on the same board with Ayers, that Obama was directing money distributed by Ayers to groups teaching radical education, and that Obama wrote a glowing review of Ayers' book (which featured a cover photo of Ayers stomping on the American flag, and a bio of Ayers' days in the WU).

But if the media says that Obama just knows Ayers as a "guy from his neighborhood," who are we to doubt it?

Reverend Wright is already well-documented, as are Obama's 20 years of listening to Wright. But the media tells us that Obama has now disavowed what Wright has said. It's no big deal now.

There are plenty of people to back the charge that Obama favored letting abortion survivors to die, but he says that's not true. Who are you going to believe: the nurses, the written records of the IL legislature, or The Chosen One?

You don't know what you're talking about. Shut up and sing the Obama song.

[longeyes]

I keep reading these threads and I keep asking myself the same question:

What will it take before people like us, knowing what we know, say ENOUGH?

Are we too mesmerized by the divine order to play the game and obey power?

it feels like it.

Is it going to take stormtroopers crashing through our front doors to round us up for denying authority?

We already know, full well, we are being gamed by an entire stratum of politicians, financial bandits, and media pimps. 

So...?

[Standing Wolf]

If even one of the big things can be proven concretely it would sink him.

Unless, of course, there's an epidemic of Bush hatred in the national leftist extremist so-called "news" media.

[AZRedhawk44]

Is it going to take stormtroopers crashing through our front doors to round us up for denying authority?

Yes.

April 19th, 1775 happened because the British fired first at Lexington and at Concord.  They burned Concord, shelled Lexington with cannon on their march back to Boston, put homes to the torch along Battle Road.

Our forefathers chose to stand that day on the greens to oppose the taking of guns and the unfair taxes... but they didn't choose to begin the fight that day.  The fight came to them.

We'll keep taking it, and they'll never bring the fight to us, and it will never end.

[K Frame]

"April 19th, 1775 happened because the British fired first at Lexington and at Concord."

No one knows who fired first.

Various British and American commissions studied the matter in the years during and after the war and the conclusion was always the same....

Damned if we can figure it out.

[AZRedhawk44]

"April 19th, 1775 happened because the British fired first at Lexington and at Concord."

No one knows who fired first.

Various British and American commissions studied the matter in the years during and after the war and the conclusion was always the same....

Damned if we can figure it out.

Yes and no.  There was one stray gunshot, but Parker ordered his men to disperse prior to it.  As the one shot rang out, the British infantry line began to fire in earnest.  Only a handful of the militia returned fire, most ran for cover.

Many, many folks attribute the one shot to a mounted British Lieutenant with a pair of pistols who's name escapes me just now, but I can get it later today when my books are handy.  It's not concrete, but it's the dominant suspect.

[Grylady]

Unless, of course, there's an epidemic of Bush hatred in the national leftist extremist so-called "news" media.

  Not that an epidemic of socialism in the government counts.

[Manedwolf]

"April 19th, 1775 happened because the British fired first at Lexington and at Concord."

No one knows who fired first.

Various British and American commissions studied the matter in the years during and after the war and the conclusion was always the same....

Damned if we can figure it out.

Even after it started, people were confused. If you read the accounts, people in Concord were mostly standing outside homes and taverns during that night talking, heard some gunfire in the distance, militia members were getting their muskets, nobody really knew what was going on, conflicting reports, all that. Only way to get news was someone who had seen things going on riding in.

[K Frame]

Yes and yes.

Eyewitness testimony exists from both sides that places the shot on the American side of the green amongst the militia, the British side of the green amongst the militia, or not on the green at all and amonst some of the militia that was still streaming in from outside Lexington proper.

"As the one shot rang out, the British infantry line began to fire in earnest."

That infers that the British were firing BEFORE the single shot. Not the case at all. After the single shot it is agreed to by all sides that the British regulars, acting to their training, went into autopilot and began firing.

Yes, I've heard the theory that Lt. Sutherland fired the first shot accidentally. That's also highly disputed. There were numerous British regular witnesses who said that the first shot was fired, accidentally or on purpose, that's not clear, by a an American crouched behind a wall off the green.

Finally, others claim that there were scattered shots from BOTH sides prior to the "Shot heard round the world," but that is soundly refuted by any number of British regulars in official depositions, while depositions from Americans in the militia unit claim that they were fired on first.

In essence, it's the grassy knoll of the American Revolution, with more than enough claims and theories flying around.



That I simply

[longeyes]

Okay, but even the best of us seem like deer caught in the headlights--that was my point.  While we're playing the Good Citizen game, the other side is going to take this country by stealth and thievery.  The time to be smart is past, the time to be angry and demonstrative is here.

If Obama's an enigma--and I realize I can no longer use that "racist" term :)--it's of course by design.  The man is an impostor, a con man, and a pathological liar.

[AZRedhawk44]

Well, longeyes... tell me where the rallypoint is.  Let's go git 'em.

My point with the Rev War allegory wasn't to dispute who shot first... it was to point out that the intent was visible, passive deterrance.

We don't do that.  We thump on the keyboard instead.  We write letters.  We call the Capitol and get the phone system turned off.  We vote one bastage out and another bastage in.

That isn't working.

The rallypoint, IMO, will be some Minuteman patrol in Texas that gets shot at by Zetas and chooses to shoot back.  Or it will be some politically active Biker's association protecting a soldier's funeral from leftyzealots, getting shot at or bricks thrown at them, pulling leather and firing back.

You want to see the next "shot?"  Get your *expletive deleted*ss out into the Green of today and stand.  But don't you dare be the idiot that fires first.

If 1/10 of the keyboard commandoes spent 2 weekends a year contributing to our various causes, we wouldn't have a problem today at all.

[AZRedhawk44]

The time to be smart is past, the time to be angry and demonstrative is here.

This bothers me, right here.

It's always time to be smart.

If you don't want to be smart, then go get your AR all tricked out, load up the wheelbarrow and tape an extra trauma plate to your back.  Then go do a frontal assault on the ATF bureau office nearest you.  Write back and tell us how it went, and how we might improve on your technique.

Angry and demonstrative?  If anger drives you to demonstrate, that's fine.  But anger AT a demonstration clouds your judgement and causes you to make mistakes.

Again:  If 1/10 of the computer gun board population got physically, politically active a couple times a year, Obama would be a non-issue.  He'd go back to Indonesia and sleaze his way up the social ladder there.

[longeyes]

I should have put "smart" in quotes.  I mean most of us have already reflected and judged this situation.  We are on the verge of being rolled over and swept under.  Or so it looks to me.  I am NOT advocating doing anything crazy, just fully recognizing where we are and where this is going with sobriety and realism.

I read the following and I think we are very close to the brownshirt era:

Labor warns McCain about crowds
Email|Link|Comments (15)
Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor October 10, 2008 04:43 PM
The head of the nation's biggest labor federation is joining the chorus of voices warning about the increasingly angry crowds coming to John McCain's campaign events.
At rallies this week, McCain's criticisms of Democrat Barack Obama have been met with shouts of "terrorist," "liar," and other harsh words.

"Sen. John McCain, Gov. Sarah Palin and the leadership of the Republican party have a fundamental moral responsibility to denounce the violent rhetoric that has pervaded recent McCain and Palin political rallies," said John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO, which has endorsed Obama. "When rally attendees shout out such attacks as 'terrorist' or 'kill him' about Sen. Barack Obama, when they are cheered on by crowds incited by McCain-Palin rhetoric -- it is chilling that McCain and Palin do nothing to object.

"In a world where unspeakable violence is too often promulgated by extremists, it is no small or trivial matter to call someone a terrorist -- or to incite potentially dangerous individuals toward violence," Sweeney said in a statement. "John McCain, Sarah Palin and Republican leaders are walking a very thin line in pretending not to hear the hateful invectives spewed at their rallies. McCain should end this line of attack in the strongest possible terms. Anything less puts McCain in the same camp as the racists and extremists who are bringing their angry rhetoric to his campaign events."