Are You Afraid Yet?

Logical American sent this to me:

You SHOULD be afraid.
 
This is the memo created by Janet Napalitano's Department of Homeland Security (DHS). If you don't know who Janet Napalitano is, she was the prior governor of Arizona who was very much a LEFT LEFT Wing "Open Boarders" advocate. Have you seen all the news about the violence in Mexico and on the Mexican border? Yeah, swell, just open them borders wide...
 
Anyway, she got CAUGHT. This is the memo that citizens fought to have released, using the Freedom of Information Act. OF PARTICULAR NOTE: Read the "disclaimer" at the bottom of the second page. This was not supposed to be released to the public -- you were never supposed to know that you may be targeted.  People talk about the Bush administration... HOLY CANOLY, this is so far beyond that... well, read on, and remember, PROFILING IS BAD (at least, that's what our leftwing neighbors try to tell us (until they do it themselves -- then it's a matter of national security)).
 
Think I'm crazy? This is an OFFICIAL government memo distributed to Law Enforcement. Once in the public, Janet Napolitano (known as "J-No" here in AZ) had to go on national television and apologize for implying that our troops, our HEROES, returning from Iraq and Afghanistan could become rightwing radical TERRORISTS.  Great.  This is what our government thinks about our heroes.  Remember, SHE ONLY APOLOGIZED BECAUSE SHE GOT CAUGHT -- the apology doesn't mean that DHS doesn't believe it, it just means they're sorry you found out what they're thinking. Read page 6 carefully: it's clear that if you are a "rightwing extremist" that you are considered a lawbreaker -- even if you've never broken a law (law-abiding citizens a distinguished from rightwing extremists, even if the rightwinger has never broken a law).
 
So if you are...
    o   Pro-gun (meaning you support the Second Ammendment to the constitution)
    o   Pro-life (meaning you exercise your right to choose life)
    o   Against Large Government/Government Spending/Bailouts/Massive Bonuses etc.
    o   Against opening up the borders and allowing the flood of illegals
    o   A returning veteran, a hero
 
or even if you're just reading this email (what? you didn't hear? yes, the OBAMA administration (reported in the NY Times) has conducted even BROADER wiretaps and surveillance of Americans than Bush ["WASHINGTON — The National Security Agency intercepted private e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans in recent months on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits established by Congress last year, government officials said in recent interviews." to learn more: click here http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/us/16nsa.html?_r=1 )
 
Watch out, you could end up on a government watchlist. And they said Bush was bad.
 
So.....    I ask ya........     How do you like your "Change" now?  Hmmmmmmmmmm?
 
Change we can believe in???          No.       Change we can be afraid of........

So a guy hears about this great restaraunt in town and he takes the first opportunity to check it out.

When he gets there, he reviews the menu and it was fantastic. His experience quickly got better when the waiter explained that he didn't even have to pay for the meal.

"I don't have to pay?" the man asked.

"No," the waiter replied, we'll just hold the bill for your children to pay.

"Great!" the man says. He orders a fantastic meal, nearly the most expensive on the menu. He finishes the meal, satisfied. "That was absolutely fantastic," he told the waiter.

"I'm glad you enjoyed it," the waiter said, leaving a slip of paper on the table as he departed.

The man looked at the paper to find that it was a bill for nearly $10,000. Shocked and frightened, the man waived the waiter over to his table.

"I thought you said I didn't have to pay. What's this slip of paper?" he asked.

"Oh," responded the waiter, "Yes, you're meal is free, but before you go, if you wouldn't mind, would you please pay for your father, your grandfather, your great grandfather............"

Can you say bailout? Our unborn children can't, but they're going to have to pay for it nonetheless.

New Blood in DC

Listening to the AM dial talk shows and one thing made me connect a few things that I Had not before. It was Dennis Miller stating how we needed new blood in Washington. This is so true, and I was thinking to myself, who? Then it hit me, a few days ago I was listening to the Glenn Beck Show and someone called in stating that she was inspired to run for office due to listening to his show. This is what we need! We need average Americans back in office. When that caller asked for Glenn's advice he said something to the tune of "Don't let them change you, don't be anything other than a soccer mom." So there we have it, the Republican leadership is in shambles, worse than those horrible Teen Dramas. The Democrats have taken on Socialism as their new banner, and few people actually know what a Libertarian is. I know that when I think of running for a political office I would not have the first clue as to how to approach it, but then we ahve those around us that we can ask. Then I think, "I do not have the first clue as to what to do once in office if I ever got there." then I think again, we ahve those around us. Remember, this country was bult by the people for the people, our political leaders are to listen to the people, stick to their gut, and do what is right by the constitution. Too often these days we see the people we elect grow a soft white layer of wool, aver time we cannot tell their policies form the other sheep in washington. Sticking to what is right may not always make you popular, but what is popular is not always right. I am currently looking to see what it is that I can do to take on leadership in my community so that my silent friends, those conservatives whom always turn the other cheek because that is what we are taught, can no longer be silent. I remember reading once that we are not to hide our light under a bushel, but to stand on a hill and let it shine before men that they may see good works. Too many of us who know what is right, who know that what is happening in Washington is not right, have stood back and turned the other cheek. I think turning the cheek is good but when we turn to the point of being trampled on we have turned too much. We are the new blood needed for DC, we the people, so let us be heard, united in voice, take back our country the same way it has beed taken from us.

14 Kids And Counting...

So here you are, a single woman with six children (some of them special-needs children), and you have no employment, no husband, and you live with your parents.

What would most people do given this situation?

Well, it's a safe bet that most would not think, "I think I'll have in vitro fertilization to have even MORE children..."

But that's exactly what Nadya Suleman, the new mother of octuplets, decided to do. One can only guess what went on in her mind when she made that decision because it is completely counter to what just about everyone else would do.

There's been talk that she now is looking for donations to help her with her brood, similar to other families in the past who had famous multiple-births. It makes you wonder if that was the plan all along. Another question is how much public assistance becomes available to an individual in her situation, especially since she was recently spotted purchasing expensive cosmetics, she has a new Public Relations person... "Thing's that make ya go, 'Hmmm....' But all of the blame doesn't lay there.

There was the doctor who performed the procedure. A number of pundits have said that he is not without blame in all of this. Some experts have said that he should have investigated Ms. Suleman's economic viability before agreeing to perform the procedure.

Looks like there's some moral bankruptcy going on in both camps. And the children will bear the brunt of a lot of this for years to come. It's somewhat likely that public assistance will play a part in raising the kids. The public, meaning you and me.

You know, there's a saying that "It takes a village to raise a child." In most cases that might be ok. But the tune changes when the parent is intentionally irresponsible to force the issue on the village, and by having a total of 14 children that's taking it to the extreme. But the kids are here now and prospects for their economic well-being look to be in severe jeopardy without intervention from outside the family. It's not fair to put the children in economic peril because of the actions of their mother and their doctor. So what are the villagers to do?

There's always adoption... What do you think?

Can I Get My Bailout Please?

You know things are bad when people are joking about getting their own personal bailout.

The sad part is that humor is part of a larger issue: apathy. People have felt for so long that "The government is going to do whatever it wants, so there's nothing I can do." Guess what? That's exactly what they want you to believe! This attitude actually gives them license to act however they choose, and they'll always tell you that they're acting on your behalf and in your best interest. Whew, that was close. My politician said he's working hard for me. Gee, I'll sleep well tonight.

If they're acting in your best interest, then tell me, how are you feeling about Social Security? Most people in their 30's and 40's agree that there won't be any when they reach retirement age, or at least, very little. Yet you pay into the system with every paycheck. Is that in your best interest? Is it in your interest that the person charged with fixing it doesn't have to worry about Social Security because they will get their own lifetime pension (paid for by you, of course) whether Social Security implodes or not? Who is charged with fixing all this? The person you elected, that's who! And if you didn't vote, shame on you, and you better not complain.

So how is your elected official doing? Are you even watching? You see, "a government of the people, BY the people and for the people," is an interactive process. I'm sorry, but it requires participation on your part. It's not like voting for your favorite on American Idol. Our elected officials determine what our lives will be like. You have to do more than hope they do a good job. They are public servants, they should serve. Democrat or Republican. If you went to a restaraunt and your waiter provided you with lousy service, would you give them a handsome tip anyway? I would hope not. When you tip your waiter, you're providing them with instant feedback as to their level of performance (or lack thereof, as the case may be). This is actually a good thing! Repeated poor performance which results in lousy tips will either motivate them to do a better job for ALL of their patrons, or may motivate them to find employment more suitable to them. A win-win for them and for their patrons.

Same goes for politics. You may be surprised to know that nearly 20 States are somewhere in the process of intiating "States Rights" legislation to protect themselves from the federal government with respect to the new legislation coming through (that would be "the stimulus package"). There is even talk about States seceding from the Union entirely if the government continues on its current path. Sound extreme? Maybe. Maybe not........

The 'Troubled Asset Relief Program' (TARP for short, and now 'TARP-1' because there will most certainly be another one), was initiated by President George W. Bush. This was taxpayer money given to financial institutions with very few strings attached. The money was to help offset the losses of the "toxic" assets (i.e. bad loans) that banks had on their books, thus preventing the banks from "running scared" and hoarding all their money and not lending to new, qualified borrowers. In essence, it was an attempt to "keep the credit market flowing." Guess what? Banks took the TARP money, and they still aren't lending. No matter how you look at it, taxpayer money was spent to keep the credit flowing and the program failed.

President Obama has now put out the Stimulus Plan. More taxpayer money, nearly 3-times that of the Bush administration to help the ailing economy. Many say it's filled with pork and other non-stimulative spending. That's probably true.

Is it any wonder then, that the States are looking at "opting out" of this arrangement? Here's a bit of advice, take it or leave it: If the States are concerned that their (and your) rights are being trampled on (by a Republican administration and now by a Democrat administration), it may be time for you to wake up and smell the coffee yourself.

Get off your fanny. YOU are the government, and if you don't like what your representative is doing, FIRE THEM. Your apathy and lack of information is killing you.

Here's a parting thought. There's an old question that asks, "How do you boil a frog?" The answer, "Slowly." If you drop a frog in a pot of boiling water, he'll jump out. If you put a frog in a pot of cold water then slowly turn up the heat, he'll be comfortable the whole time, until he's cooked. Well, you can't get out of the pot, but you can manage the folks that control the heat. Savvy?

THE LOVE HAS COME!!!

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hcr2024p.htm

REFERENCE TITLE: sovereignty; tenth amendment.

State of Arizona House of Representatives Forty-ninth Legislature First Regular Session 2009

HCR 2024

Introduced by Representatives Burges, Ash, Biggs, Boone, Gowan, Mason, Montenegro, Pancrazi, Seel, Williams: Barto, Campbell CL, Court, Crandall, Crump, Driggs, Fleming, Goodale, Hendrix, Kavanagh, Lesko, McComish, McGuire, Miranda B, Murphy, Nichols, Pratt, Quelland, Stevens, Tobin, Weiers JP, Senator Harper

A concurrent RESOLUTION

claiming sovereignty under the tenth amendment to the constitution of the united states over certain powers, serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates and providing that certain federal legislation be prohibited or repealed.

(TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE)

Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"; and

Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and

Whereas, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and

Whereas, today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and

Whereas, many federal laws are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and

Whereas, Article IV, section 4, United States Constitution, says in part, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government", and the Ninth Amendment states that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"; and

Whereas, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

Whereas, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States.

Therefore

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, the Senate concurring, that:

1. That the State of Arizona hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

2. That this Resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

3. That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.

4. That the Secretary of State of the State of Arizona transmit copies of this resolution to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state's legislature and each Member of Congress from the State of Arizona.

20 States have followed suite so far and are adopting like measures towards their freedom. The wording may look familiar due to it being the wording of one T Jefferson and his associates, some the founding fathers.

Time Will Tell

Dan Vinson- my friend and political mind writes the following:


Two of the biggest enemies to a free society are a) lack of information and b) apathy.

Every American should go to YouTube and view the video of Barney Frank (D Mass.) on his comments regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Republicans approached Congress YEARS AGO recommending more oversight on these two Government Sponsored Entities (GSE's) stating they were afraid that mismanagement could cause an economic tsunami of terrible proportions.

Barney Frank (and other Democrats) poopoo'd the advice saying (paraphrased) "There's nothing wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they're fundamentally sound. And even if they do go belly up the taxpayer isn't going to bail them out."

Fast Forward a few years: They were NOT fundamentally sound, they were cooking the books, and American taxpayers HAVE bailed them out.

So Barney, strike one, strike two, strike three, YOU'RE OUT. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Yet most Americans don't know these facts. And what's sadder still, is that most that do know, don't care. There is a general feeling that 'government is going to do what they want and there's nothing we can do about it.' Wrong again, honey.

As was said by George W. Bush, there are ramifications to elections. NOT just the Presidency but Congress as well. People got elected and this is what they've done.

People need to take PERSONAL responsibility for the choices they've made, including they choices they make at the polls.

MUCH of the proposed spending that is going to take place as part of this new "stimulus" sham, er, I mean 'plan,' won't take effect for two years. Guess what? There'll be Congressional elections before then. We can vote for people who will REPEAL these parts of the 'plan.' If we don't, we are saddling our children and our children's children with the biggest welfare payment in the history of mankind.

The question is, do you have the intelligence, the guts, and the will to do it. Time will tell.

He hits it gain!

Here you go... BAM!

To protect us from them.

So I watched a video that has come to popularity recently on youtube (posted here), and I have to say that I love it. I love how she is able to make her point so blatantly. What really strikes me is the way the politicians are listening, you ahve the cut to one where he is talking to someone next to him, then on to liberal Chuckie Schumer who seems like he is only listening because he has to, he seems to already have had his mind made up. We know that the Brady bill passed so maybe that congressman had. I know I am not the most knowledgeable about who is who in this video or as to what exactly was going on at this time in the hearing, so my idea on it is all.

So after watching that it made me think about some things. I have some statistics on gun control from all over the world. I will post those, they were written by a reporter in Phillidelphia:

A LITTLE GUN TRUE HISTORY



I Thought you might appreciate this . .



In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1 953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Chris tians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-----------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

------------------------------

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

List of 7 items:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!



In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!



While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.



There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.



You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.



Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!



The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.



With guns, we are 'citizens'.



Without them, we are 'subjects'.



During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.

http://www.troccohepp.com/PDFs/Gun_Control_Figures.pdf

Gun Control Has Proven Record Of Effectiveness Asheville Tribune ...

History has been made! Three times over!!

We have a black president! We have a British subject for president! The constitution is no longer valid! Wait? Did I say that? yeah, due to the fact that we have a native of Kenya in the White House as Commander in Chief of our military, it makes the Constitution void. How is this? Well... all actions taken to prevent this have been diverted by our justice system as previously stated in older posts. The fact that the justice branch of our government ignores the constitution, and ignores the people, this makes the checks and balances put into place by the founding fathers of this nation null. Along with videos that are incriminating against our new dictator king czar president, websites all over are disappearing, and some just change what they stated. (Good thing for sites like www.webcitation.org!)

I really do not know what to say or what to do. I know that there are those that are giving up on the fight, I am now, will not, and never will. Those that do feel that it is too much to take on, I was reading up on Glen Becks website and he talked about this very thing. He then talked about the Alamo. I will just quote him directly:

"You know the Alamo, when you think of the Alamo, what do you think that is? Most people will think, "Oh, it's a fort," but it's not a fort. It wasn't some gigantic fortified castle, you know, built to try to hold off an advancing army. It was a mission. That's all it is is a mission. It had to be made into a fort, but it was the defenders of the Alamo who did just that. They made it into a fort. They faced insurmountable odds. 4,000 soldiers versus 188. 4,000 up against 188? Which one of those soldiers would you be? If you were the 188, would you be going, this is too -- I can't do it, I'm tired, we're alone, we're not going to make it. They were outmanned by over 20:1. This is just after Texas declared her independence. This is just a few weeks later they were forming the Republic of Texas. It was going to become its own country. Not a state. A country. The Mexican general, Santa Ana, demanded that they surrendered. And how did those 188 in the Alamo react? William Travis, who was in command at the Alamo wrote this letter: "I'm besieged by 1,000 or more of the Mexicans under Santa Ana. I've sustained a continual bombardment and candidate for 24 hours, and I haven't lost a man. The enemy has demanded a surrender. I've answered the demand with cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly from the walls. I will never surrender; I will never retreat." I'm pretty sure I don't speak Texan but I think that means, "Yeah, thanks but no thanks." 188 men alone. They are running low on ammunition, they were running low on food and other supplies. The next day, another letter. This one, this one to Sam Houston. The commander was hoping that Sam Houston would get these letters and send, you know, "Help, help, help, help, send us somebody." He wrote, "Our numbers are few but I shall hold out to the last extremity hoping to secure reinforcements in a day or two. Do hasten on aid as rapidly as possible, from a superior number of the enemy, it will be impossible for us to keep them out much longer. If th ey overpower us, we fall a sacrifice at the shrine of our country," speaking of Texas," and we hope prosperity in our country will do our memory justice. Give me help. Oh, my country, give me help. Victory or death." Somehow these 188 men held out for more than a week against an evading army of 4,000. Have you ever been to the Alamo? It's a little -- 4,000 men advancing and 188 protected that? After ten days Travis was still hoping for reinforcements. He was still hoping, but he had no idea, he had no idea if they were coming or not. He understood the odds. He knew he wasn't going to be able to last much longer, but he didn't back up. He didn't back off. He didn't back up. He didn't whine. He didn't say, "I'm tired." He rode under the flag of independence, "We are ready to peril our lives 100 times a day. I will fight the enemy on his own terms. I'm ready to do it. And if my country men do not rally to my relief, I'm determined to perish in the defense of this place." Later that day he wrote one last time, "Take care of my little boy. If the country should be saved, I will make for him a splendid fortune but if the country be lost and I should perish, he will have nothing but the proud recollection but he is the son of a man who died for his country."

Three days later the Alamo would finally fall. The reinforcements didn't make it in time, but it didn't fall for 13 days and not before those 188 took out 600 of Santa Ana's men. More importantly was the number of days, 13 days. It gave 13 days to Sam Houston. He was able to put together a volunteer army, an army that defeated Santa Ana, gave birth to the Republic of Texas, its own country, its own constitution.

Here's the story. These 188 people, they weren't any different than you. Some of them were soldiers, some of them were just regular people, some of them were just, "I'm going to take a stand." You want to feel alone, 188 surrendered by 4,000, they didn't pick the place or the time of their fight. They wouldn't have done it at a mission. If they could have picked anywhere, it wouldn't have been there. They just knew that their cause was just. They just knew that their lives were worth lying down for what was right. They just knew that there was something bigger and more important than them. How did they know it? Why didn't they desert? Why didn't they surrender when they saw 4,000? They did it because they were committed to the idea of liberty. They did it because they felt they owed it to one another: "If he stands, I'll stand. I ain't going anywhere with your brother. We're in it together." When you feel connected to somebody else, you don't give up. That's how soldiers in the battlefield or P.O.W. camps rally around each other because he's standing; I'll stand. It's not about ideology. It's about our commitment to each other. It's about knowing that you're not alone and letting someone else know that they're not alone.

Even when you can't see the people fighting with you, even when you're in the Alamo and you're all alone, just 188 of you and you don't know if that army is coming tonight or never, you just fight on because you're not alone.

It's not just some crazy history lesson about the Alamo. These people didn't die to defend the Alamo which is now some place where you go on vacation and have your picture taken in front of it, and most people don't even know what it means or what it stands for. They didn't just die for protecting the Alamo or even Texas. Today they died to teach us a lesson, to fight on, to never give up. You're not alone.

Today, just today remember the Alamo."


Read the whole thing here.

Hillarious

President Obama has committed to making his administration the most open and transparent in history, and WhiteHouse.gov will play a major role in delivering on that promise.

"Let me also say that I remain distressed that the White House during this confirmation process, which overall went smoothly, failed to provide critical documents as part of the record that could have provided us with a better basis to make our judgment with respect to the nomination. This White House continues to stymie efforts on the part of the Senate to do its job."

-Remarks of Senator Barack Obama on the Confirmation of Judge John Roberts

Thoughts on a different type of war

So I have been reading a lot about a current film maker and some of his more recent creations. His new documentaries reminded me of the book "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu. Tzu states "He who exercises no forethought but makes light of his opponents is sure to be captured by them." How this comes into play with the documentaries done by John Ziegler is that I see people who have been captured by Obama's 'army', or charm. Those people along with the media lapdog that he had with him at all times. These are they who "[made] light of [him]" by not delving into the truth of the man they chose to lead our country. I will not say we chose him, I had no part in it. I believe also that Obama roused many of his legion with a reward of change, one that would revolutionize our country. Sun Tzu stated "...in order to kill the enemy, our men must be roused to anger; that there may be advantage from defeating the enemy, they must have their rewards." Obama did well with this. He ignored Tzus wisdom in "Rouse [your enemy], and learn the principle of his activity or inactivity. Force him to reveal himself, so as to find out his vulnerable spots." We are starting to see some of the real Obama. For instance, if I came home and told my wife we were going to get out of debt by spending our way out and that I had already started, she would throw me out. The thought is nuts! Americans have accepted it from Obama. He wants to do what was done in WW2. Well... we had nuclear energy that came from WW2, jet propulsion, a state of the conductor that lead to transistors and computers. We also had the auto industry, and we had microwave technology that we stole from the Germans during the war. We had many more things to offer the world that were new technologies than we do now. I say we should uncover our Groom Lake tests and exploit them. All the zero energy propulsion ideas, the ram jets, the hover crafts, that is if we have them. We need to pull out our aces to cover our a...s. That would take a war to do though, because that is how the government has done it in the past. Wait a minute... We have a war! Is it a big enough war to introduce drastic new technologies? Not yet. Instead we are giving money to industries that are plagued by unions and corruption. Building museums that no one will visit, and all together just wasting it on politics and politicians.

The fruit ripens.


Tzu also stated, "There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare."