Contact us today at info@fdfny.org for information on how to get involved in this nationwide event
Become a member today of The Frederick Douglass Foundation as seen on the Glenn Beck Show
Category Archives: 2012 Presidential Candidates
Will christians further abandon God for Obama?
I have to wonder if Christians will continue to abandon their Savior and Lord Jesus Christ for Obama or if Obama’s latest outing in support of gay marriage will finally open their eyes.
We have to know will the black church punish Obama for his hypocrisy or will they let this slide (like they have everything else because he is black?
As a conservative I have been telling black folks that he supports gay marriage (see past interviews and policies passed) and they said “no, no he does not he said he doesn’t” even though in the past he said he did. So now that Obama has again said he has “evolved” into believing in same-sex marriage will he become their new messiah and follow Obama’s teachings or God’s.
I am just wondering and waiting to see how this plays out.
Especially since so many also turn a blind eye to Obama support of abortion.
Ayesha Kreutz
EDITORIAL: Obama’s man crush on Reagan
The sad case of unreciprocated presidential love
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
- Ronald Reagan
President Obama has developed a serious case of man love for Ronald Reagan. He just can’t stop talking about him. As longtime friends of Dutch, we have to tell the president: He’s just not that into you.
On Wednesday, Mr. Obama again pitched his plan to raise taxes on the rich, the so-called “Buffett rule.” He likened it to aspects of theGipper’s 1985 tax-overhaul proposal. “If it’ll help convince folks in Congress to make the right choice,” he said, “we could call it the Reagan rule instead of the Buffett rule.” Clearly, the bromance between Barry and Ronnie is alive and well, at least in Mr. Obama’s imagination.
As usual, the White House is taking Reagan out of context. His 1985 tax-reform package had nothing in common with the mega-government philosophy at the heart and soul of Mr. Obama’s policies. When Reagansaw inequities caused by the tax code, he sought to limit them, not make them worse. If a boss paid a lower effective tax rate than his secretary, the Gipper’s answer was not to raise the boss’s taxes but to lower the secretary’s. “Lower, flatter tax rates will give Americans more confidence in the future,” Reagan said in the same speech Mr. Obama quoted. Funny how he missed that passage.
Mr. Obama would never be happy with the whole Reagan package. Like anyone suffering from puppy love, he overlooks many flaws. The Gipperwas a small-government, tax-cutting, pro-defense president who inspired a generation of Americans with his optimistic vision for America. Liberals hate that. Reagan also warned about the drive for nationalized health care being part of the liberal agenda to force socialism on Americans. But the way things are going, the White House may soon start shamelessly referring to Obamacare as Reagancare.
Reagan is a strange fixation for Mr. Obama, who has a number of more party-appropriate predecessors. He could lavish praise on Bill Clinton, for example, or even better, Jimmy Carter. He could embrace the popular notion that he is serving out Mr. Carter’s second term. If Mr. Obama put his information into Match.com, he’d be looking at Mr. Carter’s online profile faster than you can say “malaise.”
Yet his crush on Reagan is all about forbidden fruit. It’s Mr. Obama’s walk on the supply side. He knows he shouldn’t, but he has a burning case of growth envy. Reagan went into his fourth year in office with the economy growing at a robust 7 percent, compared to Mr. Obama’s 1.3 percent.
The White House can recycle stock speeches about the American dream or say Mr. Obama is the embodiment of American exceptionalism, but his actions demonstrate that he has a jaded view of the country. With Reagan, those words meant something positive and compelling. Mr. Obama speaks from the teleprompter; the Gipper spoke from the heart.
Mr. Obama should go back to giving hugs to people like his radical Harvard law professor Derrick Bell. It’s a much better fit.
Coming to Amerika: Population control -Photo of baby aborted in China at 9 months
The Human Element of Obamacare: When the government is in control of your health care they are in total control over your life and so every tax payer has a say in what you eat or don’t eat. If you get care or are too old or too feeble minded or …. Not to mention If you breed or do not breed, do you really want the government to tell you that you can not have anymore children because “WE” can not afford to put another one of your children on health care? What happens if you get pregnant “on accident” and the government “forces” you to abort your baby? Why not Mandated birth control, I mean over population and all see UN.
Photo of baby aborted in China at 9 months in forced abortion circulates on Internet, sparks outrage
- Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:53 EST
LINYI CITY, Shandong Province, China, April 3, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A chilling photograph circulating in China shows the body of a 9-months-gestation baby submerged in a bucket of water, apparently a victim of the country’s one-child policy.
Digital Journal reports that the photograph, in which the head and arm of a child can be seen underwater in a large red bucket on the floor, was posted to the Chinese web services company Baidu before it was circulated on Weibo, the country’s version of Twitter, last week.
The abortion appears to have taken place on March 26 after Chinese family planning police in the town of Moshan hunted down the family because the couple already had one child.
According to English reports regarding the original post, the pregnant mother was forcibly held down as she was given an injection to induce labor, after which the baby “even gave a cry when it came out,” but was left in a bucket to drown.
In response to the photo, Reggie Littlejohn of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, which opposes China’s one-child policy, confirmed that late-term abortions and infanticide are common means of enforcing China’s one-child population rule.
“These violent procedures can happen up to the ninth month of pregnancy,” Littlejohn told LifeSiteNews.com. “Sometimes the women themselves die along with their full term babies. Forced abortion is China’s war against women. It is official government rape.”
“Late term babies are injected with poison in their skulls or drowned in buckets,” she continued. “If the Chinese Communist Party wants to be a respected member of the international community, it must stop forced abortion and infanticide.”
The image and story has reportedly drawn intense outrage across China through Weibo, which has some 260 million users, since the photo began circulating on Thursday.
One commentator cited by Beijing Shots and hailing from Linyi City claimed to have witnessed such measures carried out against unborn children himself, and confirmed that Chinese officials “pounce on mothers-to-be like vampires who see blood.”
“In the hospital, a pregnant woman was dragged by several ruggedly muscular men into the operation room and did not relax their vigilance until she was injected with the drug. They said, ‘Another one accomplished.’ But that pregnant woman was near term! And her family did not even know she was kidnapped here. I later learned that she was captured when she was at a fair,” wrote the commentator.
Littlejohn pointed out that the abortion allegedly took place in Linyi, the same city where forced-abortion opponent and human rights activist Chen Guangcheng still languishes under house arrest.
“This recent incident demonstrates that conditions in Linyi have not improved,” she said.
Although China “has tried to convince the world that it has softened the one-child policy,” said Littlejohn, “this incident demonstrates that this is pure propaganda.”
“This is the greatest violation of women’s rights in the world and it must be stopped.”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/photo-of-baby-aborted-in-china-at-9-months-in-forced-abortion-circulates-on
Help the Frederick Douglass Foundation Fight and defeat Abortion and Obamacare Donate today and/or become a 21st Abolitionist Today
REPEAL OBAMAROMNEYCARE!
ETCHED IN STONE:
ROMNEYCARE = OBAMACARE
The Campaign Within a Campaign Begins Today
Verona, PA – We are on the eve of a dark milestone in our nation’s history.
Two years ago this week, President Barack Obama signed into law ObamaCare, the bill that changed the very core of this country.
Two years ago this week, Barack Obama cemented our dependence on government for our health and our very lives.
Two years ago this week, Barack Obama took Mitt Romney’s advice – and said the government, for the first time in history, could force you to buy something.
No matter how badly Governor Romney hopes he can hit the “reset button” or shake the “Etch-A-Sketch” to clear out the issues he’s proclaimed during his campaign, history shows Mitt Romney urged President Obama to use the individual mandate Romney himself implemented – and then was untruthful about it.
Unless we elect a nominee who can credibly stand up to the President and say “no” to ObamaCare, then more and more of our freedoms will be taken away forever.
Starting today – through the oral arguments before the Supreme Court – Rick Santorum and his campaign will expose the dangerous actions of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney’s role in laying the foundation for this infringement on individual freedom.
Rick Santorum said,”RomneyCare is the fundamental difference between Mitt Romney’s campaign and mine. I stand for an individuals’ right to make their own decisions about healthcare – Gov. Romney and Barack Obama support the government controlling your healthcare. This election is about our basic freedoms being stripped away. I have the credibility and the record to stand up to Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on the healthcare issue and say, ‘no.’”
I have a fundamental disagreement with Barack Obama and Gov. Romney’s philosophy on the proper role of government. Barack Obama on the federal level and Gov. Romney on the state level used their executive authority to expand the government’s role in the lives of Americans. Unlike these two men, I believe government should be limited in its size and scope.”
When you run down the list of elements of RomneyCare and ObamaCare, you will see the same characteristics:
- Individual Mandate
- Employer Mandate
- Mandatory electronic records
- Comparative effectiveness
- End of life programs
- Medical homes
While conservatives have been campaigning against ObamaCare, Mitt Romney has attempted to hit the “reset” button and “shake” the past that he created the framework for ObamaCare. How can we believe that a candidate whose own campaign admits they plan to hit the “reset” button like shaking an “Etch-A-Sketch” will repeal the very law that is modeled after his own?
Freedoms do not change. Our Constitution and our Declaration of Independence were not written in shifting sands, they were signed by the ink of patriots who pledged their lives for liberty. AndConservatives who embrace a return to those founding principles are…of Romney’s plan because it does not reflect the idea of limited government they want to restore.
“It’s not simply that Governor Romney and I disagree on government control of healthcare, we clearly don’t share a philosophy about the proper role of government,” Santorum said. “I am running for President because, at my core, I believe in the greatness of America, the power of free people, and need to restore the principles our Founders risked it all for. America does not need, and cannot afford, a President whose core principles can be shaken away – and I have and always will etch my values, my principles, and core beliefs in stone. Sadly Governor Romney does not share this commitment.”
Conservative commentator MIchelle Malkin wrote, “I repeat: RomneyCare and ObamaCare share not only the same ideological architects, but similar waiver programs in part set up to benefit Big Labor.” (http://michellemalkin.com/2012/01/26/confirmed-romneycare-obamacare/)
Experts at the Cato Institute dispute claimsthat it’s “completely intellectually dishonest” to compare RomneyCare to ObamaCare. They have cited White House records showing “senior White House officials had a dozen meetings in 2009 with three health-care advisers and experts who helped shape the health care reform law signed by Romney in2006…One of those meetings, on July 20, 2009, was in the Oval Office and presided over by President Barack Obama, the records show.
“The White House wanted to lean a lot on what we’d done in Massachusetts,” said Jon Gruber, an MIT economist who advised the Romney administration on health care and who attended five meetings at the Obama White House in 2009, including the meeting with the president. “They really wanted to know how we can take that same approach we used in Massachusetts and turn that into a national model”… (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/romneycare-making-a-fool-of-every-re…)
“Governor Romney can run but he can’t hide from the fact that without him, we would not have Obamacare as we know it,” Santorum said. “Americans don’t want government control of their healthcare, that’s why my views of a constitutionally limited government better mirror the values of conservatives and the vision of America.”
Additional information:
“Presidential aspirant Mitt Romney may not have intended that the mandatory health insurance law he signed in 2006 would look like the Obama health law. But the Massachusetts law does a lot more than cover the uninsured (a worthy goal).” (http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/romneycare-obamacare-healthcare-…)
“Notice that he didn’t answer Mr. Santorum’s critique. Instead, he shifted back to his talking points, stressing Mr. Obama’s Medicare cuts, the role of federalism, and his own compassion. In other words, he all but conceded Mr. Santorum’s point that the two plans are so similar voters will be hard-pressed to tell the difference come November.” (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204661604577187040872…)
“Mitt Romney has gone to great lengths to distance his Massachusetts health plan from the federal law, even giving a PowerPoint presentation to emphasize the differences. But the truth is that there are an awful lot of similarities between the plan he signed in Massachusetts in 2006, often called “RomneyCare,” and the one that President Barack Obama signed in 2010, dubbed “ObamaCare.” (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/mar/20/romneyc…) (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/feb/04/paul…) (http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/dec/05/howard-dean/…)
Mystery Executive Order Raises Specter of Martial Law
Mystery Executive Order Raises Specter of Martial Law
by Newsmax Monday, 19 Mar 2012 08:53 PM
By Paul Scicchitano
Some conservatives fear that a mysterious executive order from President Barack Obama regarding disaster preparedness is a troubling hint at the possibility of martial law in advance of a war with Iran.
White House press secretary Jay Carney dismisses the notion, saying at a press briefing on Monday: “Well, I cannot explain that reaction to it. I think it was a fairly standard and routine piece of business. The president’s approach to our dealings with Iran, I think, has been made clear. He has made it clear, most recently, when he discussed it at length a couple of weeks ago.”
Some conservative groups are concerned that the order, which Obama signed on Friday, gives the president absolute control over all the country’s natural resources in case of a natural disaster or during a time of war, fueling speculation that the Obama administration is making preparations for war with Iran.
Editor’s Note: Get the Truth About Obama. Click Here.
“We are aggressively pursuing a policy focused on tightening sanctions against Iran, increasing the pressure on Iran, and increasing the isolation of the Iranian regime, because this president believes we have the time and space to do that, to see if that diplomatic approach and sanctions approach can produce the desired result,” Carney said. “As he said from this podium, it’s easy to talk about war, but you need to talk about the potential implications and consequences of war.”
Insisting that the president “takes no option off the table” in dealing with Iran, Carney then went on to say that Obama is focused on a diplomatic solution “because not only do we have the time and space to do so, but it is ultimately the approach that has the best chance, if successful, of ensuring that Iran does not ever build a nuclear weapon. So that’s the approach he’s taking.”
Critics, however, have interpreted Obama’s National Defense Resources Preparedness order as giving the president authority to approve the dispensing of all domestic energy, production, transportation, food, and water supplies as he deems necessary to protect national security.
Indeed, the order conveys the authority of the president to “to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders [other than contracts of employment] to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense.”
Moreover, the order conveys such power to the heads of the following six federal agencies:
- Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer
- Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy
- Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources
- Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation
- Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources.
- Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.
Editor’s Note: Get the Truth About Obama. Click Here.
“The United States must have an industrial and technological base capable of meeting national defense requirements and capable of contributing to the technological superiority of its national defense equipment in peacetime and in times of national emergency,” the order states. “The domestic industrial and technological base is the foundation for national defense preparedness. The authorities provided in the act shall be used to strengthen this base and to ensure it is capable of responding to the national defense needs of the United States.”
An analysis of the document by Hotair.com finds that it is nearly identical to a similar executive order signed by President Bill Clinton.
“Why the update” the website asks. “The big change is in the Cabinet itself. In 1994, we didn’t have a Department of Homeland Security, for instance, and some of these functions would naturally fall to DHS.”
The original order dealing with national defense resources preparedness was issued in 1939, according to the website. “It has been superseded a number of times, starting in 1951 by nearly every president through Bill Clinton, and amended twice by George W. Bush.”
© 2012 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Read more on Newsmax.com: Mystery Executive Order Raises Specter of Martial Law
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama’s Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
The Obama Road – Video
Here is an action item to consider
find out Where in your City on March 23rd There will be a Rally
Public Has 90 Days to Comment on Mandate for Abortion-Causing Drugs
by Karla Dial
The Obama administration on Friday released an advance notice of the public rule requiring all employers to provide insurance that covers drugs that could cause early abortions, inviting public comment for the next 90 days.
But according to experts who’ve analyzed the fine print, the administration only seems to be asking for help in balancing its priority — free contraceptives, sterilizations and abortifacient drugs for all women — with the religious freedoms of employers.
The 32-page notice asks the public for input on which, if any, organizations should be exempt from the mandate. “What entities should be eligible for the new accommodation (that is, what is a ‘religious organization’)?” it asks.
Moreover, should religious employers be allowed to object to providing some forms of “contraception,” but not others?
“This is an administration that pushed through ObamaCare despite the fact that there was overwhelming disapproval of the bill, said Sabrina Schaeffer, executive director of the Independent Women’s Forum. “This appears in some ways to be some backpedaling. It’s unclear whether it’s their way of appeasing people or demonstrating they’re listening, when they have no intention of making any changes — which is my perception of the way this administration actually works.”
Friday’s notice refers several times to free “contraceptives” — some of which cost as little as $9 a month — but that’s not all employers or insurance companies will be forced to provide for “free” once the mandate takes effect. Sterilization surgeries also would be provided — and according to Planned Parenthood, those can run anywhere from $1,500 to $6,000 apiece.
“Benefits like this cost a tremendous amount,” Schaeffer said. “They will cost women and their families. And then there are all the moral objections people have. It’s frustrating because (the administration keeps) coming back to this ‘many women use birth control’ argument. But the contraception mandate is as much about birth control as the American Revolution was about tea. This is about the basic separation of church and state, and that’s sadly being overlooked in all this.”
What the notice really indicates, said Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute, is that by suggesting alternative ways to pay for the mandate, the administration is quietly admitting its idea has failed.
“But the religious organizations would still be required to make sure all of their employees have access to the offending coverage,” she wrote in National Review Online on Saturday. “So nothing has changed.”
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Read an open letter to the Obama administration, signed by more than 20,000 women.
You Missed an Opportunity, Mr. President
By Ron Miller
Dear Mr. President:
You and I agree on practically nothing in the area of public policy, so I don’t expect my words to have any weight with you. Despite our policy disagreements, I have always tried to show you the proper respect as our president. As a veteran and the child of a veteran, I was raised “old school” – I respect the commander-in-chief, even if his politics are not my own.
I also respect you as a husband and a father. Your words and deeds leave me no doubt that you are a loving and devoted husband, and a doting father, and in that regard you are a much needed role model for the young men in our country, especially young black men. Most of them have never seen a positive male figure in their lives, so I do not diminish the example you set for them.
It is because I am an “old school” officer and gentleman, and because I admire your family ties, that I was extremely disappointed that you missed an opportunity during your press conference today to show leadership that transcends politics and the divisiveness of our day. You had an opportunity today to allow your better angels to take hold, and you let it pass.
You recently called a supporter and ideological ally to offer your support after conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh used intemperate language to describe her after her public statements defending your contraception mandate. You said you thought about your daughters and how you hoped they, too, would someday become actively engaged in issues they care about, and you didn’t “want them attacked or called horrible names because they’re being good citizens.”
Twice in today’s press conference, you were given an opportunity to show your fair-mindedness and burnish your credentials as the president of all Americans, not just those with whom you agree. You once indignantly declared, “I am not an ideologue,” and you were given a perfect opportunity to prove it. You were given a chance to show that your concern for women is more than about just politics, but that you defend the dignity and worth of all women.
And you failed miserably.
Many of my friends, acquaintances and colleagues will chide me for being disappointed, saying, “That’s just the way he is,” or “What did you expect?” I am a hopeful person, however, even in the midst of trying times for our nation and world, and for me personally, and I was truly hoping you’d knock this issue out of the park. I was hoping you would be a man.
It wouldn’t have cost you anything politically, either. If anything, the independents who’ve been running away from you in droves might have been persuaded to give you another chance if you had chosen to be a leader and a statesman rather than a panderer to your base.
Kirsten Powers showed leadership this week. The liberal columnist for the Daily Beast risked taking it on the chin from her ideological teammates by decrying misogyny regardless of its origins, and correctly pointing out how liberals look the other way when it’s one of their own making crude or vile statements about women. Any fair-minded person knows it shouldn’t matter if the person being insulted is conservative or liberal, but in our superheated, hyper-partisan political environment, the side on which you stand along the ideological fault line seems to be all that matters. Ms. Powers showed courage and integrity with her words, the qualities of a true leader.
Instead of taking on this issue like a man, you offered up an excuse that you didn’t have the time to take on every insult made over the public airwaves, and that it’s the press that should be holding commentators accountable, not you. That, sir, is a flimsy excuse. You clearly took the time to call your supporter after the Rush Limbaugh flap, and you’ve had no qualms in the past about jumping right into the middle of a current story – if your friends are involved. You disrespect us with your light regard for our discernment.
In the end, you continue to demonstrate your inability to show even the most rudimentary qualities of leadership over a diverse nation much in need of a sign of unity from you. Everything in your calculus is political, and there is no room for considering how your tactics are segmenting the nation to the point where the damage could be irreparable. I have daughters, too, Mr. President, and a son, and the example I try to set for them is that right and wrong are not ideological concepts, but matters of truth. That is why I can write in defense of your wife when she is attacked unfairly, even if I don’t agree with her politics.
I am disappointed that you couldn’t, even this once, meet that standard, and I fear that because you took the wide and well-traveled road, the chances your daughters will be “attacked or called horrible names” as they exercise their citizenship are increased, not lessened. You were given a chance to put out the flames, and you chose to walk away while the nation burns.
Ron Miller
Ron Miller of Lynchburg, Virginia is an associate dean and assistant professor of government at Liberty University, a conservative activist and commentator, and author of the book, SELLOUT: Musings from Uncle Tom’s Porch. The nine-year plus veteran of the U.S. Air Force and married father of three writes columns for several online sites and print publications, and his own website, RonOnTheRight.com. Join him on Facebook, Google+ and Twitter.
African-Americans for Obama
Posted by Originally Here by politicaljunkie09
President Obama launched a website for African-Americans for Obama. I suppose it is safe to say that this qualifies as a “blacks only” website, right? Well, let us see here; I am black, so does that mean I have to accept the premise that because I am black I have to be for President Obama? Well, I won’t; I won’t accept it.
I can only imagine what would transpire if one of the white candidates were to launch a website for whites: WHITE PEOPLE FOR NEWT GINGRICH! Do you honestly think that would fly? I mean, conservatives, including myself, are already called racists and bigots on a daily basis, all because we disagree with the President’s policies. Congressman Allen West can’t even make a speech without the Left questioning his black authenticity. In January, Congressman West delivered a powerful speech to a Florida crowd aimed at President Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and everyone on the Left with a Socialist agenda; some of his words were, “. . .take your message of ‘equality and achievement,’ take your message of economic dependency, take your message of enslaving the entrepreneurial will and spirit of the American people, somewhere else. You can take it to Europe, you can take it to the bottom of the sea, you can take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America.”
All of this was followed by a roaring applause, and I must admit, while viewing this, I, too, was in complete agreement! The Left, however, had their usual fit. When MSNBC’s very own Martin Bashir asked Congressman Jim Moran to give his take on Congressman West’s comments, he went on to say that “ . . . Representative West is not only not representative of the African-American community or the Republican Party, let alone of the American public . . .”
Congressman West’s speech had absolutely nothing to do with race, so why did Rep. Moran feel the need to raise the issue of race? Why is it so hard for the Left to accept the fact that there are blacks against this administration? You see, it’s perfectly fine for a bi-racial President to launch a website for blacks only, but it’s totally unacceptable for a black man or woman to speak out against the President’s policies.
No one on the Left questions why our 50% white, 50% black President only indentifies himself as black. No one raises many questions as to why he sat in a hateful, racist church for 20 years. Oh, but how dare a black Congressman disagree with the President of the United States. I guess black conservatives should know their place and fall in line with the rest, because only then will we be viewed as true blacks (whatever that is). Well, it’s not going to happen; not now, not ever. I digress. Well, for the moment anyway.
Let us take a moment to analyze a few things President Obama mentioned in his video, or as he calls it, the “2012 launch of African-Americans for Obama.” Forty-eight seconds into the one minute and forty-three second long video, the President says, “. . . we’ve got to decide what kind of nation we want to be; we can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do very well, or we can build a nation where everybody gets a fair shot.” I addressed this issue in a blog I wrote a few months back, but I will address this again: everyone has what the President calls “a fair shot.” Each and every U.S. citizen has the opportunity to make something of himself and to go as far as they desire. I grew up in one of the most violent, impoverished cities in this country, but that did not hold me back or give me an excuse throw my hands up and join the occupiers, chanting “I am the 99%!” I have not reached all of my goals; I have a long way to go, but I am well on my way. My success does not come from the government; it comes from God.
Why do I mention God? Well, according to a survey in July of 2011, the Gallup found that blacks are the most religious group in the country. President Obama wants Americans, primarily African-Americans, to become dependent upon the government in order to achieve success. Mason Weaver, who stars in the upcoming movie Runaway Slave (please see this movie!), said it best: “if you accept the concept that every problem you have requires someone else to do something, you’re either a child or a slave.” Success is not out of reach; don’t buy into it. Stop buying into the notion that because you are black you have to support the President. Dr. Martin Luther King said to judge by the content of one’s character, not by the color of their skin. The President cared enough to dedicate the New Washington memorial in honor of Dr. King’s memory, so he should care enough to take his words to heart.
While the President can and will get away with race-baiting, it should not be ok with us. If you would oppose a white candidate launching a “whites only” website, then the same should hold true for the President. I am a proud, black conservative; I am not for President Obama, and I approve this message.
Statewide NY Tea Party Caucus: Monroe County March 3rd
Statewide Tea Party Caucus
Join us as we listen to speakers on behalf of each of the GOP 2012 Presidential contenders. Caucus with each group who represents your favorite candidate and VOTE!
Open to the public, so invite family and friends.
Come and make sure you candidate Wins.
For Monroe County
Sponsored by TeaNewyork.com
Moderated by: Bill Nojay
When: Saturday March 3rd
Time: 12pm – 2pm
Where: ST. Prince George’s
104 Main Street East Rochester, NY
How Much: $10 per person/ballot
Pizza and non-alcoholic Drinks will be served at NO additional Cost
More information
teanyrochester@gmail.com
or Call Dave Sieling 315-727-0706
Find TeaNY on Facebook HERE
Find other TEA Party Caucus in NY HERE
Obama, The African Colonial
An oldie but a goodie. This is one of my favorite pieces, I just had to repost again.
Obama, the African Colonial
By L.E. Ikenga
Had Americans been able to stop obsessing over the color of Barack Obama’s skin and instead paid more attention to his culturalidentity, maybe he would not be in the White House today. The key to understanding him lies with his identification with his father, and his adoption of a cultural and political mindset rooted in postcolonial Africa.
Like many educated intellectuals in postcolonial Africa, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was enraged at the transformation of his native land by its colonial conqueror. But instead of embracing the traditional values of his own tribal cultural past, he embraced an imported Western ideology, Marxism. I call such frustrated and angry modern Africans who embrace various foreign “isms”, instead of looking homeward for repair of societies that are broken, African Colonials. They are Africans who serve foreign ideas.
The tropes of America’s racial history as a way of understanding all things black are useless in understanding the man who got his dreams from his father, a Kenyan exemplar of the African Colonial.
Before I continue, I need to say this: I am a first generation born West African-American woman whose parents emigrated to the U.S. in the 1970′s from the country now called Nigeria. I travel to Nigeria frequently. I see myself as both a proud American and as a proud Igbo (the tribe that we come from — also sometimes spelled Ibo). Politically, I have always been conservative (though it took this past election for me to commit to this once and for all!); my conservative values come from my Igbo heritage and my place of birth. Of course, none of this qualifies me to say what I am about to — but at the same time it does.
My friends, despite what CNN and the rest are telling you, Barack Obama is nothing more than an old school African Colonial who is on his way to turning this country into one of the developing nations that you learn about on the National Geographic Channel. Many conservative (East, West, South, North) African-Americans like myself — those of us who know our history — have seen this movie before. Here are two main reasons why many Americans allowed Obama to slip through the cracks despite all of his glaring inconsistencies:
First, Obama has been living on American soil for most of his adult life. Therefore, he has been able to masquerade as one who understands and believes in American democratic ideals. But he does not. Barack Obama is intrinsically undemocratic and as his presidency plays out, this will become more obvious. Second, and most importantly, too many Americans know very little about Africa. The one-size-fits-all understanding that many Americans (both black and white) continue to have of Africa might end up bringing dire consequences for this country.
Contrary to the way it continues to be portrayed in mainstream Western culture, Africa is not a continent that can be solely defined by AIDS, ethnic rivalries, poverty and safaris. Africa, like any other continent, has an immense history defined by much diversity and complexity. Africa’s long-standing relationship with Europe speaks especially to some of these complexities — particularly the relationship that has existed between the two continents over the past two centuries. Europe’s complete colonization of Africa during the nineteenth century, also known as the Scramble for Africa, produced many unfortunate consequences, the African colonial being one of them.
The African colonial (AC) is a person who by means of their birth or lineage has a direct connection with Africa. However, unlike Africans like me, their worldviews have been largely shaped not by the indigenous beliefs of a specific African tribe but by the ideals of the European imperialism that overwhelmed and dominated Africa during the colonial period. AC’s have no real regard for their specific African traditions or histories. AC’s use aspects of their African culture as one would use pieces of costume jewelry: things of little or no value that can be thoughtlessly discarded when they become a negative distraction, or used on a whim to decorate oneself in order to seem exotic. (Hint: Obama’s Muslim heritage).
On the other hand, AC’s strive to be the best at the culture that they inherited from Europe. Throughout the West, they are tops in their professions as lawyers, doctors, engineers, Ivy League professors and business moguls; this is all well and good. It’s when they decide to engage us as politicians that things become messy and convoluted.
The African colonial politician (ACP) feigns repulsion towards the hegemonic paradigms of Western civilization. But at the same time, he is completely enamored of the trappings of its aristocracy or elite culture. The ACP blames and caricatures whitey to no end for all that has gone wrong in the world. He convinces the masses that various forms of African socialism are the best way for redressing the problems that European colonialism motivated in Africa. However, as opposed to really being a hard-core African Leftist who actually believes in something, the ACP uses socialist themes as a way to disguise his true ambitions: a complete power grab whereby the “will of the people” becomes completely irrelevant.
Barack Obama is all of the above. The only difference is that he is here playing (colonial) African politics as usual.
In his 1995 memoir, Dreams From My Father – an eloquent piece of political propaganda — Obama styles himself as a misunderstood intellectual who is deeply affected by the sufferings of black people, especially in America and Africa. In the book, Obama clearly sees himself as an African, not as a black American. And to prove this, he goes on a quest to understand his Kenyan roots. He is extremely thoughtful of his deceased father’s legacy; this provides the main clue for understanding Barack Obama.
Barack Obama Sr. was an African colonial to the core; in his case, the apple did not fall far from the tree. All of the telltale signs of Obama’s African colonialist attitudes are on full display in the book — from his feigned antipathy towards Europeans to his view of African tribal associations as distracting elements that get in the way of “progress”. (On p. 308 of Dreams From My Father, Obama says that African tribes should be viewed as an “ancient loyalties”.)
Like imperialists of Old World Europe, the ACP sees their constituents not as free thinking individuals who best know how to go about achieving and creating their own means for success. Instead, the ACP sees his constituents as a flock of ignorant sheep that need to be led — oftentimes to their own slaughter.
Like the European imperialist who spawned him, the ACP is a destroyer of all forms of democracy.
Here are a few examples of what the British did in order to create (in 1914) what is now called Nigeria and what Obama is doing to you:
- Convince the people that “clinging” to any aspect of their cultural (tribal) identity or history is bad and regresses the process of “unity”. British Imperialists deeply feared people who were loyal to anything other than the state. “Tribalism” made the imperialists have to work harder to get people to just fall in line. Imperialists pitted tribes against each other in order to create chaos that they then blamed on ethnic rivalry. Today many “educated” Nigerians, having believed that their traditions were irrelevant, remain completely ignorant of their ancestry and the history of their own tribes.
- Confiscate the wealth and resources of the area that you govern by any means necessary in order to redistribute wealth. The British used this tactic to present themselves as empathetic and benevolent leaders who wanted everyone to have a “fair shake”.Imperialists are not interested in equality for all. They are interested in controlling all.
- Convince the masses that your upper-crust university education naturally puts you on an intellectual plane from which to understand everything even when you understand nothing. Imperialists were able to convince the people that their elite university educations allowed them to understand what Africa needed. Many of today’s Nigerians-having followed that lead-hold all sorts of degrees and certificates-but what good are they if you can’t find a job?
- Lie to the people and tell them that progress is being made even though things are clearly becoming worse. One thing that the British forgot to mention to their Nigerian constituents was that one day, the resources that were being used to engineer “progress” (which the British had confiscated from the Africans to begin with!) would eventually run out. After WWII, Western Europe could no longer afford to hold on to their African colonies. So all of the counterfeit countries that the Europeans created were then left high-and-dry to fend for themselves. This was the main reason behind the African independence movements of the1950 and 60′s. What will a post-Obama America look like?
- Use every available media outlet to perpetuate the belief that you and your followers are the enlightened ones-and that those who refuse to support you are just barbaric, uncivilized, ignorant curmudgeons. This speaks for itself.
America, don’t be fooled. The Igbos were once made up of a confederacy of clans that ascribed to various forms of democratic government. They took their eyes off the ball and before they knew it, the British were upon them. Also, understand this: the African colonial who is given too much political power can only become one thing: a despot.
Romney is he really what you want?
”Romneycare has proven to be a disaster in Massachusetts, providing a clear vision of the future under Obamacare. The number of uninsured has been reduced — at great cost — but the program has failed to achieve the promise of universal coverage. The subsidies and other costs have proven an enormous burden for the state budget. Insurance premiums have continued to rise, leading Massachusetts to attempt to impose premium caps and even a global budget. Insurers are losing money and threatening to pull out of the state.”
They haven’t even finished counting 2010 midterm ballots (New York’s 1st congressional district is still undecided), but already potential Republican candidates are testing the presidential waters for 2012. Among the early frontrunners will be former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.
Romney will have several powerful advantages: name recognition, plenty of money, a strong organization left over from 2008, and a reputation for business competence during an election in which economic issues and job creation are likely to dominate. But he will also have one enormous albatross hanging around his neck: the Massachusetts health-care program.
Finish Reading Below
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/254174/romneys-chronic-health-care-problem-michael-tanner
“This is a huge character issue on Mitt Romney’s part. He needs to step up and do the right thing and quit playing dirty politics, quit playing dirty dishonest politics.” Rick Santorum said, on his opponent’s “running a “dirty politics” robocall campaign”
SC state Sen. Larry Grooms joined Santorum in denouncing Romney. “When a man running for the highest office of the nation sanctions a phone call where one of his opponents does a fake endorsement, something’s wrong with that,” he said.
Read Article Here: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/17/news/la-pn-santorum-accuses-romney-of-playing-dirty-politics-20120117
Are we going to let another Establishment Candidate buy his way into office? Now do not get me wrong Obama has done much worse but we are conservatives for goodness sake come on
Great Laughs, Election Moments and more 2012
Heheheeh, I should not laugh but it is so pathetic I cannot help it. McCain praises Obama instead of Romney heheheheh… Jan 5th 2012
___________________________________________________________________________
Santorum’s winning Iowa Speech
Rick Perry – Got a Name?
_____________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Gingrich: Norah O’Donnell “are you calling Mitt Romney a Liar” Newt: “Yes” A Stunned Norah O’Donnell “Why are you calling him a liar”
Ayesha Kreutz: ha ha ha! Because he is a liar Norah. Heheeheehee. Love it! And Newt is right that we the people do think Washington is sick and all the lying is a big part of if.
And Yes Bob Schieffer although we have a better choice than Romney, the truth is he Obama is so bad that supporting a liar who is less of a liar than Obama would be easier to support than This man destroying our country and spitting on our constitution every time we turn around. BUT we do not have to nominate Romney the truth is we have Santorum, Perry and Gingrich who would all be good picks. So, STOP with the Romney business.
Talking to a Ron Paul Supporter.. always good for a laugh
Gov. Rick Perry – You Got a name?
Certainly one of my Favorite moments so far this election cycle? What are your favorites?
Question about Voting for My commander in Chief? 1
The U.S. State Department calls the Islamic Republic of Iran the worlds most active state sponsor of terrorism. They who call us the Great Satan and continue to provide funding, training, weapons, and sanctuary to terrorist groups such as the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Hamas and others who are for the destruction of Israel and “The Great Satan” Sorry to me this is not my friend and to suggest I or those who want to protect ourselves against folks like this are in the wrong are friends of my enemy and therefore I take issue with them and if you are running for president of the USA and have this view why would I vote for you to be my commander in Chief?
Ayesha Kreutz
Netanyahu said “But you know very well, that in the Middle East, the only peace that will hold is a peace you can defend.” Why do some in America not get this very simple principle. Reagan “Peace through Strength”
What is peace? What is strength?
Leave us a comment, what do you think?
Un-color yourself and stay on issue www.tfdf.org
Invite the FDFNY to your neighborhood: Click Here
Faith, Family and Education are key to liberty: We are Devoted Christians, Pro-life, Pro-Family, Pro-American, Pro-Free Market and willing to stand and in love and fight.
Buy a 2012 FDF Calandar Today - 1 for $12 (tax and shipping inculded) ask about bulk discounts
We depend on your support. Advertise with us today or Make a Donation of any amount ($1, $5, $50 ect.) and help us Educate, Empower and Enhance those around us. You can help the Frederick Douglass Foundation of New York compete with the well-funded opposition by advertising or donating today. The Left is great at putting their money where their mouth is , If we intend on meeting our goals we need everyone to do the same. THANK YOU. To Donate and find out more: Click Here (donations are NOT tax-deductible)
The Frederick Douglass Foundation is a public policy and educational organization which brings the sanctity of free market and limited government ideas to bear on the hardest problems facing our nation. We are a collection of pro-active individuals committed to developing innovative and new approaches to today’s problems with the assistance of elected officials, scholars from universities and colleges and community activists.
