Love thy neighbor, or love thy criminals.
Polls taken throughout Barack Obama's tenure as our elected dictator
show that a consistent 40% to 45% think he is doing OK as… President.
That contrasts with as few as 16% of Americans who approve of Obama's
handling of the US economy. Why isn't there a parallel between those
two polling questions? Can one's rating as President not take into
account both overall performance and specific performance?
In 2004 I had heard glowing reports of an attractive Black man from
Chicago who, supposedly, was delivering rousing speeches. So, I made
it a point to listen when Obama addressed the Democratic Convention
that year. My reaction wasn't favorable. The words of the speech
were OK, but Obama was stony-faced and emotionless. He talked in a
modified monotone—dropping his voice at the end of sentences as though
his energy had drained out. The most noticeable aspect of his
bearing, as a speaker, was the regularity with which he turned his
head from side to side while reading teleprompters. Though he was
articulate sounding, Obama didn't seem to be enjoying the message he
was delivering. Where there is real passion, usually there are
changes in speaking tone, changes in body language, and apt
gesturing. Obama showed none of those. Whoever that 'attractive
Black man from Chicago' was, he was keeping the true identity of the
speaker hidden from public view. That fact made me feel very uneasy,
mostly, because other people, apparently, were only seeing the
slender, suave and handsome man, and not seeing the likely psychosis
lurking below that man's surface.
Bill Kristol of the 'Weekly Standard', a supposed conservative
magazine, is a regular 'guest contributor' on Fox News. On Chris
Wallace's show, Sunday, Kristol was his usual smiley self while he
defended not firing policemen and librarians as part of needed budget
cuts. Though I've never read a page of that magazine, I could
immediately tell that Kristol is a liberal. His cast-in-stone smile
also shows him to be a phony of the worst kind. When I was a kid, my
father, who was a professional portrait photographer, told me that men
don't smile 'naturally', without being coaxed. I've observed that men
who are not trustworthy will smile excessively to created the opposite
illusion.
Bill O'Reilly smiles and chuckles his way though most of his shows.
After interviewing Obama the night of the Super Bowl, O'Reilly said
that Obama—who was all toothy-smiles the entire interview—is a
friendly and likable man (gag… gag…). O'Reilly is this liberal
Harvard luck-out with a moron's IQ telling his like-minded viewers
that THE most divisive and hurtful man to the country in US history
is… likable. Regularly doing that on national TV, as O'Reilly does,
is, I believe, aiding and abetting treason. For that reason, Bill
O'Reilly should hang for treason right along side his idol, Obama, as
part of the cleansing to rid corrupt socialist conspirators from our
midst.
This week, Ron Paul got the highest number of straw votes for
President at the CPAC convention. Three years ago Paul could have
become President simply by saying these words: "The USA is broke
financially. And the Federal Government is broke morally. No one in
Washington considers the costs and the negative effects of the
legislation being passed. With every new law, our civil liberties go
down, and our share of the national debt goes… up. A logical solution
to our failed government is to ratify a stronger New Constitution.
The object of such should be to, once again, put the People in charge
of government, rather than allowing government to keep thinking it is
in charge of the People. To further that objective, I hereby RESIGN
my House Seat in order to work for a better America by way of a New
Constitution of the United States of America. I urge all patriots who
agree with me to rally to that cause!"
But Ron Paul shrank back into obscurity amid the empty ritual of the
Capital after saying, "Elections are for the short term. A Revolution
will take longer." Ron Paul doesn't have… the (New) Constitution to
lead a Revolution. But I do!
Two other prominent political or media figures who are clear PHONIES
are former Governor Mike Huckabee and Former Governor Mitt Romney.
Both of those are smile-aholics. "One glance at Huckabee's smile
could give dentists tooth decay!" No man who fakes playing a guitar
on each of his sweet, sweet shows has the honesty and integrity to be
a janitor at any church, let alone President of the USA.
Romney showed his true colors after the McCain-Palin ticket was
finalized. Instead of smiles, I detected POISON in Romney's bearing
and in his remarks. In my opinion, the 'dual personality' of that man
disqualifies him to ever be President. This country can't 'take' two
phony Presidents in a row! Though I never approved of George Bush
invading Iraq, he was one of our more what-you-see-is what-you-get
presidents. We should look for that kind of honesty in future
presidents!
Of the 'possibles' for President, Newt Gingrich has many plusses. The
man is smart and well-informed. There is a pleasantness and a
seriousness in his bearing and delivery of message. He has a stable,
reassuring quality, and an honest candor that makes the listener feel
they are getting the truth, never a run-around.
The Donald has the smarts and the "Presidential Bearing" to be
President. However, for leading a bankrupt nation, I'd shy away from
anyone who has made borrowing money to get out of business binds an…
art form. The USA cannot… borrow (or print) any more money! Only
massive cutbacks (75%) will save us from our debt. Having "nice"
police and "nice" librarians lose their jobs shouldn't be a
catastrophe if the removal of burdensome restrictions on businesses in
this country creates another post war (WW II) boom. By working and
saving during a booming economy, most people can provide for their own
"security" for the future. Private insurance, shopped across state
lines, should replace Medicare and Medicaid—which were so bankrupting
this country, even before Obama came on the screen.
45% of those polled think Obama is doing OK as President. Those same
people, probably without exception, voted for the tyrant. In two
year's time, none of them have had the vision to see that Obama is the
height of HYPOCRISY, insincerity, deceit, dishonesty, duplicity and
self-love. He stabs America in the back while showing his toothy
smile and wearing his tailored suits and ties. In short, he is a
traitor!
The core of the 45% are the 90% of Black block voters who gladly do
whatever the typical anti-America church that they go to tells them is
fine. They willingly turn their backs on the 55% of Americans who for
too long have been financing the corrupted programs of government.
Blacks don't "love thy neighbor" like the Bible says, but love
themselves while waiting to GET the (stolen) taxed-away assets of
others. So, Blacks love the criminals, like most of them are willing
to be.
Glenn Beck supposes that mod violence like happened in Egypt could
happen here. I used to suppose that there are "core" survivalists out
there who hate government so much that they would have begun the
cleansing processes already. In the past, some have proposed that our
Government will start toeing-the-line, if Americans will simply STOP
paying the excessive taxes. Those who do pay the increasing taxes
must truly love their neighbors, the 45% who hope to do little or no
work in the future because of the… charity of the 55%.
Folks, think about how "American" taxpayers are to so willingly accept
being overtaxed for the benefit of the lazy 45% of our neighbors.
Perhaps I dream to consider how wonderful it would be if everyone who
is able would not be a burden to anyone else. Are there any Blacks
out there who can heed that call? The decision to "love thy neighbor"
is for each of the 45% to make.
My recently published book explains how having a prosperous free
enterprise system can benefit the vast majority of Americans. The
title is: "The Shortest Distance; Harmony Through Prosperity." I hope
many of you, including racial minorities, will get a copy from Amazon
or B. & N.
Respectfully submitted,
— John A. Armistead — Patriot
>
On Jan 30, 11:38 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Folks: Understanding the fix the USA is in will be easier if more of
> you can read my highly expert analysis of Barack Obama's and Ronald
> Reagan's handwriting. Please talk about what I'm saying. For too
> long, people in this country have been letting the media crooks do
> most of the talking.
>
> 8/05/08
>
> Dear Tom: No two people could be more different than Ronald Reagan
> and Barack Obama! If you haven't read, I am a lifelong graphologist—
> one of, if not the best analyzers of handwriting in the entire World!
> Ronald Reagan's handwriting shows someone with a nervous temperament.
> But that's not a "losing it" nervous temperament like John McCain
> has. Reagan was a conventional thinking man; i.e., his value system
> was like that of most good people. His personality showed that he was
> responding to pressures from various fronts, but he could bend rather
> than break. What that means is: Reagan never compromised his
> principles! Those who show a legible, normal-sized and formed
> writing, that also have a nervous but controlled temperament, are salt-
> of-the-Earth people!
> Reagan's letter forms were legible, but not fussily exact. That
> means that he was practical-minded and not overly concerned with
> details. Writers like that are like the majority of good executives:
> They can delegate authority, and are trusting enough to leave the
> 'petty details' to subordinates. Reagan's signature and the body of
> his texts were similar and conventional. His letter forms were
> consistently rounded and easy-flowing. So, I know that he was
> friendly and well liked. The latter was the primary social trait of
> Reagan, which was evident in his smile, humor, easy body language, and
> gestures. Those things caused Reagan to inspire trust and confidence!
> On the personal side, Reagan was lonely. That fact is indicated
> by the above average space between his words. He'd speak his mind,
> then leave people alone to do the work required. His relationship
> with his family was more detached than he wanted. He had simple, non-
> materialistic ideals. The achieving of worthy goals meant more to him
> than riches. And those were off-the-table if there were family
> pressures. The goals came first, the family second. He was a
> trusting parent—not an overly doting one. To him, hard knocks helped
> build strong character. Sometimes that was tough-love, but it was
> love!
>
> Barack Obama is as artificial and unconventional as his biracial
> parentage tells. From birth, he had identity issues that are ruling
> him to this day. He has an almost schizophrenia-like way of bottling-
> up his emotions. As a kid, he learned to keep his true feelings to
> himself. That's why he never developed the facial expressions and
> body language of a normal person. Such a lack was the first abnormal
> thing I noticed about him when he addressed the 2004 Democratic
> Convention.
> Obama's inferiority complex demanded that he rise above his
> heritage. With each little success, his ego swelled—as did his
> capital letters. Those with huge egos make very poor executives.
> It's their way or no way. Obama would be a misfit in any group
> dynamic such as in the Executive Office. He would keep getting in the
> way of even desirable goals. People will resist him, because he is so
> cock sure. The ideas of others seem small by comparison.
> Yes, Obama has charisma. Basically, that means that he draws
> attention to himself because of his bearing and "poise" in public
> situations. But the majority of what passes as "poise" with Obama is
> his from-birth, personality flaw of not showing appropriate emotions.
> Many must be impressed that he doesn't show nervousness. His control
> over his outward emotions is so developed—but is actually pathological—
> that he could pass any lie detector test with ease. The man is
> emotionally dead. Obama's dominant 'tone' is that of someone who
> isn't happy. He seems to be successful in rallying those who are too
> shy to express their own unhappiness.
> Obama PRINTS too many of his letters. Even in the body of his
> writing he uses printed letters. He makes those forms with such
> exactness that he reveals himself to be a pedant and a perfectionist.
> Both of those characteristics mean that he has few if any friends.
> He's an individualistic, loner. His best contribution would be to be
> left alone to work out the details, but he insists on controlling
> every aspect of every activity around him. Obama has the personality
> of a dictator and a demagogue, not a "Reagan-like" delegater and
> listener.
> Most people with unique personalities, whose writing shows flare
> that's lacking in average people, have superior intelligence. But
> Obama has excessive deliberateness in his writing. Deliberateness
> means artificiality, lack of spontaneity, phoniness, self-centeredness
> and being overbearing. It also shows someone who places form above
> substance. Because printing is slower than cursive writing, his IQ
> isn't as high as his verbal fluency hints. When Obama must express
> his feelings, extemporaneously, he does so in a most broken and
> halting matter, and his talking speed is much too slow! Some view
> that as his being "really affected" by what he is saying. But I view
> it as the expressions of someone with such mixed emotions about things
> that he must PLAN his words. People who do that are UNTRUSTWORTHY.
> That's why I keep referring to Obama as: THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE.
> Those who are too impressed by his poise-under-fire need to realize
> that he's got the selfish ego of the anti Christ. With Obama,
> disaster will be omnipresent!
>
> So, Tom, how is it that someone smart like you, who now lives in
> China, has the idea that Obama has a snowball's-chance-in-hell of
> improving the World condition? The US Congress—with the majority,
> there, having huge egos, too—won't be swayed by rhetoric. Every day,
> rhetoric slides off of their backs like water on ducks. His "I'm
> angry-toned" speeches appeal to some would-be voters. But after his
> first term bogs down, words won't be enough. Obama doesn't have the
> LIKABLE personality of a "bridge builder". He doesn't have the
> character and the "knows the difference between right and wrong"
> aptitude to be a respected leader. For the good of the nation, Barack
> Obama should never be allowed to "get his picture" on any of our
> currency, or on any paintings hung on the Capital walls. The survival
> of the World is depending on it!
> Your damning characterization of "McCain" are equally true of
> Obama. Obama has already addressed those Jewish jerks, live, while
> standing in front of that rusting war junk in Israel. In unambiguous
> words, Obama promised to "support" Israel (with our military might).
> He is being held captive by those &@$#1 Jews, too. But I'm using
> every ounce of my being to see to it that NEITHER Obama nor McCain
> become President! Electing LIBERTARIANS will send a massage to the
> World that we Americans are as fed-up with our government as those in
> foreign countries are. My New Constitution will instate—for the first
> time in our history—democracy and FAIR PLAY in America! And there
> will be swift consequences to any American business not being fair and
> respectful to those less fortunate in other lands. By "cleaning-up-
> our-own-act", here, the World will soon know that the USA is its best
> friend.
> Obama promises 'changes'… while he is leading us to our doom.
> But be it known: "A fair, just and pro democracy NEW CONSTITUTION is
> the only 'change' that we need!" Pass it on! — NoEinstein — AKA
> John A. Armistead, Patriot
>
> On Jan 29, 11:47 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dear Readers:
>
> > It continues to enlighten me how "right-on" many of my previous
> > essays, relating to my odyssey to save the USA, have been. Here is
> > one which I wrote to counter the LIE that Tim Russert had been an
> > admirable public figure:
>
> > 6/24/08
>
> > TIM RUSSERT PERSONIFIED WHAT'S WRONG ABOUT THE MEDIA.
>
> > Many would suppose that it is… the 'American way' to advance from a
> > lowly Washington reporter to have been one of the 'most watched'
> > leaders of the media. But Tim Russert was about as anti-American as
> > they come. Yes, he used smiles to punctuate his trademark attacks on
> > the 'weaknesses' of his many guests. And he sometimes punctuated
> > those attacks with looks of cynicism. But, getting good Nelson
> > Ratings shouldn't be the standard by which any media figure is judged.
>
> > While Russet's star was just rising, I had the 'inside scoop' on
> > felonious acts committed by one of our most notorious US senators.
> > Sounds like… 'news', doesn't it? But over several years—while I kept
> > trying to get my story out—I learned that the media is corrupt-to-the-
> > core. To wit: The media assumes that so-called 'public figures'
> > aren't required to live by the same standards of lawfulness as other
> > citizens.
>
> > Because Tim Russert seemed to be someone who 'attacked' his news
> > stories, I poured-my-heart-out to him in a letter that also included
> > pages of documentation copied on the old 3.5" floppy disks. But
> > Russert, nor any of the thirty or so other media 'icons' whom I
> > contacted would even consider that… 'news' might come from someone who
> > isn't a celebrity. What gets covered as news in this country must
> > pass through layers of… editors, before some of it leaks through. It
> > is that same process—that eventually found Tim Russert at or near the
> > top of the media pecking order—that allows me to rightly peg Russert
> > as anti-American. The tacit role of the media is to inform the
> > Citizens. Tim failed to properly do so, because of his bias
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.