The Obama's surrender their Law Licenses

About a year ago, the liberal left unionistas made a list of all the supposed lies told by Governor Scott Walker in the course of his campaign for Governor. But their list had no source material. So I am copying this from another blogger to show how a list of lies should be presented, WITH the source material. The following is a small list of the flaws and illegal activities carried out by our president and his wife, not simply made up allegations.

BY David Herold

I am reposting for those who have missed it.
FORMER LAWYERS?
I knew they had both lost their law license, but I didn't know why until I read this.
This is 100% legit. I check it out at https://www.iardc.org/ Stands for Illinois Attorney Registration And Disciplinary Committee. It's the official arm of lawyer discipline in Illinois ; and they are very strict. (Talk about irony.) Even I, at the advanced age of almost 65, maintain (at the cost of approximately $600/year) my law license that I worked so hard and long to earn.
Big surprise.
Former Constitutional Law Lecturer and U.S. President Makes Up Constitutional Quotes During State Of The Union (SOTU) Address.
Consider this:
1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license back in 2008 in order to escape charges he lied on his bar application. A "Voluntary Surrender" is not something where you decide "Gee, a license is not really something I need anymore, is it?" and forget to renew your license. No, a "Voluntary Surrender" is something you do when you've been accused of something, and you 'voluntarily surrender" your license five seconds before the state suspends you.
2 Michelle Obama "voluntarily surrendered" her law license in 1993. after a Federal Judge gave her the choice between surrendering her license or standing trial for Insurance fraud!
3. Facts.Source: http://jdlong.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/pres-barack-obama-editor-of-the-Harvard-law-review-has-no-law-license/
4. A senior lecturer is one thing, a fully ranked law professor is another. Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Chicago .
5. The University of Chicago released a statement in March 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) "served as a professor" in the law school-but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008.
6. "He did not hold the title of Professor of Law," said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law.
Source: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/sweet_obama_did_hold_the_title.html ;
7. The former Constitutional Senior Lecturer (Obama) cited the U.S. Constitution the other night during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence … not the Constitution.
8. The B-Cast posted the video: http://www.breitbart.tv/did-obama-confuse-the-constitution-with-the-declaration-of-independence/
9. Free Republic : In the State of the Union Address, President Obama said: "We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal.
10. Um, wrong citing, wrong founding document there Champ, I mean Mr. President. By the way, the promises are not a notion, our founders named them unalienable rights. The document is our Declaration of Independence and it reads:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
11. And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech?
When you are a phony it's hard to keep facts straight. Keep this moving — educate others

The Little Engine that could NOT!

We have heard a lot lately about how the economy needs an overhaul (OWS is basing their whole movement on the fact that capitalism doesn't work), and the progressives (Obama and company) are just the ones to initiate us the change we need to make our economy run more efficiently.

Let's look at the economy as an engine that drives our nation, with sufficient fuel it is an efficient mechanism to get our nation moving. For the last 2 hundred years we have run our engine on capitalism (gasoline), and it has been doing a pretty good job of running the nation. We have had good times and bad times, and fuel shortages and booms, but through it all, the gasoline that we have been running our nation on has done its job. The American economy has purred along pretty self sufficiently for a couple of centuries.

But for about the last 100 years or so the progressives decided that gasoline (the fuel we use to operate our economy) is inefficient, that it is not the best fuel to run our engine on. They make all kind of crazy claims, like the supply of gasoline will run out soon, so we need to find alternative fuel. A progressive never met an alternative fuel source that he didn't like. Solar, wind, Geo-thermal, electric, bio-fuel, ethanol (Socialism, communism, fascism, sustainable development, whatever title they are using now), just to name a few with the progressive stamp of approval.

Unfortunately, none of these alternatives can produce the same result as the gasoline we currently use. But the progressives still claim that gasoline is inefficient so we cannot use our supply at all, instead we need to find something else to run our country on. Capitalism, they say is the bane of society, it rewards some and punishes others, so we cannot use it any longer to fuel the economy because it is "unfair".

And their way of encouraging use of "alternative fuels" is to raise the taxes on gasoline (tax the rich) so the price gets so high that no one can live their lives. This is the progressive way of enforcing its agenda on the population, make whatever they don't want so expensive that the citizens cannot afford to run their own lives on the substance. But what is the alternative fuel that the progressives have championed? What they are proposing is run our nation on water (figuratively of course).

They have not come up with a new engine design, they have not come up with a way of converting our current engine to other fuels, instead they INSIST that we simply stop using what has worked (inefficient as it is) for the last couple of centuries. Most OWS occupiers don't have any idea for a replacement economic system, they only insist that capitalism doesn't work and needs to be destroyed.

Slowly they have been introducing their new "fuel" into the engine, they took over the education system, and the engine ran fine. So they took over the environment, and the engine began to sputter, they took over the entertainment industry and the media, and the engine started huffing and sputtering. Now they are trying to take over the courts, the government, and change the "fuel" by proxy, and what is the result? Our engine has pretty much stopped working.

And their response is to blame the gasoline. After all, gasoline is inefficient, it doesn't produce equal results across all passengers, some engines got better gas mileage than others, so....... because it isn't equally distributed, we have to do away with gasoline. Gasoline is BAD! And we need to run our engine on water from now on, because water is more "fair."

But have they come up with a different, more efficient, engine? They only have theories of how an engine can run on water. Have they proven that our current engine can run on water? Every time it has been tried in real life, it has failed miserably. We know that gasoline will run the engine, but they think that by demonizing the gasoline, they will cause the engine to run more efficiently? HUH!

Motto of the story: NO you can't!!!!

Make them buy cigarettes!

I know this will come as no surprise to anyone, but children's health care is being funded by smokers.

"The Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) was created in 1997 to provide affordable health coverage to low-income children in working families who make too much money to be eligible for Medicaid but not enough to afford private coverage. The program currently covers more than 7 million children. In February 2009, after a protracted political fight, Congress enacted, and President Obama signed, legislation that renewed CHIP through the end of 2013 and expanded its scope." http://familiesusa2.org/assets/pdfs/chipra/funding.pdf

This legislation was originally a product of the Clinton administration. "At its creation in 1997, SCHIP was the largest expansion of taxpayer-funded health insurance coverage for children in the U.S. since Medicaid began in the 1960s. The statutory authority for SCHIP is under title XXI of the Social Security Act. It was sponsored by Senator Edward Kennedy in a partnership with Senator Orrin Hatch^[3] with support coming from First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton during the Clinton administration.^[4][5][6]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Children%27s_Health_Insurance_Program

The main point is........this is a Democrat product, it was written, sponsored, passed and signed into law by Democrats. Democrats love this program, they take great pride in this program, they have patted themselves on the back for this program. They would also love to expand this program, Hillary envisioned up to 25 million children being served by this program.

"Tragically, in my state (Texas) -- not something I'm proud of -- 850,000 children are eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP, but they are not enrolled,'(U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas) said Wednesday. 'I think it's important we focus our efforts on getting these children covered. And that's why Kids First provides $400 million for five years for outreach and enrollment." http://www.reporternews.com/news/2009/jan/29/us-senate-debates-chip-funding/

Sounds great, but there is a gremlin in the works. Like all great programs that the government undertakes it must find funding. "The expansion, which would be funded by a tobacco tax increase, affects almost 500,000 Texan children, including 2,254 children in Jones and Taylor counties."

http://www.reporternews.com/news/2009/jan/29/us-senate-debates-chip-funding/

Now we all know how Democrats feel about smoking. Smokers are the worst of the worst, they are a menace to society; their smelly habit affects the health of everyone surrounding them, they are polluters, and are ignorant to their negative affects on the environment. So smokers need to be punished for their lack of respect for the environment around them, by taxing them.

"Not only are the payers of cigarette taxes poorer as a group than the payers of these other taxes, but there are fewer of them. The burden on the lowest-earning 20 percent of households from a cigarette tax is 37 times heavier than if the government raised the money with the federal income tax." http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/24208.html

So.... health care for poor children is being funded by smokers, who tend to be the poor. Sounds like a remedy for disaster, the smokers fund children's health care, but liberals hate smokers and demand they quit smoking, which would of course lower the amount of revenues to be used for ... children's health care. Quite a pickle they have gotten themselves into. So how do we solve this?

That is the easy part, since health care is a right (I am speaking like a liberal, I personally don't believe it is a right), then children's health care must be funded by the government. And since the government has linked the funding to cigarette taxes....the only solution is to mandate that the public buy cigarettes.

Before you jump down my throat, think about how the Affordable Health care Act will be funded. The individual mandate demands that every citizen buy health insurance or pay a fine. So if the public can be mandated to buy health insurance, then they can be mandated to buy any other product as long as the goal is health care, right? So taking the cue from Obamacare and the individual mandate, the only way to fund children's health care is to mandate that every citizen buy cigarettes.

Only by being forced to purchase cigarettes can our poor kids have the kind of health care they have a right to. This is your government in action. This would of course mean that not only would the poor be paying for children's health care, but if everyone were mandated to buy cigarettes, the rich would also be forced (probably kicking and screaming) to pay for it as well. Something they are loathe to do, I am sure.

So in conclusion, if Obama thinks that mandating the purchase of insurance to cover his health care plan is constitutional, he could just as easily mandate that we all buy cigarettes to cover health care for children. It is the same reasoning, just a different product.

So smokers, light up, enjoy your nicotine, you are doing it for the children, you are the real caring citizens.

Who Knows What, When?

This video is a little longer than I am used to posting here, but if you watch it until the end you will not be disappointed.....but you will be angry. I for one am furious. First we are told by all the political experts that Mitt Romney will be the inevitable candidate before even one vote was cast, and then they go about to ensure that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I was angry when they assaulted by candidate Herman Cain, and threatened his family, to he felt he needed to drop out of the race, but this is even worse. When they know the results before the votes are cast it means only one thing, FRAUD!!! on an unprecedented scale.

Privatize the TSA

http://www.onlinecriminaljusticedegree.com/tsa-waste/

What the T.E.A. Party wants

Being a late-comer to the movement, I have had a chance to do some outside research before putting my name on the line. As a little background I have never belonged to a political party, I was raised in a Democratic home, but have usually voted for the Republicans because I believe in small government. Okay ..... I admit the Republicans have failed me on this also, I am, and have never been, a fan of big government. My first presidential race was back in 1980, and I went to a primary rally in La Crosse, and got to see Bush and Reagan in person give speeches. I was so excited to vote, and I have missed very few chances in my lifetime. That being said, I am not new to politics, it is something I have actively followed for 30+ years, so I am no novice to the whole scene.

I heard about the T.E.A. party through the news and my fiancee, and decided that I liked their stand on the issues. The T.E.A. party platform is simple: control spending, downsize bureaucracy, return power to the people. I have met people who run the gamut in the social issues from true blue conservatives to left leaning liberals. But it has never been about the social issues, even though the mainstream media would like to pigeon-hole us as bigoted, homophobic, women-hating, greedy bastards. So when we threw our lots in with the Republicans during the election it came as no surprise to the media.

However, it did come as a shock to the Republicans. The insiders still don't know what we are about. They keep scratching their heads trying to figure out what we want. Well I am here to tell you what we want.

1. We want a return to upholding the Constitution. No individual mandates, no gun-control, TSA pat-downs, no wire-tapping, no Net Neutrality; we want the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment, the 4th Amendment, the 5th Amendment, the 7th Amendment, the 9th Amendment and the 10th Amendment.

2. We want less bureaucracy. Close the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, Department of the Interior, Housing and Urban Development, and downsize and combine the others. There is no reason for a Dept of Veterans and a Dept of Defense (they belong together), and fire ALL the czars. Put the power back into the Congress where it was supposed to be. Only when an elected official wields it can it be controlled by the populace. All these bureaucrats are unaccountable to the people, and that is unacceptable.

3. Cut spending! We are spending at a level we cannot continue, aid to foreign countries needs to stop, no more cowboy poetry grants (the NEA needs to stand on its own feet), no more funding of Planned Parenthood, no more government ownership of companies (i.e. GM), no more Solyndras, no more bailouts, no more stimulus.

That is the platform.

So what do the Republicans not understand? Why do they continue to insist that Mitt Romney is the only candidate that can beat Obama, when the mood of the country is "anyone but Obama"? We in the T.E.A. party are telling you, "Not Romney!" We might as well have 4-more years of Obama if we vote for Mitt Romney. Their policies are no different from each other. Mitt Romney is "Obama lite": all the policies without the bitter after taste. When we put forth Herman Cain, we were sending you a message, but you didn't listen. The T.E.A. party doesn't have a problem with racism, we just want a fiscally conservative version.

The sleeping giant has been awakened, and we will not go silently into that good night, even though the "establishment" Republicans would like it to happen. As a proud Independent, you should be courting me and others like me, instead you are handing us a squishy, wishy-washy, moderate Republicans version of Obama.

It is very simple, the T.E.A. party wants a fiscally conservative, Constitutionalist. Plain and simple.

Racism on Parade

This is completely insane. Obama announcing he is forming a group called African Americans for Obama. How incensed would the left be if George Bush had formed WASPS for Bush. Their screams would still be echoing 3 years after leaving office.

Why is it racism in one case but not in another? Just saying.

Wal-Mart vs. The Morons

1. Americans spend $36,000,000 at Wal-Mart Every hour of every day.

2. This works out to $20,928 profit every minute!

3. Wal-Mart will sell more from January 1 to St. Patrick’s Day (March
17th) than Target sells all year.

4. Wal-Mart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target +Sears + Costco +
K-Mart combined.

5. Wal-Mart employs 1.6 million people, is the world’s largest private
employer, and most speak English.

6. Wal-Mart is the largest company in the history of the world.

7. Wal-Mart now sells more food than Kroger and Safeway combined, and keep
in mind they did this in only fifteen years.

8. During this same period, 31 big supermarket chains sought bankruptcy.

9. Wal-Mart now sells more food than any other store in the world.

10. Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which 1,906 are Super
Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had five years ago.

11. This year 7..2 billion different purchasing experiences will occur at
Wal-Mart stores. (Earth’s population is approximately 6.5 Billion.)

12. 90% of all Americans live within fifteen miles of a Wal-Mart

You may think that I am complaining, but I am really laying the ground
work for suggesting that MAYBE we should hire the guys who run Wal-Mart to
fix the economy.

This should be read and understood by all Americans, Democrats,
Republicans, EVERYONE!!

To President Obama and all 535 voting members of the Legislature

It is now official that the majority of you are corrupt morons:

a.. The US. Postal Service was established in 1775. You have had 234 years
to get it right and it is broke.
b.. Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 74 years to get
it right and it is broke.
c.. Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 71 years to get it right
and it is broke..
d.. War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 45 years to get it right;
$1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to “the
poor” and they only want more..
e.. Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 44 years
to get it right and they are broke.
f.. Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 39 years to get it
right and it is broke.
g.. The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence
on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24
billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. You had 32 years to get it
right and it is an abysmal failure.

You have FAILED in every “government service” you have shoved down our
throats while overspending our tax dollars.

AND YOU WANT AMERICANS TO BELIEVE YOU CAN BE TRUSTED

WITH A GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM?

Folks, keep this circulating.. It is very well stated. Maybe it will end
up in the e-mails of some of our “duly elected’ (they never read anything)
and their staff will clue them in on how Americans feel.

AND

I know what’s wrong. We have lost our minds to “Political Correctness”
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Someone please tell me what the HELL’s wrong with all the people that run
this country!!!!!!

We’re “broke” & can’t help our own Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, Homeless
etc.,???????????
In the last months we have provided aid to Haiti, Chile, and Turkey ..
And now Pakistan …….previous home of bin Laden. Literally, BILLIONS of
DOLLARS!!!

Our retired seniors living on a ‘fixed income’ receive no aid nor do they
get any breaks while our government and religious organizations pour

Hundreds of Billions of $$$$$$’s and Tons of Food to Foreign Countries! We
have hundreds of adoptable children who are shoved aside to make room for
the adoption of foreign orphans.

AMERICA: a country where we have homeless without shelter, children going
to bed hungry, elderly going without ‘needed’ meds, and mentally ill
without treatment – etc,etc.

YET…………………..

They have a ‘Benefit’ for the people of Haiti on 12 TV stations, ships and
planes lining up with food, water, tents clothes, bedding, doctors and
medical supplies.

Imagine if the *GOVERNMENT* gave ‘US’ the same support they give to other
countries. Sad isn’t it?

99% of people won’t have the guts to forward this.

I’m one of the 1% — I Just Did…..

Righteous Anger, not Guilt

A New York Time article has come out with the assumption that critics of the safety net feel guilty about using government assistance but are helpless to live without it. "Many people say they are angry because the government is wasting money and giving money to people who do not deserve it. But more than that, they say they want to reduce the role of government in their own lives. They are frustrated that they need help, feel guilty for taking it and resent the government for providing it. They say they want less help for themselves; less help in caring for relatives; less assistance when they reach old age." NY times, Even Critics of Safety Net Increasingly Depend on it, 02/11/2012.

So the New York Times claims that people who accept government help are helpless to not accept government assistance, and when they find that it is not easy, they give up and feel guilty. Those guilty feelings lead to animosity to the government and anger over not being able to make it on their own without government assistance. That is their claim. May I submit a different conclusion.

The middle class has seen massive intrusions into their lives by government, and unsustainable drains placed on their incomes; their anger towards the government is not from feelings of guilt but actual anger that their means of survival have been abrogated by the same government. For, you see, the same government that promises to keep your way of life status-quo is the same government that is robbing you blind and making your ability to maintain the status-quo impossible on your own. I do not feel guilty that I cannot make it on my own, I feel anger that the government has intruded so far into my life that they have made it impossible to make it on my own.

I spent a very long and hard fought battle a couple of decades ago in getting off the welfare roles, it was the hardest thing I have ever had to do. But I do not accept a dime of government money now, I make do with what I have. Sure that means that I don't own my own home, I drive a car with almost 200,000 miles on it (without a lien), we don't eat at fancy restaurants, or take extravagant vacations.

BUT........ I am doing it all on my own. There is a sense of extreme pride in knowing that the American Dream can still be achieved. My oldest daughter has a college degree and is currently working on her masters. I also have the pride in knowing my daughter's life will be better than my own. With a good deal of will power and a little sacrifice, the American Dream is still possible, but it is getting harder and harder to attain, due to government intrusion, not from lack of determination or American Spirit (as the progressives would like to propose).

I don't need the New York Times to tell me that if I just accept the governments help, I could have the American Dream. They have no idea what the American Dream really is. It is not all the trappings that prosperity brings, it is self-determination and pride in doing for oneself. And we do not feel guilty because it is seemingly out-of-reach without governmental assistance. We are angry that the government takes it from us with empty promises of good things that they have no intention of ever delivering on. That is why we are angry.

"One of the oldest criticisms of democracy is that the people will inevitably drain the treasury by demanding more spending than taxes. The theory is that citizens who get more than they pay for will vote for politicians who promise to increase spending."

That is what Obama is banking on. He wants the middle class to feel obligated, not outraged. I am not falling for it, I have been there and I am not going back. I would rather starve than give the progressives the satisfaction of making me dependent again.

Why is anyone working?

Okay, I am ready to rage against the machine.

I am sick to death of the takers, "Nearly half of the US population (49.5%) does not pay any federal income taxes," Heritage Foundation. So in essence 51% of the country is working their asses off and paying taxes so the other 49% can sit on their hands and just keep demanding more. The whole idea of taxing the rich so you can live in the lap of luxury is ludicrous. And to add insult to injury, "The average individual who relies on Washington could receive benefits valued at $32,748, more than the nation's average disposable personal income ($32,446)." Heritage Foundation.

So why should I work hard and pay taxes? Those lazy good-for-nothings are collecting more from the taxpayers than most taxpayers make in wages, if that is not f***ed up than I have no idea what is.

And the saddest part is, if you do some math, there is no way that we the taxpayers can afford this. If the government is giving away more than we make, and half the population is contributing nothing, where is the money coming from? Borrowing. We are mortgaging our future on lazy do-nothings.

• How the H*ll is this compassionate? Tell that to your kids when the bill comes due, "We had to make you sacrifice your future so we could lay around doing nothing and create more children to pay for our laziness." INSANITY!!
• The government is now wondering if enough tax revenues can be dragged out of the taxpayers to pay for just the interest on our debt, much less paying it off. INSANITY!!
• Our President is proposing even more spending we cannot afford. INSANITY!!
• Congress has not passed a budget for over 3 years so they have no limits on what they can spend. INSANITY!!
• The Congress has raised the debt ceiling twice since they promised they would only need a small increase to get them through to some future date. They have blown through the increases in mere months not years as promised. INSANITY!!
• We have become embroiled in additional wars in the middle east, even though we don't have money to fund these wars. Where is the anti-war crowd calling for an end to unfunded conflicts? INSANITY!!
• Now our king wants to make birth control available to all women free of charge and demands that the church pay for it when it flies in the face of their deeply held beliefs. This is a power grab of unparalleled proportions. INSANITY!!

Having found myself recently among the unemployed in this nation, I am doing the responsible thing and trying to find another job, and not taking the government handout. How many people are willing to stand up for this country and do the patriotic thing that made this country great? Hard work and sacrificing for future generations has been the hallmark of the United States. I for one want to make the future for my children better than I had it. The problem is the progressives don't believe in the future, they want to spend everything on today. Why the H*ll would anyone want to work, why would anyone want to succeed, why should anyone do anything for anyone else? There is your progressive compassion: spend it ALL today. Why should this generation sacrifice when the next next generation will pay for me?

Producers vs Dependents

Breitbart.tv » Study: Distrust Of Government A Mental Disorder

After watching the video a thought came to me. The majority of the population would qualify for this classification and would need to be quarantined. Because we all know that, with the presidents approval numbers being so low and his disapproval number being so high, a majority of Americans do not approve of this government, the majority do not trust this government, and the majority are pretty vocal in their dissent. So adding up the numbers we would arrive at the conclusion that a large percentage of the population would qualify for quarantine.

"Houston, I think we have a problem".

Taking into account the fact that approximately 53% of the population is paying for the other 47%, a very large and disastrous problem. Now I know that not all the productive members of society would call themselves conservative, but in order to "infirm" the anti-government types, would mean taking out a huge percentage of the productive population. Remember we are needed right now to feed and clothe and take care of the 47% who cannot take care of themselves and who rely on the forcible re-distribution of wealth from producers to dependents.

Okay so now Big Brother has figured out a way of removing the thorn from his side by "committing" his enemies (Obama's term) to re-education facilities. But they will also be removing the productive members of society. Is this just short-sighted of them? A few questions for you Mr president:

Who will feed, clothe, shelter and take care of the needs of the dependent class after you remove the productive class and quarantine them for re-education?

Do you really think the OWS crowd will willingly take the jobs that have been left behind? They will be the jobs that they have previously turned their progressive noses up at because they were beneath them. So the country will have an even bigger problem than they have right now. I wonder if they have really thought this through.

Are you going to force people to work at menial jobs?

Are you going to treat them as you have treated us conservatives?

How long will the labor unions last when there is nobody to pay for their exorbitant demands? How long will the country last when there is nobody producing?

Can the government who has fawned all over the dependent class, and promised them everything at no cost, actually make them produce?

This is a nightmare waiting to be awaken from. WAKE UP! (not working)

Just food for thought!

Really. Whose Fault is it Anyway?

From Dave Almendinger:
This is just a History lesson. Please don't read this if you are afraid of the truth. It is history and nothing can change it.

The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd, 2009 it was actually January 3rd, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.

The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995. For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this: January 3rd, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:
The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!

Remember that day...
January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.
The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?

BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
THANK YOU DEMOCRATS (especially Barney) for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment...to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOS!

BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie -starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy. Barney blocked it and called it a "Chicken Little Philosophy" (and the sky did fall!)

And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac?

OBAMA

And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
OBAMA and the Democrat Congress, especially BARNEY!!!!

So when someone tries to blame Bush......

REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!

Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were driving the economy into the ditch.
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.
Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.

In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budget.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.
Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period:
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.
In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is "I inherited a deficit that I voted for,
And then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th."
There is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on!

"The problems we face today exist because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living."

Obamao, the new slavery

Obama who?

WHERE ARE THE OBAMA GIRLFRIENDS? I hadn't thought about this - but where are Obama's past girlfriends surely he had at least one? No past girl friends popping up anywhere? Strange - strange to the point of being downright weird! OK, this is just plain old common sense, no political agendas for either side. Just common knowledge for citizens of a country, especially American citizens, who know every little tidbit about every other president (and their wives) that even know that Andrew Jackson's wife smoked a corn cob pipe and was accused of adultery, or that Lincoln never went to school or Kennedy wore a back brace, or Truman played the piano. We are Americans!

Our media vets these things out! We are known for our humanitarian interests and caring for our 'fellow man.' We care, but none of us know one single humanizing fact about the history of our own president. Honestly, and this is a personal thing... but it's bugged me for years that no one who ever dated him ever showed up. Taken his charisma, which caused the women to be drawn to him so obviously during his campaign, looks like some lady would not have missed the opportunity. We all know about JFK's magnetism, McCain was no monk, Palin's courtship and even her athletic prowess were probed. Biden's aneurysms are no secret. Look at Cheney and Clinton- we all know about their heart problems. How could I have left out Wild Bill before or during the White House? Nope... not one lady has stepped up and said, "He was soooo shy," or "What a great dancer!"

Now look at the rest of what we know... no classmates, not even the recorder for the Columbia class notes ever heard of him. Who was the best man at his wedding? Start there. Check for groomsmen. Then get the footage of the graduation ceremony.Has anyone talked to the professors? Isn't it odd that no one is bragging that they knew him or taught him or lived with him. When did he meet Michele and how? Are there photos? Every president provides the public with all their photos, etc. for their library. What has he released? Nada - other than what was in this so-called biography! And experts who study writing styles etc. claim it was not O's own words or typical of his speech patterns, etc.

Does this make any of you wonder? Ever wonder why no one ever came forward from Obama's past, saying they knew him, attended school with him, was his friend, etc? Not one person has ever come forward from his past. This should really be a cause for great concern.

Did you see the movie titled, The Manchurian Candidate? Let's face it. As insignificant as we all are... someone whom we went to school with remembers our name or face... someone remembers we were the clown or the dork or the brain or the quiet one or the bully or something about us.

George Stephanopoulos, ABC News said the same thing during the 2008 campaign. Even George questions why no one has acknowledged that the president was in their classroom or ate in the same cafeteria or made impromptu speeches on campus. Stephanopoulos was a classmate of Obama at Columbia-class of 1984. He says he never had a single class with him. Since he is such a great orator, why doesn't anyone in Obama's college class remember him? And, why won't he allow Columbia to release his records? Do you like millions of others, simply assume all this is explainable - even though no one can?

NOBODY REMEMBERS OBAMA AT COLUMBIA. Looking for evidence of Obama's past, Fox News contacted 400 Columbia University students from the period when Obama claims to have been there, but not one remembers him. For example,Wayne Allyn Root was (like Obama) a political science major at Columbia , who graduated in 1983. In 2008, Root says of Obama, "I don't know a single person at Columbia that knew him, and they all know me. I don't have a single classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia ... EVER! Nobody recalls him. Root adds that he was, "Class of '83 political science, pre-law" and says, "You don't get more exact or closer than that.. Never met him in my life, don't know anyone who ever met him." At our 20th class reunion five years ago, who was asked to be the speaker of the class? Me. No one ever heard of Barack!

And five years ago, nobody even knew who he was. The guy who writes the class notes, who's kind of the, as we say in New York , 'the macha' who knows everybody, has yet to find a person, a human who ever met him." Obama's photograph does not appear in the school's yearbook, and Obama consistently declines requests to talk about his years at Columbia , provide school records, or provide the name of any former classmates or friends while at Columbia . How can this be? NOTE: Wayne Allyn Root can easily be verified. He graduated valedictorian from his high school, Thornton- Donovan School , then graduated from Columbia University in 1983 as a Political Science major in the same '83 class in which Barack Hussein Obama states he was. Some other interesting questions.

Why was Obama's law license inactivated in 2002? Why was Michelle's law license inactivated by court order? According to the U.S. Census, there is only one Barack Obama - but 27 Social Security numbers and over 80 aliases.. WHAT!? The Social Security number he uses now originated in Connecticut where he is never reported to have lived. No wonder all his records are sealed! Please continue sending this out to everyone. Somewhere, someone had to know him in school... before he "reorganized" Chicago and burst upon the scene at the 2004 Democratic Convention and made us swoon with his charm, poise, and speaking pizzazz.

One of the biggest CONS this country has ever seen, and getting away with it. This is scary on many levels! He's the most dishonest deceiving liar to ever darken the White House,,,,,,,,,borrowed, original author unknown.