Obama: Conservatives Are Greatest Threat To Nation. Translation: American Patriots Are The Greatest Threat To Dictatorship Of This Nation

Document Sample
Obama: Conservatives Are Greatest Threat To Nation. Translation: American Patriots Are The Greatest Threat To Dictatorship Of This Nation Powered By Docstoc
					Obama: Conservatives Are Greatest Threat To
Nation. Translation: American Patriots Are The
Greatest Threat To Dictatorship Of This Nation
August 10 2014




Political conservatives are the greatest threat to the nation, President Barack Obama suggested in
a kid-glove interview with the New York Times.
“The president mused, the biggest threat to America — the only force that can really weaken us — is
us,” said the interviewer, Thomas Friedman.
“Our politics are dysfunctional… societies don’t work if political factions take maximalist positions,”
said Obama, who repeatedly claims to be a moderate stymied by the GOP’s supposed obstructionism
and radicalism.
“And the more diverse the country is, the less it can afford to take maximalist positions,” Obama
added.
That comment about diversity was likely a warning to conservatives, who are expected by many
Democrats to lose power as the nation absorbs more foreigners who do not share conservatives’ small-
government ideals.
“Increasingly politicians are rewarded for taking the most extreme maximalist positions… and sooner
or later, that catches up with you,” Obama warned.
The GOP was first on the list of causes that Obama blamed for the political divisions that are blocking
his agenda, such as increased immigration. However, his list also included a series of subsidiary causes
that are actually consequences of underlying ideological conflicts and economic factors.
“While he blamed the rise of the Republican far right for extinguishing so many potential
compromises, Obama also acknowledged that gerrymandering, the Balkanization of the news media
and uncontrolled money in politics — the guts of our political system today — are sapping our ability
to face big challenges together, more than any foreign enemy,” said Friendman, who is an Obama
supporter, and a champion of progressive-style expansive government.
Obama and Friedman did not put any blame on the Democratic Party or Obama himself, whose own
aggressive use of big-government to promote the progressive goal of social diversity caused voters in
2010 to give the Republicans a majority in the House.
Obama’s complaints come as the GOP and public opinion have blocked his top priority for the second
term — increasing immigration. That failure — despite near-universal support from Democrats, media,
big business, Wall Street and many billionaires — recently prompted Obama to say he plans to provide
an unilateral amnesty to several million illegal immigrants, and award them work-permits. That’s a
high-risk threat, because many recent polls shows that the public very strongly opposes illegal
immigration, and gives him very low ratings for his immigration policy.
But Obama didn’t suggest he’s responsible for the nation’s political divides.
Obama’s claim of moderation is contradicted by much evidence.
For example, in October 2013, during the dispute over the 2014 budget, Obama used one speech to
describe Republican legislators in the House as akin to arsonists, kidnappers, deadbeats, butchers,
lunatics and extortionists, obsessives, out-of-touch hostage-takers, nuclear-armed bombers, and
unserious irresponsible extremists. (RELATED: Obama Offers To Fairly Negotiate With GOP
Terrorists)
“I’ve shown myself willing to go more than halfway in these conversations,” he also told the TV
cameras during the same speech.

Republicans Fight Grassroot Conservatives
Harder Than They Fight the Democrats
Steve Deace
August 10, 2014




We have become a nation of two Americas, with two dramatically different value systems
attempting to fly the same flag simultaneously. Similarly, there are now also two Republican
Parties, each claiming the same branding but with two dramatically different visions.
For the Republican Party establishment, the focus remains on the immediate: the next news cycle. The
next election is their idea of long-term thinking. For those of us out here in the grassroots, we don't
have that luxury, because those of us living outside the
beltway bubble see our very way of life is at stake.
We're fighting for cultural survival, and they're fighting
for… well, actually they're fighting us and not them.
Never was this divide more apparent than last week.
Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) told The
Washington Times in a story that has about 3,000 more
comments (almost all of them negative) than actual
words, that pursuing impeachment against the most
lawless president in history was "a scam started by
Democrats."
Interesting, I guess all the Tea Party leaders I've had on
my nationally-syndicated radio show calling for
President Barack Obama's impeachment the past 16 months were tools of "a scam started by
Democrats," and they didn't even know it.
I guess former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is "a scam started by Democrats" and she didn't know it, either.
I guess the majority of Republicans who want to see Obama impeached for his now-daily constitutional
crises are also "a scam started by Democrats."
I guess respected conservative thinker Andrew McCarthy, author of the new book "Faithless Execution:
Building the Political Case for Obama's Impeachment" is a "scam started by Democrats."
My, what a mighty "big tent" we have.
Listen, I live in the real world. I understand impeachment isn't happening at the moment because while
Obama grows more unpopular by the nano-second, the country as a whole hasn't reached that sort of
critical mass yet.
So imagine if the speaker had said something like this instead:
      "I understand the frustrations of our constituents. No one is more aware of this
      president's continued lawlessness than I am. But impeachment is a drastic measure,
      done only twice in American history. It's the political equivalent to capital punishment,
      and in order to pull it off there needs to be a clear sign this is something a majority of the
      American people want. Right now, we're just not there. This November we'll have an
      election, and the American people have a chance to send a resounding message they
      want a check and balance on this president's lawlessness. If they send that message, and
      the president ignores the American people and persists down the lawless road he's
      currently on, then it may be time for the American people to ask the people's House to do
      something drastic. But something that drastic should come from us responding to the
      wishes of the American people."

I think most of us in the grassroots would've been satisfied, or least understanding, of words to that
effect. First you have to win the debate, and then you win the vote. If you want to impeach Obama you
have to take that case to the American people to create that critical mass, lest you be guilty of a lesser
type of constitutional/political overreach we're accusing Obama of.
But that's not what the speaker said.
Instead, a man that through a series of continuing resolutions has funded all of Obama's anti-
constitutional schemes the past three years, and last week was trying to give a president he's suing for
lawlessness even more of our money, dismissed and patronized the legitimate fears of his own base as a
"scam."
The message the speaker just sent to the grassroots of the Republican Party is that race-baiting your
own base to win a senate primary in Mississippi is good politics, but standing up to a president who is
singlehandedly doing more to dismantle American exceptionalism than any political figure in our
history is bad politics. Yet again the GOP establishment fights its own base with more ruthlessness than
it opposes Obama.
And these people wonder why the Republican Party is so divided.
They tell us we can't defund any of Obama's schemes because that will cause a showdown that may
cost us an election. We can't impeach Obama, either, because that would cost us the election as well.
And then we won't be able to fight next year, because that may cost us the 2016 election. Wash, rinse,
repeat.
Meanwhile, the country burns as Obama gets to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, to
whomever he wants – with our money. Culprits always need collaborators, and Boehner and the rest of
his feckless ilk are Obama's.
As a young libertarian named Rocco sarcastically put it on my Facebook wall, "[Republican leaders]
have decided to allow the country to suffer for the purposes of winning elections, and my generation is
becoming a lost generation. I'm glad a bunch of D.C. consultants decided that it was a good strategy to
sacrifice the nation to win elections, though."
Former California GOP Chairman Tom Del Beccaro warned my audience last week not to assume this
is going to be a big Republican year, because "Republicans are just running out the clock" and not
showing any real leadership on the issues. Del Beccaro said Republicans aren't offering the American
people anything as a contrast to what they don't like about Obama, and he fears that could thwart major
GOP gains as a result. Increasingly, my audience – most of them Republicans – is asking me what will
really change next year if the GOP gains control of the U.S. Senate in November.
I'm struggling to provide them a substantive answer.
Especially with Boehner originally offering up a border crisis bill that does nothing to actually address
the premise of the problem to begin with, but does give Obama another $659 million to waste. Next
comes a bill to allegedly fix the Veterans Affairs scandal, but really just reads like another massive
pork-barrel spending/entitlement cash-grab they will hurry up and pass without actually reading.
Boehner's answer to Obama's lawlessness is to keep funding it. Or the filing of some lawsuit asking
judges to violate their separation of powers, by doing Boehner's Constitutionally-mandated oversight
job for him. With taxpayers footing the exorbitant cost for all the billable hours accumulated by trial
lawyers on both sides, of course.
I get asked all the time when is it time for a third party, but I think I'd like to see what a second party
looks like first.
Conservatives Are Greatest Threat To Nation, Obama Suggests VIDEO BELOW
http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/09/conservatives-are-greatest-threat-to-nation-obama-suggests/


               INFOWARS.COM
   BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Description: Political conservatives are the greatest threat to the nation, President Barack Obama suggested in a kid-glove interview with the New York Times. “The president mused, the biggest threat to America — the only force that can really weaken us — is us,” said the interviewer, Thomas Friedman.