A Troubled Barack Hussein Obama - wants violence off TV

Rachel Lucas' blog (I don't think this blog means what you think it means) touched on the recent election in Iran, “God help the people of Iran. We sure won’t.” and the way conservative British accounts deride Obama's weak response. (Obama, VP Biden, Sec'y State Clinton all made public statements, that they wouldn't comment on the election in Iran.)

Last night one commenter pointed out that Obama made a statement:

“I am deeply troubled by the violence I have been seeing on television. I think the democratic process, free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent — all those are universal values and need to be respected. And whenever I see violence perpetrated on people who are peacefully dissenting, and whenever the American people see that, I think they are troubled.”

The commenter, mightysamurai, criticized the weakness of the statement, that "troubling" was the strongest that could be said of the violence, censorship, and brutality of officials of the Ahmadinejad government.

My own feeling is

POTUS Barack Hussein Obama is fully and completely backing Iran’s Ahmadinejad. He finds it troubling to find violence *on television*. Get the TV cameras turned off, and both will be much happier.

Another commenter pointed out how quickly Obama could hound a GM CEO out of office, but won't criticize a brutal tyrant that happens to have oil - and an army - for resources. Perhaps Obama is thinking appeasement will work with this tyrant, since he is a Muslim believer, after all. That, and Obama's actions don't hold up so well, if you look at the legality of some of his actions (dismantling and parceling out Chrysler and GM, firing an investigator annoying one of Obama's buddies, signing an Executive Order requiring Federal construction use only Union labor, in defiance of states passing Right To Work laws, etc.) I still wonder at what a new President could have done to try to influence the Supreme Court, that caused Judge Souter to retire.

Obama certainly seems sympathetic with Ahmadinejad's moves to silence dissenters rather than defend free speech. Just ask Rush Limbaugh about attacks from the White House.

There are still rumblings and dissent in the US. Perhaps Barack Hussein Obama is concerned that he will need to be stifling the cameras to keep violence and protest from "troubling" Americans, at least, the Americans supporting Oh! Bummer!

PM: Barack Hussen Obama - a Secret Agenda?

Nathan at One Man's Vote highlights a letter that has been floating about the blogosphere, an open letter to President Barack Hussein Obama.

Mr. Pritchett, according to Snopes, is a former vice president of Proctor & Gamble.

Snopes.com is a respected online authority that chronicles and reports authenticity of myths, urban legends - and questionable statements.

The letter runs down a startling list of actions and background influences in the Obama administration that just don't add up. You could not make a better background for an Al-Queda, organized crime, or Muslim puppet intent on weakening or destroying the US.

Barack Hussein Obama is so darned smart - he tells us so, often - but keeps repeating egregious errors. Chris Muir's DayByDayCartoon.com comic strip refers to the insanity of the "stimulous" package demonstrated at politicalmath.wordpress.com as well as elsewhere.

Are Pelosi and Reid unwitting dupes in a move deliberately designed to cripple the US' ability to respond to threats, to drain the economy to ruin, and to disable America? Because it sure looks like that is the President's agenda.

Treason or stupid - I don't see much of any other explanation for President Barack Hussein Obama's inadequacy.

Obama - Still violating the Constitution's protection of gun ownership

Billll's Idle Mind calls to attention this report, of Obama using foreign agencies and treaties to get around Constitutional protection of the right to keep and bear arms (the 2nd amendment).

The President of the United States is tasked with creating and exercising foreign policy in the name of the United States. Any treaties are signed by the President - but must be ratified, or confirmed, by the US Senate before they become binding on America.

President Clinton signed this Organization of American States (about Latin America) treaty. But the Senate at the time would not ratify it. Points of the treaty that concern me include registration, denying licenses to gun dealers, and wording that prevents use of firearms "that may or are suspected" to violate human rights. A tyrant, someone intent on disarming opposition, would find language like this sufficient to say, "Why, a gun can be used to hurt someone. So, we can't allow anyone to have a gun. Except for people that work for me, of course."

Gun violence is increasing here in heartland America. Drive-by shootings and neighborhood shootings in Ponca City, OK, are more prominent and frequent than in previous years - and involve more drug deals and often Mexicans, indicating drug cartel involvement. Ponca City is a rural community, about 25,000 people, in quiet northern Oklahoma.

Laws do not disarm criminals. They disarm the law-abiding. Time after time, communities that have passed ordnances requiring every head of household to own and possess a firearm - see crime rates drop. On the other hand, gun-free zones such as schools, shopping malls, and college campuses have been the traditional setting for mass shootings - the shooter is promised a lack of opposition.

There is a perspective that one that does not carry a legally licensed, concealed carry weapon is as much to blame for hazards in their community as the thugs carrying guns to commit robberies, assaults, and murders. Tyrants in particular, as Machiavelli pointed out in 15th century Italy, focus first on disarming the populace before taking advantage of the state.

Whether Obama would be a threat to the people of the US, after disarming the nation, isn't the real problem. The real problem is that a disarmed United States would be too tempting a target for foreign nations and criminal elements, as well as corrupt local influences, to leave intact and unassailed. Just look at our schools, our shopping malls, our college campuses for the effect disarming and bans on guns have on the lawless.

Dealergate, Redistributing the wealth - of political opponents.

Apparently, POTUS (President of the United States) Barack Hussein Obama has no problem with making his friends richer. It seems all a Chrysler dealer had to do to survive the cutbacks - was to avoid contributing to the Republican party.

It isn't rumor. Chrysler dealers that contributed to the Republicans, or maybe failed to contribute to the Democrats - are the dealerships that Chrysler/Obama/UAW are closing.

You can read about the deal on blogs.
Doug Ross @ Journal RED ALERT: Did anti-Obama campaign contributions dictate which Chrysler dealers were shuttered?

As an employee of one of the affected dealerships... First, this isn't just Chrysler's decision. They were forced into bankruptcy by President Obama. .. My dealership is in the top 125 out of the 3500 plus dealerships nationwide...yet we are on the list. We are not small nor are we rural. We are in a large major metropolitan area... Secondly, Chrysler is already "shopping" for dealers to take over the open "points" (another name for franchise) left by the closed dealerships. ... Lastly, and more importantly, every state has franchise law in affect that protect companies from this very thing - being forced out of business under the cloak of bankruptcy with out the benefit of due process. This is illegal!

US News & World Report Are Democrats Behind Closing Republican-Owned Chrysler Dealerships?

It may well be that America's automobile dealers are more Republican as a group; therefore any list of them would almost certainly contain more Republicans than Democrats. So it is terribly premature to allege, as some are already doing, that this is some kind of political retaliation by the White House and the labor unions against Republican donors.

On the other hand it does raise some questions that it are fair to ask and should be answered.

In May when the announcement came that some dealerships would be closing - it wasn't clear to me why. Why fire sales people if you are still selling product? Servicing purchased cars has always been lucrative business - one reason the service shops all have a salesroom out front is to maintain their service business flow.

Then the 800 dealers - of 3200 - were announced. And the closing dealers can all be traced back to patterns of political donations, to Republican action committees and candidates.

Realistically, the United Auto Workers union holds 55% ownership in Chrysler, per the Government agreement. So the closings may actually be union driven. It is no secret that labor unions tend to agitate around elections, and sponsor "public interest" advertising that just happens to support Democrat policies and candidates, and/or smearing Republican candidates and proposals. The "non affiliated" advertising has long been a bonus for Democratic candidates - they get the ads out, and the Unions pay for them. This makes Democrat ad money go further.

So what if the labor unions are targeting dealerships - to reduce campaign contributions that they will be opposing in upcoming elections?

Whether organized labor Democratic party, POTUS Barack Hussein Obama/Michelle Obama's own private agenda, or the money guys backing Obama back in Chicago - this slant on closing businesses of political opponents seems to me to be interfering in a federal election.