Barry Soetoro has a Bin Laden Agenda

Barry Soetoro's agenda bears more than mere resemblance to that of Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden hates Israel and, by extension, the United States of America. Barry hates America too, apologizing every chance he gets for -- alleged -- American atrocities throughout the world. Barry gives Israel the political back of his hand, which is no doubt pleasing to Bin Laden. Fifteen years ago and many times since, Bin Laden instructed Muslims to strike at the heart of our American economy, to topple it by any means, into bankruptcy. Barry Soetoro -- born and raised a Muslim in Muslim schools -- has done everything in his power to accomplish that goal.

Bin Laden wants nothing less than the destruction of the two crusader states -- Israel and the United States. After all we are the great Satan ya know. And Barry -- so far as the United States defined by our Constitution is concerned -- appears to share that Bin Laden goal as well. Radical Muslims, with Osama Bin Laden foremost among them, believe that lying to the infidel(s) -- that would be us, the American people -- is completely acceptable when done to serve their radical Muslim objective. That fits fine with Barry Soetoro as he also believes in lying to the infidels as a means to achieve his objectives. And he does so, frequently. Take these few examples from Barry's own mouth;

(1). Barry pledged during his presidential campaign that lobbyists "won't find a job in my White House," He lied, they're not only in it, Barry invited them.

(2). Barry said: "I’ll make our government open and transparent, so that anyone can ensure that our business is the people’s business.” He lied. We still don't know anything about this guy, no college transcripts, no certified birth record, no medical records, none of the data any of us would be required to submit for the least of government employment. And we know even less at least from Barry and/or his WH staff, who the hell his 42 appointed Czars really are.

(3). “As President, I’m going to make it impossible for Congressmen or lobbyists to slip pork barrel projects or corporate welfare into laws when no one’s looking…” He lied, it's been easier now than ever, and both the stimulus package and Health Care bills are pure pork written by lobbyists whom represent any number of anti-American organizations.

.(4). "When I’m President, meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public. No more secrecy. That is the commitment I make to you as President.” He lied, they are totally secret, Republican/conservative representation has been shut out.

(5). “When there’s a bill that ends up on my desk as President, you the public will have five days to look online to see what's in it before I sign it.” He lied, we haven't seen one yet.

(6). “When there are meetings between lobbyists and a government agency, we’ll put as many of those meetings as possible online for every American to watch.” He lied, hasn't been one on line yet.

(7). “When there’s a tax bill being debated in Congress, you will know the names of the corporations that would benefit and how much money they would get, and we will put every corporate tax break and every pork barrel project online for every American to see. You will know who asked for them and you can decide whether your representative is actually representing you." Once again he lied.

For complete details go to the Freedom Post - http://www.myfreedompost.com/2009/12/video-obamas-seven-lies-in-under-two.html and watch the video.

The point is, that Barry Soetoro has more in common with Osama Bin Laden's objectives, including the practice of lying to the infidel (you and I), than he does with our American heritage, values and constitutional government. It's beyond contest that Barry hates America as he hates Israel. Barry lends silent consent to the abject corruption and evil of dictators, thugs and terrorists like Bin Laden, Chavez, Ahmadinejad and Ortega just to name a few, while abandoning our traditional and natural allies. Because of these facts, I'm left to conclude that Barry or Barack as he now likes to be called, isn't our President of the United States, he's their -- the dictator's, thug's and terrorist's -- President of America.

The Incivility of Political Discourse

Conservatives and liberals are complaining of the stridency and lack of civility in modern political discourse. They hark en to a time past when coarse public disquisition was somehow less prevalent. Ridiculous I say, as a time of greater civility has never existed outside collegiate debate clubs and political think tanks. Quintessentially American political speech is and has always been more heated and emotional than civil. For the most part because the outcome of political contests often have life altering effect upon individuals as well as the society at large. Great passions are exposed by our political debate. Politics is -- so to speak -- a full contact polemical sport, not at all resembling the more dilute verbiage of intellectual contestation.

Our political discourse has never been consistently intellectual and/or civil in nature. Thomas Jefferson -- some might say he the hypocrite -- was appalled by the harsh diatribes that characterized the political campaign and election processes of his day. The many such "incivilities" were printed in various and sundry news publications much akin to today's blog-o-sphere. The 1800 presidential election campaign was a bitterly contested mud-fest. The political discourse had rapidly deteriorated to slanders and personal attacks from both sides. The Federalists rumored that the Democratic-Republicans resorted to murdering opponents, burning churches, and that they intended to destroy the country. Two years prior, George Washington who was not affiliated politically complained "that you could as soon scrub the blackamoor white, as to change the principles of a profest Democrat; and that he will leave nothing unattempted to overturn the Government of this Country."

In retaliation, the Democratic-Republicans accused Federalists of destroying republican values, and of favoring Britain in order to promote aristocratic, anti-republican values.

Of course Presidential candidates in the early 19th century left the campaigning to surrogates. Jefferson hired a real doozy in a man named James Callendar. Callendar was hired specifically to do smear jobs on Jefferson's behalf. Among other things, they accused President Adams of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman." That was one of the lighter aspersions being cast. And of course the Adams campaign created it's own arsenal of insults, calling Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father." Before the campaign had ended, Adams had been called fool, hypocrite, criminal, and tyrant; while Jefferson was accused of being a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward.(mental_floss/CNN.Com).

My point is, that from the beginning our political discourse has been filled with the most uncivil cacophony of verbs and adjectives imaginable. Tasteless, bombastic denigrations of fellow human beings for political gain. But that's not what's happening on the conservative front today. Yes I've tossed about many descriptive names and adjectives: Marxist, socialist, atheist, communist, fascist and their associate "isms" all in the attempt to articulate what I've witnessed happening to our country, to our liberty, to the rule of law at the hands of far left radicals now in control of the congress, much of our court system and the executive branch of the Federal government. But there's one thing that stands out to me, and that's that there's a factual premise upon which to conclude that Marxism, fascism, socialism et-cetera are being embraced and implemented by the political left in this country. By contrast, the real incivility of political campaigns long past was that they were cynically premised upon vicious lies, deceitful political calculations and innuendo. It's not uncivil or an incivility to articulate accurately what can be logically concluded from the words, associations and actions of our political adversaries. Unpleasant? Yes I'm sure it is. Uncivil? No, not by the standards of our forefathers.

I can't help but notice that those on the political left most inclined to feign outrage at so called conservative incivility, are those least able to attack the substance of our arguments. They focus instead on the extraneous and trivial aspects of what we have to say, and do so in a most uncivil sort of way. It's time to stop allowing the left to define what civility is. It's time to stop engaging them on the trivial and inconsequential aspects of our disagreements. When it comes to the red meat of an issue, I'd much rather stick a fork in it, slap on a little A-1, bite it and chew for a while than get into a protracted debate as to how the meat is being presented on the plate.