Additional Titles

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other
Stuter
Articles:

Safe Schools?

Homeschools, Private Schools,
and Systems Education

 

More
Stuter
Articles:

 

 

 

 

 

 

A MAN EXPOSED
PART 1 of 2

 

By Lynn Stuter

April 7, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

The American people watched this week as Also Known As (AKA) Obama and his entourage jetted off to Europe for the first time since his usurpation of the Oval Office on January 20, 2009.

Continuing to show his lack of decorum (deliberate or otherwise), AKA made plain, for all to see, that he is sadly out of his element. Pictures have surfaced of him bowing before the Saudi king, a breach of decorum and his station, putting both his hands on the Queen of England, a breach of decorum, and his wife actually standing with her arm around the Queen, another breach of decorum.

On January 20, 2009, America watched as AKA hugged his 87 year-old friend, Reverend Joseph Lowery, after Lowery quipped,

"Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get back, when brown can stick around – when yellow will be mellow – when the red man can get ahead, man – and when white will embrace what is right."

Was Lowery's remark racist? You bet it was, just as were the multitude of racist comments made by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright whose church AKA attended for twenty years. When the racism of Reverend Jeremiah Wright became an issue in the campaign, AKA left the church. But did he reject the racist bent of his old friend? Not for a minute.

Last week, at the G20 summit, Brazil President Luiz Inacio Lula de Silva stated that the global economic crisis "was fostered and boosted by irrational behavior of people that are white, blue-eyed, that before the crisis looked like they knew everything about economics."

AKA, on greeting Brazil President de Silva after he made these remarks, quipped, "That's my man right here … Love this guy. He's the most popular politician on earth. It's because of his good looks."

And what about the racist remarks of de Silva? Obviously, AKA not only approves but concurs. Considering his previous conduct, of which Reverend Lowery and Wright are but representative samplings and not isolated incidents, should we be surprised?

What is the response of the lamestream media to AKA's obvious racist proclivities? Not one peep, not one word, not one comment.

Why not? We can sum it up in one word: race.

If George Bush had acted in the manner that AKA has, he would have been attacked relentlessly by the lamestream media, even worse than he was.

Don't get me wrong, I was and am no fan of George Bush, I am merely pointing out the obvious difference in how the lamestream media has treated these two men. While they targeted a man who at least displayed the dignity of his position as a world leader, they fawn all over a man who has degraded this country with gaffe after gaffe, not the least of which is the party scene going on in the White House. And while George Bush did misspeak on innumerable occasions, at least he could string two words together without the aid of a teleprompter. AKA, on the other hand, is rapidly becoming known as the Teleprompter Prez or TP for short. There's even a cartoon of TP with AKA prominently embossed thereon circulating the internet, the latest in bathroom accessories for those who just can't survive even the bathroom experience without their "messiah"! If you really want to see AKA in action without that teleprompter telling him what to say, go read this: The Question that Flummoxed the Great Orator. If you can figure out what he said, please enlighten us all!

And what does AKA, black (his claim) with brown eyes, know about economics? Obviously, nothing. He, nor any of his administration, have any business experience at all.

At a time when the American people (of all colors) are losing their jobs, homes, and standard of living, AKA has, in his first 90 days in office, in the face of a rapidly declining economy,

1. signed a record $787 billion piggy package of pork barrel spending that will, in the end, cost over $4 trillion (H.R. 1).
2. signed a record $410 billion omnibus appropriations bill of nothing but pet projects (H.R. 1105).
3. presented a record 2010 budget, the cost of which is not yet fully known but will be in the trillions; the largest federal budget in history.

In the words of one columnist,

"President Bush, yes, spent money like a drunken sailor, and left the nation with a record $400-billion deficit. President Obama, however, is spending far more money than Bush, with a record $1.8-trillion deficit projected for his first year."


Advertisement

That's right, folks, it took Bush eight years to run up a $400 billion deficit. In one year, AKA will have run up a $1.8 trillion deficit! If that doesn't scare people, especially at this time of declining economic stability, I don't know what will get through to them.

Will AKA's deficit spending, far outstripping the deficit spending of any of his predecessors, help this country? In a word, no. In fact, it will have the exact same effect as buying Champaign on a beer budget. It's pretty obvious to all but the mentally deficient that it doesn't work.

As anyone who has worked in business knows, anyone who has worked with a budget knows, you cannot spend money you do not have and expect to come out ahead of the game; you cannot spend your way out of debt. It is not possible, and no more possible for the federal government than for any citizen. In fact, any citizen who tried that would end up in prison.

This man, who has lied through his teeth repeatedly, asks us to trust his policies in the name of "hope and change" when it is obvious that common sense and his policies are diametrically opposed.

And counter to his claims, indications are that AKA's agenda is to destroy the America economy.

We already know that, while the American people were deliberately lied to, the TARP bailout of October 2008 was done to set in motion the circumstances under which the banks could be nationalized. George W Bush could not have helped but know what was going on. That AKA voted for the TARP bailout makes it very apparent he knew what was going on.

Moves the latter part of March by AKA to nationalize private companies make it very apparent that getting this nation out of its economic doldrums is not his goal; that his goal is destroying the American economy such that people will accept the nationalization of private industry needed for the emergence of a Marxist state!

What about that bent-kneed bow before the Saudi King? Just another gaffe by AKA or is there something more to it?

Thomas Lifson of the American Thinker thinks so. He states that such a gesture is one of fealty: the loyalty sworn to a feudal lord by a vassal or tenant; to show loyalty or allegiance (Encarta Dictionary; English (North America).

This, of course, brings up a subject that I have not touched on before with regard to AKA: his religious beliefs. I have not touched on his religious beliefs for one simple reason: I believe every individual has the right to worship as they choose under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

That right becomes an issue and the subject of public scrutiny, however, when indications are that an individual, in a position of power, seeks to impose his religious beliefs on the body politic.

Early on in the AKA campaign, rumors surfaced that AKA was and is a Muslim. The school registration in Indonesia, at the Fransiskus Assisi Primary School, certainly states his religion as Islam.

AKA supporters, however, have pooh-poohed this notion, claiming it the rumor-mongering of conspiracy theorists.

Is it?

This past week, another of AKA's nominees surfaced: former Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh as legal advisor to the state department. Koh, who would represent the United States before international bodies, makes no bones that he is a transnationalist; someone who believes the United States should incorporate, within its boundaries, within the scope of the judicial system and decisions, international law.

Meghan Clyne, in a piece published by the New York Post quoted New York Attorney Steven Stein in stating that in 2007, in a speech before the Yale Club in Greenwich, Koh stated "in an appropriate case, he did not see any reason why [S]haria law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States." For those who do not know what Sharia law is, it is religious law based on the Koran (or Quran), the Islamic holy book.

Would Koh be equally acquiescent of Christian law? Doubtful. That Koh obviously has so little understanding of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is scary!

But even more scary is his obvious acceptance of Sharia law and Islamic fundamentalism in general. Is this why AKA nominated him?

Then there is AKA's move to close Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo). It is not the closing of the facility, itself, that is the problem. Prisoners never should have been held at Gitmo without due process. They should have either been tried and imprisoned or set free. That is constitutional and that is what should have been done. George Bush trampled on the rights of every American when he held prisoners at Gitmo without due process. We must remember that that which we believe is right to do it to someone else when it violates the constitution can then also be done to us also in violation of the constitution. Situation ethics has no place in rule of law.

That said, AKA, in closing Gitmo, wants to allow some of the prisoners held there to settle in the United States. The prisoners at Gitmo are alleged to have been involved in acts of terrorism against the United States. To allow these alleged terrorists to settle in the United States, knowing their history, is nothing short of inviting the fox into the hen house. These prisoners claim mistreatment by the U.S. government. Why, then, would they want to live here unless they had ulterior motives; like maybe fulfilling their terrorist goals?

So why does AKA want to settle these former prisoners in the United States when they are more than likely a threat to this country? Does it have anything to do with the fact that they are Islamic fundamentalists?

Adding to this is news, this past week, unreported by the lamestream media, of course, that a list of some 45 Muslims has been submitted to AKA for consideration in administration posts; said list supplied by the Congressional Muslim Staffers Association; that the effort to get the list together was stepped up when the White House became aware of the effort, suggesting that AKA approved of the effort and is actively seeking Muslims for his administration.

On March 19, 2009, on the occasion of the middle-eastern celebration of Nowruz, AKA extended platitudes to Iran, a country that practices Islamic fundamentalism which calls for the death of the United States and the American people. In this same vein AKA is courting "West-haters," countries that call for the destruction of Israel and the United States.

Then there was the news, in late February, that AKA planned to ask Congress to approve over $900 million in aid to help rebuild Gaza, ravaged by its recent conflict with Israel. While Reuters reported that the money would be distributed by the United Nations and other bodies, Gaza is controlled by the radical Islamic group, Hamas. It is foolish to even entertain the notion that Hamas will not benefit from that money.

Each incident, alone, really means nothing. Together, however, they form a disturbing pattern. This is a man, going out of his way to honor, show allegiance and fealty to a religion that calls for the death of the United States and Americans. Would he do that were he not Muslim himself? Would he do that unless he truly hated the United States?

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!


Enter Your E-Mail Address:

In an address to the G20 Summit, AKA quipped, "…America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." You will note that the link is to an article published in the United Kingdom. As usual, the American lamestream media, fawning all over AKA, did not report on this. Ah gee, we are so surprised!

That AKA would denigrate the United States before a crowd of foreigners, is unconscionable. If AKA does not like the United States, such as we are, he is welcome to leave. We won't miss him one iota! Forpart two click below.

Click here for part -----> 2,

2009 Lynn M. Stuter - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts


Activist and researcher, Stuter has spent the last fifteen years researching systems theory and systems philosophy with a particular emphasis on education as it pertains to achieving the sustainable global environment. She home schooled two daughters. She has worked with legislators, both state and federal, on issues pertaining to systems governance, the sustainable global environment and education reform. She networks nationwide with other researchers and a growing body of citizens concerned with the transformation of our nation from a Constitutional Republic to a participatory democracy. She has traveled the United States and lived overseas.

Web site: www.learn-usa.com

E-Mail: lmstuter@learn-usa.com


 

Home

 

 

 

 

 

 

Doesn't this make the case that, if one is smart, one does not believe a word out of the mouths of these people?