All Your Internet Is Belong To Obama

At least for the rest of his term. After that, it belongs to the next guy that Obama's masters give us as president.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

The most interesting aspects include:

1. Government certification may be required of key employees of private communication companies. (ATT, Verizon, Sprint, Cox, etc)

2. The federal government could require private companies to support, maintain, and disclose upon request extensive layout maps and documentation. (probably including router and firewall passwords in clear text *lol*)

3. The current reworded version of the bill doesn't limit power that alarmed Internet companies and civil liberties groups but rather obfuscates what power the bill would give.

In the end, it is humorous that the powers that be like to invoke the Constitution when they are justifying an attack on it and it's people.

The deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee said:

"The president of the United States has always had the constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States . . ." -Jena Longo

The Constitution, once for "the people", has been turned into a weapon used to attack the people. This most obviously has been during the Bush and Obama administrations.

How Obama Can Make You Rich In a Recession!

Forgetting everything else that is going on with our geopolitical puppet show, one may find a thread of silver lining in Mr Obama. In troubles times, people become more concerned with money and jobs. Everybody wishes they had a little bit more or that things were a little bit easier.

Often times, the conversations roll around to winning the lottery, finding out your secretly the last remaining heir to Bill Gates, or inventing something everybody on the planet needs. Essentially, people seem to want to be rich.

You can thank your president. Obama's Hope for you to be rich and his ever Changing stance has made many Americans rich overnight! Most don't read between the lines so they don't even know that they are rich yet!

The greedy and evil republicans classified the rich as people that made more than $1Million per year. Obama, being more of an ACORN lackey than a "rich white guy" decided that was too high. The bar needed to be lowered because there are a LOT of Americans out there that make less than $1Million dollars. He promised to only tax the rich, so he redefined rich in order to keep that promise?

When "rich" was redefined to $280k, most Americans decided that was fine, "we don't make that much" or "everybody that makes more than me should PAY UP!" This is human nature and not a surprise. However, some people looked past that and wondered how this would effect small businesses that employ people. Would this place a burden on a small company that caused them to have to scale back employees?

However, this was soon redefined to $250k. It seems that the extra $30k wasn't enough. Obama so needed the additional tax base, that he would turn around and change his stance only days later. Sadly, most people still accepted this and figured it was "still OK" since it didn't touch them. They didn't see the direction the freight train was headed.

Currently, we're looking at an income of $100,000 being considered rich. This instantly turns the suburbs into Beverly Hills. Although $100,000 seems rich to the average ACORN volunteer, it happens to be where the "Jones's" live. It's the salary range that sells new homes, boats and BMW's, anything that credit will finance. $100,000 is now rich according to Obama. This is not the end unfortunately, this is just the biggest cloud of smoke yet to billow from our burning house of a government.

Ponder this: Obama and ACORN seem to be responsible for defining what "Rich" is. The number, another moving target, can almost be identified with a mathematical equation. The numbers we've seen so far (ex: 280k, 250, $100k) are little more than desensitization before the actual "Rich" are unveiled.

When you do this math, you will realize, that you are probably rich beyond your wildest dreams already!

Rich = (((MinWage * 20hr) * 4wk) * 12mo) + 1

So, consider $6.55 for a 20 hour week, every week, for an entire year. If you're only working 20 hours, you probably work all year cause you get a vacation every week anyway. That number works out to: $6,288yr. my "+ 1" may be a little bit of dramatization. More likely it would be changed to "x3 or x5) as the current definition of "Rich", according to Obama, is that formula with x16 instead of " +1 or "a dollar more than everybody else expects to make".

So, to recap.

Rich According to Greedy White Men:

MinWage * AnnualWork * 160 ($1,000,000)

Rich according to Obama:

Originally
MinWage * AnnualWork * 45 ($280,000)
Then
MinWage * AnnualWork * 40 ($250,000)
Now
MinWage * AnnualWork * 16 ($100,000)

In order to better visualize this trend, picture the multiplier as a group of people. The base formula (MinWage * AnnualWork) identifies what any one person in American should be making under the Obama ACORN structure. The multiplier identifies how many of these Obama/ACORN Americans it takes to make the salary of the rich.

In short, if you make more than $6,288 per year, you will be considered rich by the time Obama and ACORN come out of the closet on this.

Obama's Latest Gun Control Lies

(The honest double talk of the President would be as follows: "90% of the 100% of the 10% of Mexico's guns are from America". However, it's not as scandalous to say that 9% of the weapons are from America and the remaining 89% are not.)

In the most recent volley of attacks on the Constitution of the United States of America, President Obama makes the argument that our 2nd Amendment is trumped by distorted facts associated with the problems of a country that is NOT the United States of America.

The Assertion: American guns make up 90% of the weapons used in Mexico.

The Underlying Argument: In order to fix the problem in Mexico, we must lock down firearm rights in the United States.

The Reality: Mexico's problems are significantly larger than American firearms. If one were to pick a substantial contributor to Mexican problems related to America, it would have to be the conscious decision to not enforce the border.

The lack of enforcement has contributed to more problems for America and Mexico than a singular issue such as weapon traffic. The refusal to enforce border security has contributed to human and drug trafficking. Weapon trafficking is a byproduct of those two "industries".

Using the border caused problems as a marketing device to pursue anti-gun legislation is a thinly veiled attempt to generate support for the progressive anti-American (anti constitution) policies of our current administration (or at least the people that paid for him and his teleprompter).

If our President Obama were honestly interested in Mexico, he would acknowledge the obvious fact that these issues are associated to years of consciously not enforcing and not allowing enforcement of the US/Mexico border. He would acknowledge that that any American guns in Mexico are trafficked as a byproduct of that past/present/forseable future policy to NOT enforce the border.

Back to the root of the lie: 90% of the guns confiscated by Mexico that are "assumed" to be American are "shipped" back to America and then checked. 90% of the ones selected to be checked are deemed to be from America. That is a significant difference. Consider the following statements:

"90% of the guns in Mexico are from America"
-AND-
"90% of the guns Mexico thinks are American actually come from America"

The more honest statement would be that approximately 10% of the guns in Mexico are sent to the United States, checked, and 90% of those turn out to be from America. The additional fact would be that over 80% of the weapons in Mexico are from Russia, China, Korea and do not arrive via our borders.

Even when we factor in the results of not enforcing the border, only 10% are coming into their country in that manner. The bulk of weapons are arriving via ship through Mexican government controlled ports. While enforcing the border wouldn't stop most of the guns coming in, it would assist in limiting human and drug trafficking.

The thing that should get Americans fired up: The President is using the problems of another country to attempt to limit freedoms within the United States of America. The President is lying about the facts in an attempt to cause Americans to think we're supplying 90% of Mexico's weapons when in fact we are not. The President is abusing Mexico's situation in an attempt to promote an unpopular and unconstitutional agenda. When Obama says "The Stars Have Aligned", we should be scared. We should be very scared.

Those unfamiliar with "Wounded Knee" (1890) should take a moment to imagine the burial pictures as follows:

look at the pictures and imagine Law Abiding Americans in the mass graves. Imagine Obama and congress standing on the edge holding guns over the dead bodies piled on top of each other. The anti-American politics that are so popular today will likely contribute to a lesser violent situation of the same result.

Attempting to Understand the Federal Government

Recently, a couple of documents surfaced that warned law enforcement of Right Wing Extremists. The first of these documents to be leaked was the MIAC report from Missouri. This document was made public in February of 2009. The second of these documents was Janet Napolitano's DHS document of which an edited version was made public in April of 2009.

Unfortunately, these documents highlight the Federal Government's need to limit free speech. The following is a list of speech or thinking that the government uses to identify Right Wing Extremists:

• Opposes restrictions on firearms
• Opposes lax immigration
• Opposes the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship, and the expansion of social programs
• Opposes continuation of free trade agreements
• Opposes same-sex marriage
• Has paranoia of foreign regimes
• Fear of Communist regimes
• Opposes one world government
• Bemoans the decline of U.S. stature in the world.
• Upset with loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India

Some items in the above list deal with the Federal Governments refusal to abide by the Constitution of the United States of America. Some items are pro America anti Globalism. Some are social policy. However, they all have an interesting commonality in that they oppose current progressive politics.

The unfortunate message is that those that do not agree with those progressive policies must be vilified and given a title such as "Domestic Terrorist" in an attempt to marginalize the views, polarize society, and create an official "bad guy".

While the list includes items that are not "Politically Correct", there are no anti American sentiments. In fact, most are directed at protecting the country from foreign interests.

In short, this list does little more than identify the agenda and create a political environment where it is acceptable to "hate" those that dare assume that the Federal Government is not bigger than the States or the Constitution of the United States of America.

Janet Napolitano: The Real Questions We Should Be Asking

The recent revelation by Janet Napolitano of the redefinition of "Terrorism" has created both fear and outrage among those that love the United States of America.

Incidents that were previously considered "terrorist acts" (referring to acts performed by foreign combatants targeting Americans or American interests) are now called "Man-Caused Disasters".

Terrorism is now reserved for Americans that do not agree with the Anti-American policies of the Obama administration or the illegal expansion of power that the people within the political structure of our government are currently exploring.

In short, we should not be interested in an apology. We should also not be interested in her firing. However, we should be asking some very important questions.

1. How long has this information been available to law enforcement?

The documents were partially released to the public. We have not seen the original versions. We have not seen the complete documents. At the point that "we the people" were able to view the documents, they had already been made available to the Law Enforcement community. How long have these documents been in use by Law Enforcement?

2. Who ordered the creation of these documents?

Janet Napolitano likely hasn't the power to, on her own, create a policy of treating Americans as villains because they do not agree with the Federal Government. It is a fairly large step to move focus from foreign combatants to Americans when creating an enemy in the eye of public opinion. The contents of the documents should be of less concern than finding out WHO it is that wants Americans vilified for loving their country.

3. What is the end game?

This is the question that inspires "fear" in the hearts and minds of Americans. Why would the government need to create a fake sense of "bad guy" that can be applied to those who speak or think differently than the Federal Government? The most obvious answers range from marginalizing political opponents to creating an atmosphere where the FedGov can get popular support for rounding up people that think they still have a First Amendment right to free speech.

ATF, FBI, Secret Service, and Military personnel will always think twice about randomly raiding an American residence on American soil for political reasons. But what if you take that person exercising their freedom of speech, their 2ND Amendment, and their love for the United States of America and make them out to be a TERRORIST? Suddenly, you get the ability to send armed people into law abiding citizens homes and shut them up with impunity.

Simply associating a law abiding citizen with Timothy McVeigh will create a sense of danger and urgency. No one will ask why. The news will report a great victory in defeating a terrorist.

Will this happen? Why has the Federal Government unleashed a negative marketing campaign on the very people that support the documents that allow it to exist? Has the Federal Government grown to the point that it supersedes the Constitution of the United States of America? Is the fear of playing by the rules so condescending that the Federal Government would choose to vilify the citizens that have somehow escaped the indoctrination they should have already absorbed?

DHS(Civil Liberties) Feelings About Released RWE Warning

News Story: http://tinyurl.com/c6mv24
RWE: Right Wing Extremist

According to the news, Civil Liberties officials at the DHS were not happy with some of the language used in the RWE release. It would seem that people might find it offensive.

Unfortunately, this entirely misses the point. The words used to describe the individuals to look out for are not the problem. The fact that they are officially making it a point to begin polarizing society is the problem.

The people being labeled as "bad" or "potential terrorists" or people to "watch" are the enemies of "bad government" or "oppressive government". This is particularly scary in that government is overstepping it's bounds as seen in it's attempt to assume non-existent power and exert that power over industry and the state governments.

However, the fedgov knows that it only has to convince a significant portion of the country that the unindoctrinated are somehow "evil" or "dangerous". Those that believe in the United States of America, it's Constitution, it's Union of States, and the limits of fedgov are now being treated as if they are traitors to their country.

This is a classic redefinition of terms. When the fedgov moves to break the laws which made this nation official, they are the ones "attacking" the country. When they usurp the title of United States of America they defy that the States are individual and united within a "specific" framework. When they overcome the will of the state governments they attack those states. Since there is no ability to hide the Constitution or change history overnight, the fedgov redefines the roles.

Under this redefinition, those that adhere to the Constitution of the United States of America are now to be considered RWE (Right Wing Extremists) and dangerous to the government. This begins to paint the "good guy/bad guy" picture in the heads of those that blindly trudge through life with no concern for anything other than what the government offers them in handouts and misinformation. With enough time and reinforcement, the average sheeple will begin to forget the Constitution and believe that real Americans are somehow Terrorists.

Sadly, it makes me wonder if the USA will have it's own Tiananmen Square once the government has achieve it's propaganda campaign against it's own citizens. Remember, Freedom of Speech only applies to them and their supporters. With this new watch list, opposing opinions are now officially "dangerous" to the state.

AAIM:DS (Anti-American Indoctrination Media: Daily Show

Why do I watch the Daily Show?

- Centralizing yourself to a single news outlet limits your ability to understand the news and get the concepts that literally "drive" society and information.

- To understand the indoctrinated (those who get news/information/knowledge from a single source).

- To gauge the level and direction of indoctrination.

- Because it's funny.

Sadly, many people confuse humor with fact. Individuals who rely upon John Stewart for accurate reporting will find themselves led like sheep to information and conclusions based in the comedic twists of fact that are required to achieve a punch line.

On a number of occasions, I've found myself discussing an issue with an overly confident purveyor of "fact" that was obviously gleaned from John Stewart. After listening to their points, I acknowledge that I also watched that episode of the Daily Show. From there, you are able to talk about the facts of the matter w/o necessarily having to argue directly with the agenda of the writers of a television show which are not part of that conversation.

In short, you can't discuss issues with people that are indoctrinated by the media unless you understand what weapons have been used against them. If you get all of your news from ABC, MSNBC, CNN, FOX, etc. you will find yourself unable to accurately form an opinion other than the one handed to you.

It is healthy to get information from multiple sources, preferably with different agendas, in order to read between the lines. If base your opinions upon what you are told, then you're missing the truth, which lives between the lines...