OBAMA WINS ELECTION - ANOTHER 4 YEARS OF "NEW AMERICAN COMMUNISM"

this article from the "American Scene Magazine" 11-1-12

 

HOME

 

What are you talking about the Presidential Election of 2012 has yet to be held? How could Obama have already won?

 

The reason is simple - it is the demographics that have made the U.S.A. a different place populated with ever growing "classes of people" that vote for the candidate who will give them the biggest handout. The biggest handout has been from and will continue to increase from current and re-elected President of the U.S.A. - Barrack Obama.

Romney didn't have a chance to win. There are too many people in today's U.S.A. that would never vote for Romney over Obama. Obama received almost all the non-white vote in the U.S.A.; the non-white population is now the majority populous. The welfare people, mostly non-white, will always vote for the Democratic Party candidate over a Republican and in particular Obama because his cause is handouts (more sacred welfare) to "his people". They will always vote for their own kind.

Romney was aware, as per the spy video by left wing Mother Jones, of the problem he would have getting elected due to 47% of the U.S. population receiving some type of direct payment from the federal government. The democratic process is destroyed when large percentages of the population control an election because they vote for the candidate who is going to give them their free ride. The election was dictated by bribery of the ever growing Welfare Class and "Protected Classes" in the "New American Communist System" and race.

It's hard for a candidate like Romney to win a presidential election when more people vote for a living than work for a living.

The combined factors of the non-white vote and overlapping group of citizens receiving direct payments from the government made it impossible for Romney to win. In addition, Obama was guaranteed much of the union vote as well as municipal and state government workers votes. The state and local government workers, like welfare recipients, voted for Obama because of his allegiance to big government. Obama spent a large part of the "Stimulus" bailing out the the state and local governments, so they could pay the police their counterproductive fat paychecks. Obama knows the need for a huge and ever increasing U.S. police state. Without the massive numbers of police in today's U.S.A., Obama knows "his people" will riot and overrun the U.S. with civil war; the L.A. riots of 1991 and the black - urban riots of the 1960's were just a small reminder of what can happen in this county if there isn't enough police force to counter what Social Design Policies and massive immigration policies have created.

Today's U.S.A. is first time in World History that a Nation has sponsored the invasion of its borders to the historic foreign enemy. Divide and Conquer.

These factors also cause the next President of the United States to be Non-white, again. There will never be another white president because of the demographics that have taken place in the U.S. in the last several decades at exponential rates. The Jewish Social Design Policies that the Federal government has been implementing since the early sixties didn't work, so starting in 1993 they started pumping in non-white immigration from the far corners of the Earth in order to divide and conquer the U.S.A. from within.

                                                                                                                                -1-

Romney not a political leader

Mitt Romney demonstrated that he is a business/corporate leader not a political leader. Although he was a better presidential candidate than John McCain (McCain deferred to the black candidate), who thought he could smile his way to the presidency with his politically correct style. Romney was fighting a losing battle due to the new demographics and "New American Communist" Welfare state that is today's U.S.A., but a political leader in these troubled times must say something and stand for something beyond claiming he can somehow balance a budget. And there was plenty to say - if he had no ideology he should have made use of a simple tactic that has been used for centuries in elections in the U.S. - Alert the people to Obama's Scandals - Obama's illegal activity and Obama's ideology and why it is in process of causing the fall of the United States of America. Obama's much crusaded "Change" is destruction to what was once a great country. Obama's ideology is his colored people and his cause of stealing from White America to artificially elevate the Social Status of those same colored people.

The leadership of the Democratic Party is also changing to non-white. 

In this past election of 2012, Romney had more opportunity than any other Presidential candidate to  expose scandals and illegalities of his opponent. Obama and his administration have done the unthinkable; Obama scandals and illegalities that were based on stupidity and show poor reasoning. Obama and his Administration have engaged in conduct that is criminal and would result in long prison sentences, if it were other than the U.S. President Obama and his band of dumb scammers and liars. Listed below are a few issues Romney should have highlighted in order to reflect what is Obama.

Benghazi murders lied about and cover up and then more lies when exposed

The Obama Administration had another "Brain Child" that not even the stupidest politician would have engaged in. Obama and his Administration, including U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on the Sunday TV show "This Week" repeatedly lied that a video movie made in California caused a "spontaneous demonstration" and murders of Americans at the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya. The man that made the alleged insulting, to Islam, video movie went in hiding in fear for his life, according to U.S. TV and internet video reports. " Ms. Dill Pickle Puss" - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton exclaimed that "the video should be banned and the video producer arrested."

As a result of the Obama administration falsely claiming the California video was anti - Islamic, the Obama Administration caused more bad relations with the greater Islamic World. Not only didn't the Islamic World know about the video, but they had no idea it was anti-Islamic until Obama and his brilliant staff alerted them to it and in doing so endangered the life of the producer of that video.

This lie about "spontaneous demonstrators" being so upset by a California video causing the U.S. Embassy murders at Benghazi continued on the U.S. and International news media for two weeks uninterrupted and there was no attempt  by the Obama administration to correct their deliberate lie. Then the real evidence started to leak out form many authoritative sources other than Obama and his administration. The truth was that the murders at the Benghazi U.S. Embassy was a planned terrorist attack and the Obama Administration knew that from the start because U.S. intelligence alerted the Obama administration that it was terrorists from the first day of the Benghazi attack on the U.S. Embassy. The U.S. Ambassador and others in that embassy were pleading to the U.S. government for U.S. military help during the terrorist attack in order to  avoid death. They got no help  from the Obama Administration.

-2-

Two weeks after the Benghazi murder attacks on the U.S. Embassy Obama changed his tune "out of the clear blue" because he realized he could not go on lying; too much authoritative evidence  from the U.S. intelligence agencies had been disclosed to the World Press. Two weeks after Obama and his Administration lied about the Benghazi attack being caused by a "shady video in California", Obama claimed that he had said it was a terrorist attack and cited a comment he claims to have made in the "Rose Garden" on 9-11-12 (day of the Benghazi attack). This guy Obama thinks because he is the President that no one will question him, even when he comes up with stupid excuses like "Rose Garden Comment". This guy is a spoiled affirmative action quota that can't complete any more than a simple sentence unless he is reading it off a screen. At the Presidential debates he seemed unable to carry and develop ideas. This guy is a Professor of Constitutional law? Shows what you get with the affirmative action/quota system, nothing but inferiors.

Obama was on the "Late Show" with David Letterman on 9-18-12, and stated loud and clear that the Benghazi attack of 9-11-12 was caused by a "spontaneous demonstration" of  Islamics protesting the Anti - Islamic video that was made in California. Obama on that 9-18-12 "Late Show" referred to the California video producer as a "shadowy guy". 

Former Obama Cabinet member, Ron Emanuel, was interviewed on "Face the Nation" on 10-28-12 and said the reason the Obama administration didn't immediately claim the Benghazi attack was terrorist, but rather claimed it was "spontaneous local demonstrators", is because the Obama administration was acting on the intelligence provided to them at the time. Emanuel claimed that "the events changed". The question for Ron Emanuel is did Intelligence tell you and Obama and his Administration that the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi was attacked by "spontaneous protesters"? The answer is No because Obama and company made up this lie about "spontaneous demonstrators" attacking that embassy.

Does this arrogant smug ass, Ron Emanuel, think that he can fool all the people with these lies. Sometimes people will ignore the authority of the TV set and recognize the blatantly obvious truth. The truth is Obama had intelligence immediately from the C.I.A. that the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi was in process and the C.I.A. sent help to that U.S. Embassy. But Obama refused to send military aid to the Benghazi Embassy and let the U.S. Ambassador and other Americans be murdered.

Romney had a wonderful opportunity to make a total incompetent and liar out of Obama with these Benghazi lies and cover-up, but he passed. Too controversial for a product of corporate America. And if he couldn't raise the issue during the second 2012 Presidential debate because "Fat Candy" acted as an arbitrator, and Obama Advocate, rather than moderator of the debate, Romney had plenty of  other opportunities to expose this Benghazi Scandal. Most of the major TV. networks and newspapers are by-passing the Benghazi - Obama lies because those TV Networks are controlled by the left wing.

 

Communist Status of Obama and his "State"

Romney could not raise issue concerning one of the social issues that is Killing the U.S.A., that Welfare has become sacred in today's U.S.A. and the biggest cottage industry in World History. Listen to the debates and campaign speeches, never the word - "Welfare". What in the 1950's and early 1960's didn't exist (welfare) and was taboo (women getting pregnant without a thought of having a husband) is now sacred. Romney could not point out that Obama thinks it is good government to pay trillions in Federal budget deficits caused because the Welfare mothers want their Section 8 and food stamps paid by, what is left of the U.S. taxpayers, for the rest of their lives; all they have to do to qualify is fornicate and everything is free for life, or a full boat scholarship for going out and getting knocked up. Why couldn't it be expected that Romney raise these social issues? The American public, almost all, have been brainwashed that Welfare is not even to be classified with "entitlements"; no Welfare has become sacred and not to be questioned in the U.S. because too many "someones" would be offended. Too many votes would be lost due to the massive part of the U.S. population that has an interest in and is receiving direct payments from the U.S. government.

-3-

The Americans should be warned that Obama is a "New American Communist" who believes that large populations in the U.S. should be supported by working citizens who are taxed until their nose bleeds in order to support the social programs that include women whose scam is fornication causing children and a lifetime of a free ride, via Welfare. Obama is an affirmative action quota who believes that everything should be free for his non-white populations in the U.S.

The Welfare issue is not women and families that experience hardships that they can't overcome, such as death or abandonment by the family bread winner, who customarily would be a husband or at least father; these are cases where society should provide aid. Such occurrences of families experiencing this type of hardship requiring society's help/aid would be a very small percentage as compared to huge populous of Welfare recipients in today's America that are growing everyday. The welfare - Section 8 U.S. Welfare System has been totally abused and has been used for at least 3 generations as a scam by growing Protected Classes that plan on a life of handouts that are guaranteed for life at the expense of the remaining citizens who have to work and produce. The scam is fornicate and that black woman gets a full boat life time scholarship of Welfare; the Government made it law and it is the scammer's right. Who is running this country? The Jews are!

Romney could not raise the welfare/Section 8 scam that is putting the U.S. out of business, but Romney should have made issue about Obama's status of the "State". In a recent televised speech, Obama declared that the "State" was responsible for the success of entrepreneurs and businesses in the U.S.. Romney should have alerted the American people that Jean Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx would have made this same claim of "State". The "State" is to be given credit! That's what Obama said, hard to believe a U.S. President thinks that way. That is a statement of a Communist. Obama won't be happy until he takes from the Americans and turns their earned wealth over to his people (the Protected Classes of Negros and other Coloreds) who will have a good time squandering what was once this here U.S.A.

 

Obama - America's Greatness is Cotton Pickers

Obama cites Slavery that existed in the U.S. over 150 years ago as grounds for his program of redistribution of the wealth that White America produced with invention, industry, knowledge, to the American Negro who produces nothing. Obama and his left wingers shout that America was built on the backs of African Slaves. The slaves picked cotton in the agrarian South and were irrelevant to building the Great Industry in the U.S.A. that was caused by the Industrial Revolution of the White Man and his knowledge. The steel factories, railroads, and U.S. manufacturing were invented designed and worked by whites in the U.S.A.. It is time that the American Blacks learned that Slavery in this here United States has been irrelevant for well over a Century. They should stop crying about a historical era that happened over 150 years ago and start acting as free men and produce something instead of demanding the white man keep providing for them like they are still slaves. Cotton pickers did not build America to its greatness.

Also of interest, the Jew did not found or create inventions and technology that was the Industrial Revolution. James Watt, from Scotland, started the Industrial Revolution circa 1800. Other white inventors (Edison) and industrials (Rockefeller, Ford) contributed causing the Industrial Revolution to catapult the Western White Man far beyond the rest of the World caused by his application of his new knowledge.

 

 

Why is this happening in the  U.S. with Trillions of tax dollars being squandered

Both Candidates could address, why with the Trillion spent every year on social programs in the U.S., that there can be examples as documented on PBS's "Frontline" called "Poor Kids". "Frontline" examined and documented the poverty stricken life styles of 4 families in the Iowa area. One white woman who had two children was, by far, experiencing the worst poverty and hardships; the interviews with her little blond haired daughter would break your heart. This same white woman had a son about 11 years old who had given up on life. This poor forgotten family never was in the same place long enough to allow for the two children to have any schooling or hope of schooling. In this era of massive Section 8 housing and endless tax funded social programs, this poor white woman and her two children had nowhere to live and had to sleep on floors and had no furniture. 

The question is why did this poor white woman and her little boy and girl have to suffer such a life style when the U.S. federal Government can't give enough money away to welfare recipients? Is there a bias towards coloreds because they yell and demand their welfare and threaten society with violence in the streets if they feel they are not sufficiently housed, clothed and fed? There was a black woman featured as one of the four families of "Poor Kids" who had a daughter and son, but they, although on welfare, had livable quarters with free rent and food (she was so well fed that she was obese from welfare free food); they spent most of their interviews discussing what they wanted to buy next, including Nike autographed sneakers. Yet, the poor white woman didn't have a bed for her children or a mailing address. Was "Frontline" inaccurate?

White males are disfavored in our society, unless wealthy or part of government, but they do that to a poor white woman and her two innocent children! There were four families featured in "Frontline's" "Poor Kids" on PBS; 2 white families with a working but very partially employed and struggling father/bread winner, the black woman on Welfare with 2 children and the poorest by far the white woman with 2 white children. What if the Roles were reversed? What if that show disclosed that the black woman's family didn't have permanent residence and that they had to sleep on floor and the two children received no education? There would be riots in the streets, it would be the end of the world, if the Negro family was experiencing even close to the poverty that that White Woman and her two children were experiencing. If that "Frontline" show disclosed that a Negro family had nothing but devastation like that poor White Woman's family, the government would immediately step in and remedy the situation, Black Organizations would be yelling and screaming on TV news about lack of social programs for Colored People and their black "suffering" and the White Liberals would be frightened and make immediate pleas of apologies as they flee to the safety of their white neighborhood with well-paid police departments to protect them from the American Negro. And the Federal Court would rule that the Colored People must be protected (the "Protected Classes under the 14th Amendment as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court) by the 14th Amendment of the United States and get more social benefits regardless that the Whites are not given the same benefits. That's Equality in this here today's U.S.A., but not an election issue for the candidates. Can't say that in the U.S.A. anymore, "Welfare".

 

 

Fast and Furious and cover up - Good "Ammo" for Romney

Never before has a President of the United States been involved in warfare against his constituency and their rights. Obama hates the Second Amendment of the United States and the right it gives to the American citizen. The Second Amendment, which gives the American citizen the unqualified right to bear arms, is also the strongest Amendment, "the Federal Government Shall Not Infringe on the Right of the American to Bear Arms". The Second Amendment is the most maligned and deliberately misinterpreted in order to fool the American citizens, who believe the alleged legal experts (left wingers & police state advocates). Until a recent decision by the Roberts' Court, the Supreme Court had not taken a Second Amendment case since 1935 (Miller case), and had only ruled on that issue once before in the early 1880's; the U.S. Supreme Court had this hand's off policy because they knew, per a simple reading of the Second Amendment, that it says the American has an unqualified right to own guns and bear them (bear means carry for anybody that knows English). The U.S. Supreme Court avoided the unpleasant task of knowingly lying, again, as they did in the two cases in the 1880's and 1935, so they just refused to hear any cases that would cause them to comment/lie on the Second Amendment.

The U.S. Supreme Court in those two cases of 1881 and 1935 knowingly produced an illegal decision which negated the American's rights under the Second Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that all 4 clauses of the Second Amendment are intertwined and should be read together as having one meaning. What if the Supreme Court took the same approach to the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments of the Bill of Rights? Each of those Amendments have as many as 14 clauses. Would the Court rule that the 1st Amendment Right to free speech be intertwined and conditioned on the right to religion and assembly? That's what the U.S. Supreme Court did to the Second Amendment in the Miller case of the 1930's which became the law of the land governing American citizen's rights to bear arms, or, no rights to bear arms.  Only with Second Amendment did the U.S. Supreme Court deceive the Americans that all clauses of the Second Amendment are intertwined and must be read as one to construe meaning; which of course resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court negating the Second Amendment and the American's rights to Bear Arms.

Here it is- The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution - "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of  a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." How the U.S. Government via the U.S. Supreme Court has tricked the Americans is by deliberately deceiving all clauses of the 2d Amendment must be read as one. This is wrong, as it is for the 1st, 5th, 6th or any of the other  Amendments to the Bill of Rights that have multiple clauses. The Second Amendment guarantees two different rights to the American, the right to bear arms and the right to form a militia, both rights shall not be infringed by the Government.

That's right, each clause of the Second Amendment is to be read separately, just like the other Amendments! 

The first clause of the Second Amendment states, the right to form a militia shall not be infringed and the third clause guarantees the American has the right to keep and bear arms and that right shall not be infringed. The U.S. Supreme Court in the Miller case of the 1930's deceived in their ruling (which is the law of the land) that the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms only to the extent needed to form a militia. Everybody knows its a waste of time to argue they have the right to form an armed militia! If you dare form a armed militia the Government cops will not just arrest you but kill you first, even if it takes flame throwing F.B.I. tanks that murdered all the children at Waco, Texas to eliminate the entire armed militia. Can you image forming a militia in a State like Massachusetts, where getting a permission is required to carry a handgun, via special police license, is strictly a "Police State" procedure, and as a result a State where you have no right at all to carry (bear arms) a handgun to protect yourself. What would happen in a state like Massachusetts, if a citizen decided to form an armed militia because he decided it necessary to secure his liberty, freedom and Due Process of Law of the FREE STATE! The Jews and their left wing useful idiots would be shouting and pointing, as if a pogrom had been instituted.

Did Chief Justice Roberts and his 8 other Judges on the U.S. Supreme Court restore the Second Amendment Rights that were stolen from the American citizen for 130 years? Not really. In the 2008 case, D.C. v. Heller, the Roberts' Court ruled that the Second Amendment extends gun ownership rights to individuals; thus striking down a handgun ban in Washington D.C. as Unconstitutional. However, the ruling applied only to Federal enclaves such as the District of Columbia. Nothing changed in the 50 States.

-4-

But the Obama Administration, featuring Obama's U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, decided a great way to get guns away from American's and stamp out the Second Amendment was to get the Mexican Drug Gangs to Kill people with guns that were sold to the Mexican Gangs by arrangements made by the U.S. B.A.T.F.

Hence came the Obama Administration's "brain product", later when they got caught, nicknamed "Fast and Furious". The Obama alleged Logic and plan was to cause so much killing and murder via the Mexican Gangs' use of guns that were provided them by the U.S. B.A.T.F. that the American people would be terrified and give up their guns and want the Second Amendment repealed in order that there be no more guns and the American citizens would be protected.

What the Hell does the Second Amendment have to do with Mexican Gangs?? That's how stupid this Obama is. The American people would buy more guns in order to defend themselves. In fact, since "Fast and Furious" legal gun sales have doubled in the U.S.A. 

A U.S. border patrol agent got killed with one of the guns that the U.S. B.A.T.F. sold to Mexican Gangs and the Obama Administration was Exposed in their unthinkable Anti - Gun "Brain Product" and  Scandalized. 

Stupidity is a word charitably used to describe this "Fast and Furious" Anti - Gun Plan by Obama and his Administration's top law enforcement official in the U.S.A., Eric Holder. Oh, Obama and Holder claim they knew nothing, and if you believe it, then Obama is guilty of gross incompetence. The B.A.T.F. admits to the Mexican Gang gun sales but claims it was done to help them locate who the gangs where in Mexico! This is more nonsense, the B.A.T.F. already knew the identity of the Mexican Drug Gangs in order to sell them the guns. They already know who are in the gangs in Mexico and they have no jurisdiction in Mexico. The B.A.T.F. has authority only in the U.S. 

Then, when the U.S. Congress subpoenaed Obama for documents, regarding "Fast and Furious" gun sales sponsored by the B.A.T.F. to the Mexican Gangs, that Obama didn't deny existed, he dodged the Congress by claiming Executive Privilege surrounding the documents and their evidence. This Executive Privilege is nothing but a cover-up.

 

-5-