THE FACTS

Comment

Comment by Rev. F. Joan Baker, Ph.D. on April 18, 2010 at 7:31pm

I'm presenting a link here, which is an article written by a scholar complete with generous footnotes. It's about concrete hypnotic skills used in every speech by Obama. I think, despite the writer's obvious bias, that he is right on here. It certainly explains why B.O. has to have a teleprompter....

http://www.grenswetenschap.nl/vault/pdf/Obama_Hypnosis_techniques.pdf

This is a long article, but I felt it was worth my while to read it.

Comment by CW Jovaras on March 23, 2010 at 9:20pm

Subject: the Obamas

> Shepard Smith, Fox News.
> If you check Obama's last trip over seas, his wife left just after their visit to France as stated below. She has yet to accompany him to any Arab country. Think about it. This was sent to me from a very good and reliable friend. The pieces of the puzzle just keep on coming together!
> Interesting...
>
> Travel for Obama
> I was at a Blockbusters renting videos, and as I was going along the wall, there was a video called "Obama". There were two men next to me. We talked about Obama. These guys were Arabs and I asked them why they thought Michele Obama headed home following her visit in France instead of traveling on to Saudi Arabia and Turkey with her husband. They told me she couldn't go to Saudi Arabia , Turkey or Iraq . I said "Laura Bush went to Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Dubai ."
>
> They said that Obama is a Muslim, and by Muslim law he would not be allowed to bring his wife into countries that accept Sharia Law. I just thought it was interesting that two Arabs at Blockbusters accept the idea that we're
> being led by a Muslim who follows the Islamic creed.
>
> They also said that's the reason he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia. It was a signal to the Muslim world..
>
> Just thought you would like to know.
>
> ***************
> When I received this it made sense to me, but there were also a couple blank spots. Thus, I sent it to a friend who is a Middle Eastern Scholar and expert, Dr. Jim Murk. Here is his explanation that states a little clearer what the Arabs at Blockbuster were saying..
>
> "An orthodox Muslim man would never take his wife on a politically oriented trip to any nation which practices shari'ah law, which includes> Saudi Arabia. This is true and it is why Obama left Michelle in Europe or at home when he went to especially Arab countries. He knows Muslim protocol; this included his bowing to the Saudi king.. Obama is regarded as a Muslim in these countries simply because he was born to a Muslim father. Note that he has downplayed his Christianity--even spoke of his Muslim faith with George Stephanopoulus --by not publicly joining a Christian church in D.C., but simply attending the chapel or services at Camp David . He also played down the fact that the USA was a Christian country and said, unbelievably, that it was one of the largest Muslim nations in the world, which is nonsense. He has also publicly taken the part of the Palestinians in the conflict with Israel. Finally he ignored the National Day of Prayer. He is bad newsl He is God's judgment on America ." Jim Murk
>
> Thus once again ACTIONS speak louder than words. Check out Obama's. Do they appear treasonous to you or is it just millions of us who think so?
> God help us!
>
> Have you wondered why Barack Hussein Obama has insisted that the U.S. Attorney General hold the trials for the 911 Murdering Muslims Terrorists in Civilian Courts as Common Criminals instead of as Terrorists who attacked the United States of America?
>
> Think about this: If the Muslim Terrorists are tried in Military Tribunals, convicted, and sentenced to DEATH by the Military Tribunal, BY LAW of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, as President of the United States, would be required to SIGN their Death Warrants before they could be EXECUTED. He would not be required to sign the death warrants if sentenced to death by a Civilian Court. Think about the Muslim Jihadist, Major Hassan who slaughtered his fellow soldiers at Ft. Hood, Texas. Major Hassan did not want to go to Afghanistan and be a part of anything that could lead to the deaths of fellow Muslims. He stated that Muslims could not and should not KILL FELLOW MUSLIMS.
>
> Is the motive for Barack Hussein Obama's decision to make sure he doesn't have to sign the death warrants for the Muslim Terrorists? Why would he, as President of the United States, not want to sign the death warrants for Muslim Terrorists who attacked the United States and MURDERED over 3,000 innocent United States Citizens on 9/11? Could it be that he is FORBIDDEN BY HIS RELIGION to have anything to do with the execution of Muslims?
>
> Think about that!!! Join me in opening our ears, eyes and minds to what THEIR President is doing. PLEASE pass this along to your friends if you agree that this sounds reasonable.
>
> John W. King, Attorney at Law

Comment by Betty Lynn Duley on March 18, 2010 at 6:49pm

As I said I will start studying more. First, I read the Declaration of Independence and thought I saw a clear paralled between Washington today and the situation the signers of this great document found themselves in with regard to England. I'm about half way through the Constitution.
Yep, Rush has the lines clogged - good for him!

Comment by JC Daley on March 18, 2010 at 12:48pm

Come to think of it I do the same thing as I call these turkeys!!!!

Anybody getting through? Rush is pushing the calls so the main switchboards are blasted. Try local offices you can get through there easier.

Comment by Betty Lynn Duley on March 18, 2010 at 12:42pm

Amen and thank you both. I think I'll dial while I pray for wise words to speak. Thanks so much for the info on the Landmark Legal fund. I can start doing more research and plugging in deeper now.

Comment by David Kellett on March 18, 2010 at 12:30pm

Actually, I say pray and dial at the same time.

Comment by JC Daley on March 18, 2010 at 12:11pm

The Landmark Legal Fund will file a lawsuit if the Dems pass this bill led by Mark Levin. This is just one of several that will file a law suit. The State of Idaho and 37 others will also file a lawsuit--they just have to wait until whatever happens happens. The best thing would be that we continue to call our Reps and STOP it--quit praying and start dialing!!


http://www.landmarklegal.org/DesktopDefault.aspx

Comment by Betty Lynn Duley on March 18, 2010 at 11:50am

Okay, I've found my copy of the Constitution and will study better. Thank you. As citizens, other than through phones or e-mails and lots of prayer (which I am and have been doing) what would be the next legal step. If we experienced a coup or takeover of some kind, what would be a legal response that did not undermine the Constitution? I'm daily more alarmed at the rapidity with which this snowball seems to be growing. This may not be the forum to ask these questions, but I know many Americans who are asking the same thing. If I need to go to some other forum, please do not hesitate to tell me.

Comment by David Kellett on March 18, 2010 at 11:07am

Only the congress has the ability to charge the President, Judges, or their members with crimes. The people do not have the power to do so, not by petition, nor through the court system. Only the sitting congress may pass articles of impeachment which must be tried by the Senate.

Comment by Betty Lynn Duley on March 18, 2010 at 11:00am

I just inadvertently deleted a longer message and will not re-write the entire message. The essence of my question is who could charge Obama and some other members of congress of sedition. I'm locating my copy of the Constitution, but I do seem to remember methods by which persons not acting in the interests of the people and the Constitution of the USA can be quickly removed from office and denied the powers of their positions.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• …
• 7
• Next ›
• Page