Obama Calls Tea Parties 'Idiotic'

The Pres Will Not Tolerate Dissent
Resistance is Futile and any Attempt is Idiotic

Ok, so here's the play book and the rules. When liberals protest, they are exercising their freedom of speech, and they have the ACLU and ACORN to back them up on that.
We've seen a lot of liberal protests through the years. It was the "in" thing to do. The ironic thing is that a great many of their demonstrations led to violence, and that is most often not the case with conservatives.
Our President, himself, should be all too aware of this concept, since he is well acquainted with the radical faction himself.

During the Bush administration, Cindy Sheehan protested a lot, and others joined her. I certainly understood her pain and her right to express it. When asked about the protests, some of which occurred on the President's front driveway, President Bush said, and I'm paraphrasing, "That's the great thing about America. Everyone has a right to express their own opinions." He never made fun of people, or forgot that it was his duty, responsibility and honor to represent all the people.

Obama Calls Tea Parties 'Idiotic'

James Rivera
New York Examiner
July 5, 2009

WASHINGTON- A classified memo written by the President, in which he instructs Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on how to address questions concerning so called Tea Parties, has been leaked to the public.

The document, dated April 13, details President Obama's instructions on how Gibbs should respond to questions asked by reporters. In it, the President tells Gibbs to downplay the importance of "social events that are aimed at undermining [the President's] plan to fix the economy."

President Obama also instructs Gibbs to "not answer any questions regarding these gatherings directly," writing that they are "idiotic" in their aims to curb government spending.

This leak comes at a time when the President has been criticized by Republicans for being too wasteful in his spending and agenda.

"Once again, the President has shown that he is utterly out of touch with the American public," said Joseph Barton, a representative of Texas's 6th Congressional District. "Doesn't he understand that people are sick and tired of unending taxes? Apparently not."

The Administration defended the memo, stating that its release was "unintentional," but that it is how the President characterizes "unnecessary criticism." Robert Gibbs also released a statement, writing that he does "not understand the uproar about something that the majority of Americans agree with anyway."

The President has not released a direct statement to the press, but one is expected in the coming days.

So, the President deems the Tea Parties, as unnecessary criticism. In his mind. Arrogance abounds. And, according to his press secretary, most of Americans agree with the President anyway. Really.

Protesters are disrupting "his" economic plan, and they are "idiotic"! He doesn't get it. He works for us. The house he is living in belongs to the people.

Today, the press secretary has made the statement that most of the dissenters at the Town Hall meetings are actually from some devious right wing group hired by some mysterious backers to disrupt the peaceful and benevolent meeting of representatives and their constituents.
Once again, the President is discriminating against and mocking a large percentage of the same people that he vowed to serve.

If any other President, Democrat or Republican, had said any of these disparaging remarks either about the citizens of his country or the country itself, it would have been a scandal.

"We Have to Make Judgments Very Fast."

Foxnews.com Monday, Aug. 2. 2009
(A Town Hall meeting in Philadelphia)

The following is an excerpt from this article.

While supporters offered courteous applause to the officials, Sebelius didn't earn any fans when she said that if lawmakers say they don't understand the legislation voters should urge them to go back and read it.

Specter was shouted down when he said that lawmakers divide up the bills into sections and have their staffs read portions because, "We have to make judgments very fast."

Sebelius apparently is laying the responsibility of checking out legistation on the voters. Funny, I thought that is what we were trying to do. However, we shouldn't have too.
Say you hire a guy to put a new roof on your house, but every morning you look outside, and he's sitting in his truck. You have to go out and tell him to start doing his work?

Sebelius is as much as saying that our elected officials aren't going to work unless we get on their case.
Specter's comments were equally priceless. They have their staff read the bills, because they don't have time. What are they doing? And, why do they have to make judgments very fast?
Anyone will tell you that is you have a really big decision, involving life changing events, and a lot of money, you need to think things through.

Whose putting the screws to these people? Is there a time limit that we don't know about, from the Pres, the Cabinet, Alien beings? The only things historically that demanded immediate decisions were war, and natural disasters. Could it be that they just don't want any analysis of what they're doing? If it goes on for awhile, the people might actually be able to figure the whole mess out and decided for themselves what they want and don't want. Imagine that, the people, the ones that the government work for, deciding for themselves what they want and don't want.

If that continues, we might just keep our Democracy.

What to Look for in a Socialist

I recently ran into a blog that was pro-Obama, which, declared that his association throughout his lifetime with socialists, communists, radicals, and a convicted terrorist or two was just a matter of politics. They stated that he needed these associations to further his career and get him where he wanted to go, but that he, in no way, subscribed to their beliefs. This, I assume, was supposed to be a glowing report on his crafty, smooth political maneuvers.
Apart from the fact that that that is hardly a great character report, it's also - well- bull.

The following was in the Washington Post, March 15, 2009 It was written by Billy Wharton, a member of the Socialist Party. (Notice that this was written in March.)

The funny thing is, of course, that socialists know that Barack Obama is not one of us. Not only is he not a socialist, he may in fact not even be a liberal. Socialists understand him more as a hedge-fund Democrat -- one of a generation of neoliberal politicians firmly committed to free-market policies.
The first clear indication that Obama is not, in fact, a socialist, is the way his administration is avoiding structural changes to the financial system. Nationalization is simply not in the playbook of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and his team. They favor costly, temporary measures that can easily be dismantled should the economy stabilize. Socialists support nationalization and see it as a means of creating a banking system that acts like a highly regulated public utility. The banks would then cease to be sinkholes for public funds or financial versions of casinos and would become essential to re-energizing productive sectors of the economy.

The same holds true for health care. A national health insurance system as embodied in the single-payer health plan reintroduced in legislation this year by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), makes perfect sense to us. That bill would provide comprehensive coverage, offer a full range of choice of doctors and services and eliminate the primary cause of personal bankruptcy -- health-care bills. Obama's plan would do the opposite. By mandating that every person be insured, ObamaCare would give private health insurance companies license to systematically underinsure policyholders while cashing in on the moral currency of universal coverage. If Obama is a socialist, then on health care, he's doing a fairly good job of concealing it.


Obama's No Socialist. I Should Know. The Washington Post By Billy Wharton
Sunday, March 15, 2009; Page B01

Our representatives are declaring with vigor that neither they or the Pres wants a single payer health system, however, in his campaign, Obama said that that is just what he wanted. A lot has changed in the last few months. So, the socialists have given us some guidelines to look for in the future. How many of these are we getting a glimpse of already.