Shepherds and Sheep

When the communist party endorses a candidate for president of America and the American people embrace that candidate without question, when the communist party complains that the candidate has stolen their 'platform' (tongue in cheek) something is wrong in America. And it is my opinion, and the opinion of many others that this acceptance of communistic principles and the communist 'platfrom' by the American people didn't start with the election of Obama. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302031/obamas-third-party-history-stanley-kurtz [i]Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party. He also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office. Minutes of the meeting on January 11, 1996, of the New Party’s Chicago chapter read as follows: Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party. The Fight the Smears website quoted Carol Harwell, who managed Obama’s 1996 campaign for the Illinois senate: “Barack did not solicit or seek the New Party endorsement for state senator in 1995.” Drawing on her testimony, Fight the Smears conceded that the New Party did support Obama in 1996 but denied that Obama had ever joined, adding that “he was the only candidate on the ballot in his race and never solicited the endorsement.” We’ve seen that this is false. Obama formally requested New Party endorsement, signed the candidate contract, and joined the party. Is it conceivable that Obama’s own campaign manager could have been unaware of this? The notion is implausible. And the documents make Harwell’s assertion more remarkable still.[/i] And the American public does not care, there is no outcry from the PRESS or the PUBLIC. I find that very strange and very dangerous. An outright LIE by a sitting president comes to light, and about the fact he joined a socialist/communist organization, and the PRESS is silent and the American people do not care.

@ iuliuxd... The reason governments love Darwinism is because as they are feeding the people this junk about us humans are really animals, they are watching us destroy ourselves for the total take over, and laughing all the way to the bank. They cause the stupidity with their lies, and then when something crazy happens, like Aurora, or Sandy Hook, then they have the ability to add more suppressing laws that the people think are needed. I think it is funny to watch liberals and conservatives faces when something hits the fan and then they ask themselves "why?". Yes, even conservatives have issues and say that. @debra... To tell you the truth, I know that these guys in these offices do NOT see themselves like they have the public believing they are. Animals? Right. They are the "1%" that keeps this world in bondage. One day it will all end, and the crash of America will come and people will cry and wonder why. All the while the government is living high and watching us surfs scratch for a piece of food to survive. It is so funny to see this. After the liberals have finished worshiping their "god" Obama, and we have a new "forget-the-people" prez, then they will follow him/her to the gallows and thank him/her for the opportunity to die for whatever idiotic reason. I am ranting a little because it is so stupid, and yet, so funny at the same time. Why are these people so blind? There was a woman screaming about how Obama was so wonderful because she was going to get a phone from his freebie plan. But Romney was not going to give her a phone, so she didnt want him to be president. Idiots, every one of them...

@Debi - I never thought I'd see it either. @Hopefull - not only that, but peacful protestors completely in compliance with the law have been tested, citizens can have their communications tapped without due process, and I could go on. It's really scary.

You bring up some good points. How far do we let the government go with their 'poor choices' before we speak, before we protest, before we do not comply? And what about throwing us in the 'pokey'? Do we get a chance to defend ourselves, does the government have to prove it's case? Or are we just to languish there without due process until we die or they decide we can go? What about disagreement within the populace? Are we allowed to win folks over to our cause, or are we silenced by the government when we try? And Ultimately....when do each of us decide when enough is enough and take that step, a step that could loose us our reputations, our livlihood, our lives? I never thought that in my lifetime these questions would be asked by anyone in America. Boy was I naive.

debra: Hasn't a law been signed where the government can now arrest someone they think is a terrorist and hold them without due process? That means if we don't think like they do we could be targeted as a terrorist.

I appreciate your kind words. I would ask, WHO and WHAT wants POWER. Is it JUST individual politicians? Or is there something else behind all of the individual egos?

I agree Artemeis. Sadly, people want comfort over virtue. They want peace and security over accountability and responsibility. They want the government to solve the problem for them rather than do the hard thing and find a solution within themselves. Unfortunately, true freedom and liberty are not understood by most of them. They have no reference point to judge by. And virtue has been marginalized and made fun of enough, that they do not have the courage to stand up for it.

except for "The US with it's military colonisation of the "Brown" folk" -- open borders cannot work for nations..

For the most part I agree with you robspeakman. We have professional politicians who are in it for fame, glory and power. No man should leave public office richer than when he entered and I am a big supporter of term limits. I am also a supporter of paying them what the median income of the country is at their time of service. No perks except for 'on the job' travel, and a modest home in Washington when they are there on business. Some even recommend that they are only paid when actually 'on the job', no pay for recess time, or after they are out of office. It should be a SERVICE to their country and not a career. So, there, we agree. As for the border thing, I wasn't sure what you meant until I read flowerchilde's response. Let me put it this way; I agree that immigrants are a good thing. BUT, I also believe being an American is a privilege. Anyone who comes here should come here legally, and that legal path should not be tedious and arbitrary. Make the path to citizenship less tedious and don't set arbitrary quotas. Learn the language, learn the Constitution and Bill of Rights, a mini civics class so to speak. DON'T break the LAWS and have a clear path to employment and way to support yourself, either by a sponsor or a actual JOB or Education plan. WE CANNOT AFFORD TO TAKE CARE OF THE ENTIRE WORLD AND WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH CRIMINALS WHO WANT TO COME HERE AND BREAK THE LAW. To me, that is reasonable.