TexasCHLforum.com

Obama promised change but picking insiders

Now isn't that special?

Matthew 7:15 thru 20

My grandpappy always told me that you could tell a lot about a man by those he associated with.

In bambam land we have: Wright, Rezko, Daley, Ayers, and all the other dancing bears; and his various appointees.

We're in for a hard ride folks, cinch up and put on the big spurs.

One of BHO's apologists was on a news interview show 20 Nov 08--interviewer asked something like, "if all BHO appoints are retreads from Clinton, where's the 'change'?" (I paraphrased the question.)
Answer was something like, "we've got to have folks who know how Washington works, so we can hit the ground running." (And "rule" from day one?)
Not my idea of "change," but I didn't believe his campaign oratory anyway.

Nicolai wrote:One of BHO's apologists was on a news interview show 20 Nov 08--interviewer asked something like, "if all BHO appoints are retreads from Clinton, where's the 'change'?" (I paraphrased the question.)
Answer was something like, "we've got to have folks who know how Washington works, so we can hit the ground running." (And "rule" from day one?)
Not my idea of "change," but I didn't believe his campaign oratory anyway.

We do not have rulers, we have leaders who serve at our pleasure. Our last "Ruler" was King George III and the 13 Colonies fought a Revolution to throw him off.

All Communist dictators RULE. American Presidents GOVERN . We're not SUBJECTS to be RULED. We're American citizen's, and there are millions like us that are armed and will not suffer subjection to the ilk of Bill Ayers, "The Messiah and giver of all light" and his communist minions. If defending the Constitution means bloodshed, well, the tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Also, SUBJECTS do not have the 2nd Amendment.

For those who don't think it can happen, we have had a fascist president. Woodrow Wilson had people censured and imprisoned for expression of anti-war/anti-administration sentiments. Fourth amendment rights were suspended under the broad war powers he had been granted and many homes were invaded to root out those that were potential dissidents.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Dragonfighter wrote:For those who don't think it can happen, we have had a fascist president. Woodrow Wilson had people censured and imprisoned for expression of anti-war/anti-administration sentiments. Fourth amendment rights were suspended under the broad war powers he had been granted and many homes were invaded to root out those that were potential dissidents.

Wilson was a lightweight compared to Lincoln.

Lincoln imprisoned Maryland legislators to prevent them from voting for secession. (DC would have been completely surrounded by CSA territory.) He suspended the writ of habeas corpus, and imprisoned 18,000 people who expressed sympathy for the South. He spent money without congressional approval, in direct violation of the Constitution. He threatened judges who might rule against him. He also accepted the unconstitutionally-created state of West Virginia, to give him a majority vote.

And the emancipation proclamation, for all its trumpets blaring, didn't free a single slave.

It took me a long time to come to grips with the reality of Lincoln, versus the popular myth that is taught in school. He truly was the most evil of our presidents, far worse than FDR or Wilson.

KBCraig wrote:

Dragonfighter wrote:For those who don't think it can happen, we have had a fascist president. Woodrow Wilson had people censured and imprisoned for expression of anti-war/anti-administration sentiments. Fourth amendment rights were suspended under the broad war powers he had been granted and many homes were invaded to root out those that were potential dissidents.

Wilson was a lightweight compared to Lincoln.

Lincoln imprisoned Maryland legislators to prevent them from voting for secession. (DC would have been completely surrounded by CSA territory.) He suspended the writ of habeas corpus, and imprisoned 18,000 people who expressed sympathy for the South. He spent money without congressional approval, in direct violation of the Constitution. He threatened judges who might rule against him. He also accepted the unconstitutionally-created state of West Virginia, to give him a majority vote.

And the emancipation proclamation, for all its trumpets blaring, didn't free a single slave.

It took me a long time to come to grips with the reality of Lincoln, versus the popular myth that is taught in school. He truly was the most evil of our presidents, far worse than FDR or Wilson.

He was a republican too.

Anygunanywhere

Grammy wins the prize (don't know what it is, though).
My previous post referenced the BHO administration wanting to hit the ground running and "rule" from day one. Regrettably, that is an actual quote from a BHO talking head on a news show last weekend.
Grammy has it exactly right--American leaders "govern."
When someone from the BHO administration-to-be says "rule," fireworks explode (not in the good way), red flags go up, and a general sense of unease travels throughout the land--at least in some portions of the land.

"In every generation, there are those who want to rule well - but they mean to rule.
They promise to be good masters - but they mean to be masters." - Daniel Webster

KBCraig wrote:

Dragonfighter wrote:For those who don't think it can happen, we have had a fascist president. Woodrow Wilson had people censured and imprisoned for expression of anti-war/anti-administration sentiments. Fourth amendment rights were suspended under the broad war powers he had been granted and many homes were invaded to root out those that were potential dissidents.

Wilson was a lightweight compared to Lincoln.

You are absolutely correct sir. The Civil War wasn't about slavery either, but federal opression of states rights and free trade in particular...the feds having added confiscatory tariffs on states' exports. Also 95% of southerners never owned a slave, Lee had freed his yet Grant's wife kept hers for years until the the SCOTUS made it outright illegal. Many of the restrictive gun laws that are on our books (prior to CHL) from the reconstruction and limiting citizen's ability to carry.

Dragonfighter wrote: You are absolutely correct sir. The Civil War wasn't about slavery either, but federal opression of states rights and free trade in particular...the feds having added confiscatory tariffs on states' exports. Also 95% of southerners never owned a slave, Lee had freed his yet Grant's wife kept hers for years until the the SCOTUS made it outright illegal. Many of the restrictive gun laws that are on our books (prior to CHL) from the reconstruction and limiting citizen's ability to carry.

Exactly right. Unfortunately that's not what they brainwash...I mean teach in public school now days. It's no surprise things have continued down this path. One things for certain, the future ain't going to be boring.