Occupy Obama!

I think we should turn our attention to crushing Romney and his evil plans. And don't jump to conclusions and suggest I'm criticizing Romney because of his religion. That's not it at all.

It doesn't matter if he's Mormon or not. I want to make clear that I don't believe all Mormons are evil . . . Far from it.

In fact, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reed is a Mormon . . . a good Mormon, not a phony like Romney.

Of course, Harry Reed isn't nearly as handsome as Mitt Romney . . . Or Ted Bundy.

Yes, that's right . . . Ted Bundy was a Mormon too . . . an extremely straight-laced Mormon.
Ted Bundy converted to Mormonism during the thick of his killing spree. He walked around with a Bible in one hand and the Book of Mormon in the other. He was quite a handsome man too . . . He reminds me a lot of Mitt Romney.

He didn't drink, smoke, do drugs, or steal. He just had that one little flaw that involved beating and torturing women to death . . . sometimes biting their dead bodies and raping their corpses, and then lying about it of course.

If you forget about that one little outlier, he was indeed a straight laced young Mormon man.

He was attending law school in Salt Lake City when he was first arrested. His friends were shocked. . . . Or so they said . . . But maybe they were pretending too.

Why do supremely selfish, supremely evil, pretentious people just naturally gravitate toward the Republican Party?

Does anyone know?

Mitt Romney reminds me a LOT of Ted Bundy. As a matter of fact, they may have met. They both attended the Republican National Convention in Miami in 1968.

I wonder if they became friends . . . . and shared experiences . . . and fantasies . . . and techniques.

Who inspired whom?

While it's true that Romney was never arrested, he did break his share of laws. He used to enjoy impersonating a police officer, which was a felony in Michigan. But he didn't care. He knew his father would protect him.

And then of course he attacked a classmate with scissors and humiliated him. While other 18 year olds were fighting and dying in Viet Nam, Master Mitt was cowing his classmates with his father's immense wealth and political power.

And who knows what he did when no one was around.

Maybe some of those missing persons cases in Michigan should be re-investigated.

It goes much deeper, Obama is pushing Social Justice or Reform which was started by the Papacy in the 1800's

Barack Obama's Jesuit Connections On The Catholic National Advisory Board

CATHOLIC DISSIDENTS ADVISE OBAMA

May 2, 2008
When Sen. Barack Obama recently announced the formation of his Catholic National Advisory Council, he said he was “deeply honored to have the support and counsel of these committed Catholic leaders, scholars and advocates.”

Obama’s Jesuit Connections Surface
G/d help those – who could care less - to see beyond the obvious
By Greg Szymanski, JD - Dec 28, 2008

The connections among Barrack Obama, the Jesuits and the Vatican run deep but most Americans could care less.

Most Americans in fact see no harm in Obama kissing the Pope’s red satanic shos or making Jesuit Georgetown Universtiy his second home.
The idea that the Jesuits and the Vatican are up to no good, trying to destroy America from within, just hasn’t sunk in to Joe Schmoe in the U.S.

It hasn’t sunk in because the tenents of the Protestant Refomation have all but been forgotten or wiped away from history by those crafty, devious Jesuits who like to call themselves the “Great Educators.” But if the truth be known the Society of Satan, better known as the Jesuits, should be called the biggest liars and misducators the world has ever known.

So for Joe Schmoe it means nothing that Obama is in bed with the Vatican and, in fact, the real sad part is that most Black Americans think it’s just the best thing since slice bread that one of their own holds the highest office in the land.

However, little do they know, Obama’s loyalty lies with the White Pope, the New World Order and the upcoming Luceferian world government bent on killing off most Black people who are now supporting him. In fact, color matters little as Obama believes people lke you and me are nothing more than cattle, no matter if we are white, red or black.

According to the historical data published by the Office of Management and Budget in the Obama White House, no Congress in which the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate has balanced the federal budget since fiscal 1969--more than 40 years ago.
Democrats controlled BOTH houses from 1955 until 1980 (26 years).
From 1981 until 1987 the Republicans controlled the Senate and the Democrats the House.
Democrats recaptured both houses in 87 and held them until 95 when the Republicans took both houses and held them until 2005.

Secretary of the Senate Nancy Erickson revealed a slew of data that put the first session of the 112th Senate at the bottom of Senates since 1992 in legislative productivity, an especially damning finding considering that it wasn’t an election year when congressional action is usually lower.

Democratically-controlled Senate was in session for 170 days, it spent an average of just 6.5 hours in session on those days, the second lowest since 1992. Only 2008 logged a lower average of 5.4 hours a day, and that’s when action was put off because several senators were running for president, among them Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain.

Here is a few facts:
For the second consecutive year, the Democrat-controlled United States Senate has unanimously rejected President Obama's 2013 budget. The final vote was 99-0, making the the running two-year tally 196-0. This move follows the House of Representatives' 414-0 rebuke of the same fiscal blueprint earlier this year. Astonishingly, not a single Senate Democrat has voted in favor of any budget for three years, even as they refuse to offer a plan of their own.


(1) "The Senate has already passed a budget!" False. The Senate has not passed a budget. It "deemed" itself a budget as part of a separate piece of legislation over the summer. That law did not address tax policy, entitlement programs, and a slew of other items that a real budget entails. Harry Reid's hand-picked Senate Parliamentarian has confirmed Republicans' contention that the Senate has not fulfilled its basic budgetary obligations. This is the 1,113th day in a row that this has been the case.

(2) "Republican obstructionism!" False. Budgets explicitly cannot be filibustered. If Democrats introduced a budget, whipped their members, and called a vote, it would pass. Simple as that. Republicans couldn't do a thing to stop it. But that would require Democrats to put their long-term plans on paper, which they've been avoiding like the plague for entirely political reasons.

(3) "This vote is a gimmick!" If Democrats want to label an up-or-down vote on a Democratic president's budget a "gimmick," they're welcome to do so. In some ways, it's an appropriate description, given the pitiful gimmicks upon which Obama's budget relies -- even to achieve the fraudulent "savings" it claims. Had it not been defeated by Congress 513-0, Obama's budget would have added $11 Trillion to the gross national debt. It would literally never balance.

The Senate has defeated the House-passed Ryan budget, 41-58. I counted five Republicans joining Democrats in voting it down, at least one of whom voted no because it doesn't go far enough. Democrats voted in lockstep against this budget, as they have on every proposed budget for the last three years. Head-to-head tally: Paul Ryan 41 - Barack Obama 0

UPDATE II - The Senate has defeated Senator Pat Toomey's (R-PA) budget resolution, 42-57. This is the seventh consecutive proposed Senate budget that has failed to attract even one Democrat vote.

UPDATE III - The Senate has rejected the two remaining GOP budget alternatives, authored by Senators Lee (17-82) and Paul (16-83). Harry Reid's Senate once again goes oh-fer on budgets, in an age of $16 Trillion debt, a national credit downgrade, and a struggling economy. Disgraceful.

Moral of the story: If you are such a concerned citizen why do you approve of this?