Quantcast

Why I don't like Obama

schjaz 2012/04/03 15:26:21
You!
Add Photos & Videos
> Why I Do Not Like The Obamas
>
> Posted on 22 February 2012.
> The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn’t like the Obama’s? Specifically I was asked: “I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama’s? It seems personal not policy related. You even dissed their Christmas family pic.” The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation.
>
> I’ve made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don’t like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state. I don’t hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same Michelle Obama’s raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.
> I don’t like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress. I expect, no I demand respect for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. Could you envision any other President instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?
>
> Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama’s have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths and they display an animus for civility.
> I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to now being able too be proud of America. I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world. Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites, because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same.
> I have a saying, that “the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide.” No president in history has spent over a million dollars to keep his records and his past sealed. And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother’s death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father’s military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nauseum.
> He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today. He has fought for abortion procedures and opposed rulings that protected women and children, that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel.
>
> His wife treats being the First Lady as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement – as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.
> I don’t like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority. Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin, it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their playing the race card. Obama concerns himself with the likes of Trayvon Martin but ignores a black baby being murdered from a drive-by shooting in Detroit because the murder was black on black...where is his call to blacks for civility?
> It is my intention to do all within my ability to ensure their reign is one term. I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.
> As I wrote in a syndicated column titled “Nero In The White House” – “Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood…Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement – while America’s people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.” (WND.com; 8/8/11
>
> Oh, and as for it being personal, you tell me how you would feel if a senator from Illinois sent you a personally signed card, intended to intimidate you and your family. Because you had written a syndicated column titled “Darth Democrat” that was critical of him. (WND.com 11/16/04)
>
> Mychal Massie

author-imageMychal Massie is chairman of the National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives-Project 21 – a conservative black think tank located in Washington, D.C.










Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Drake 2012/07/24 20:29:42
  • schjaz Drake 2012/07/25 18:51:52
    schjaz
    thanks for that.
  • Drake schjaz 2012/07/25 21:30:07
  • HannahIsHaunted 2012/05/03 21:04:30
    I agree
    HannahIsHaunted
    +1
    Well said.
  • schjaz HannahI... 2012/05/04 15:33:00
    schjaz
    ty.
  • D Hanes 2012/04/03 21:11:14
    I agree
    D Hanes
    He is a liar!
  • schjaz D Hanes 2012/04/04 16:36:04
    schjaz
    who?
  • D Hanes schjaz 2012/04/11 17:56:09
    D Hanes
    +1
    Obie, of course...
  • Gooky 2012/04/03 20:08:06
    I agree
    Gooky
    +1
    God Bless America.
  • ☆Ed☆ 2012/04/03 18:17:09
    I agree
    ☆Ed☆
    +4
    What a TREMENDOUS explanation for the TRUE reasoning behind the contempt of the Obama's!!!

    standing applause
  • schjaz ☆Ed☆ 2012/04/04 16:36:27
    schjaz
    +1
    I thought so too.
  • carolynb 2012/04/03 18:16:09
    I do not agree
    carolynb
    +1
    I find it interesting that you hate Ms Obama too, How about the kids? Do you hate them as well? They are no more communist than you are and frankly, I am tired of those crass remarks with nothing to back it up. You listen to the lies and believe everything you hear. I love Obama and his family and I hope he will be re-elected.
  • ☆Ed☆ carolynb 2012/04/03 18:19:34
    ☆Ed☆
    +4
    It's certainly a shame that you obviously live by the creed, "Don't confuse you with facts, your mind's made up."
  • carolynb ☆Ed☆ 2012/04/03 18:21:58
    carolynb
    Give me one reason why you think Obama is a communist. Just one thing he has actually done to make you think that.
  • ☆Ed☆ carolynb 2012/04/03 18:32:30
    ☆Ed☆
    +2
    Show ONE comment I've made stating that Odumbo is a commie!!! Oh, that's right, YOU don't concern yourself with FACTS, do you?

    The FACTS that are READILY AVAILABLE to anyone WILLING to do their own research are that the Obama's (Odumbo and Moochelle), and Odumbos' administration have consistently attempted to enforce their SOCIALIST ideologies down the throats of the American populace, including their continual attempts at class warfare!!! I won't waste the time with supplying you links and sources to the FACTS because you've already proven yourself to be either too lazy to actually RESEARCH an issue for yourself, or just another one of the Odumbo lemmings.
  • carolynb ☆Ed☆ 2012/04/03 20:28:23
    carolynb
    READ THE ARTICLE!! You are defending, so therefore you agree. I am still waiting for one fact to prove he is a communist. You are a typical right winger who loves to call names, but cant come up with anything of substance. Dont bother me your nonsense.
  • ☆Ed☆ carolynb 2012/04/04 14:42:51
    ☆Ed☆
    +1
    YOU READ THE ARTICLE!!! Surely you cannot be so illiterate, or ignorant.

    The article SPECIFICALLY states: "I don’t like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state."

    No where does the article call Odumbo a "communist"!!!

    Odumbo is FAR too WORTHLESS to even be a "commie"!!! When he had TWO FULL YEARS of control of BOTH the Senate and the House, they were still too INEPT to push their "SOCIALIST" agendas and ideologies to fruition in their desire of an eventual communist state!!!
  • carolynb ☆Ed☆ 2012/04/04 14:55:14
    carolynb
    And exactly WHAT socialist agenda did they push? Are you talking about Obamacare which is private industry deciding our healthcare? You dont know what you are talking about. Now if they would have pushed a medicare like healthcare system, then I would have to agree with you, but that is not the case.
  • ☆Ed☆ carolynb 2012/04/05 02:41:17
    ☆Ed☆
    +1
    Your IGNORANCE of Odumbocare is only overshadowed by your TOTAL IGNORANCE of socialism, communism, Odumbo, and life in general.

    The tremendous article by Jonas Goldberg that I've included the link to below says it much better than I. The reason why I've included some of the authors' better points is due entirely to YOUR LAZINESS !!! You've already proven yourself far too lazy to actually research an issue for yourself, and as such, I seriously doubt that you'll even read my entire post, let alone the entire article!!!

    http://www.commentarymagazine...

    What Kind of Socialist Is Barack Obama?
    Jonah Goldberg — May 2010

    Fourteen months into his presidency, in March 2010, Obama succeeded in muscling through Congress a partial government takeover of the national health-care system. That legislative accomplishment followed Obama’s decision a year earlier, without congressional approval, to nationalize two of the country’s Big Three automobile companies. In the intervening months, he had also imposed specific wage ceilings on employees at banks that had taken federal bailout money—the first such federal wage controls since an ill-fated experiment by Richard Nixon in 1971. Obama also made the federal government the direct provider of student loans, and did so by putting that significa...









    Your IGNORANCE of Odumbocare is only overshadowed by your TOTAL IGNORANCE of socialism, communism, Odumbo, and life in general.

    The tremendous article by Jonas Goldberg that I've included the link to below says it much better than I. The reason why I've included some of the authors' better points is due entirely to YOUR LAZINESS!!! You've already proven yourself far too lazy to actually research an issue for yourself, and as such, I seriously doubt that you'll even read my entire post, let alone the entire article!!!

    http://www.commentarymagazine...

    What Kind of Socialist Is Barack Obama?
    Jonah Goldberg — May 2010

    Fourteen months into his presidency, in March 2010, Obama succeeded in muscling through Congress a partial government takeover of the national health-care system. That legislative accomplishment followed Obama’s decision a year earlier, without congressional approval, to nationalize two of the country’s Big Three automobile companies. In the intervening months, he had also imposed specific wage ceilings on employees at banks that had taken federal bailout money—the first such federal wage controls since an ill-fated experiment by Richard Nixon in 1971. Obama also made the federal government the direct provider of student loans, and did so by putting that significant change in American policy inside the larger health-care bill. In a September 2009 press conference, Obama suggested that a publicly funded health-care system might help “avoid. . .some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits and excessive administrative costs”—thus mistaking the act of making money, the foundational cornerstone of capitalism itself, with the generation of unnecessary expenses.

    Given his conduct and rhetoric as president, we have every reason to reopen the question from 2008 and ask, quite simply, What kind of socialist is Barack Obama?

    Harold Meyerson, who actually calls himself a socialist, wanted it both ways. In a March 4, 2009, Washington Post column, he argued that anyone calling Obama a socialist didn’t know what he was talking about: “Take it from a democratic socialist: Laissez-faire American capitalism is about to be supplanted not by socialism but by a more regulated, viable capitalism. And the reason isn’t that the woods are full of secret socialists who are only now outing themselves.”

    But after the Rasmussen data came out the following month, Meyerson changed his tune. In a column titled “Rush Builds a Revolution,” he argued that conservative attempts to demonize Obama as a socialist had backfired and were leading Americans, particularly young Americans, to embrace the label. “Rush [Limbaugh] and his boys are doing what Gene Debs and his comrades never really could,” Meyerson wrote. “In tandem with Wall Street, they are building socialism in America.” Moreover, whereas a more “viable, regulated capitalism” at first distinguished Obamaism from socialism, it now defined Obama’s brand of socialism. “Today,” Meyerson observed, “the world’s socialist and social democratic parties basically champion a more social form of capitalism, with tighter regulations on capital, more power for labor and an expanded public sector to do what the private sector cannot (such as providing universal access to health care).”

    Surely if fans of President Obama’s program feel free to call it socialist, critics may be permitted to do likewise.

    But is it correct, as an objective matter, to call Obama’s agenda “socialist”? That depends on what one means by socialism. The term has so many associations and has been used to describe so many divergent political and economic approaches that the only meaning sure to garner consensus is an assertive statism applied in the larger cause of “equality,” usually through redistributive economic policies that involve a bias toward taking an intrusive and domineering role in the workings of the private sector. One might also apply another yardstick: an ambivalence, even antipathy, for democracy when democracy proves inconvenient.1 With this understanding as a vague guideline, the answer is certainly, Yes, Obama’s agenda is socialist in a broad sense. The Obama administration may not have planned on seizing the means of automobile production or asserting managerial control over Wall Street. But when faced with the choice, it did both. Obama did explicitly plan on imposing a massive restructuring of one-sixth of the U.S. economy through the use of state fiat—and he is beginning to do precisely that.
    (more)
  • carolynb ☆Ed☆ 2012/04/05 12:16:30
    carolynb
    None of the things you have stated are socialistic. Healthcare such as medicare is more socialistic in nature, and ironically that is what most people wanted, right and left, but we got just the opposite. Healthcare for profit is what Obamacare is. Bailing out the auto companies saved millions of jobs and that was a loan, so they are paying back the govt with interest. At first I wanted Limbaugh off the air, but the more he talks, the more he has made people aware of the right wing agenda and now women have joined together to ensure Obama gets re-elected. I am not going to write a book like you did, but if the republicans continue to rule, we will end up with an Oligarchy governmet, and the middle class will be eliminated. We will only have the very rich and the poor and we become their slaves. The Ryans plan will cut social programs and the rich will get another big break of $150,0000 a piece. and with less revenue, we will get a bigger deficit. No, we cannot let that happen.
  • schjaz carolynb 2012/04/05 19:46:46
    schjaz
    +1
    considering that workers pay into medicare benefits as well as SS, i think you are wrong on this.
    women are not as stupid as you seem to think....most thinking, taxpaying women do not want to see this POTUS remain in power.
  • carolynb schjaz 2012/04/05 20:18:58
    carolynb
    Is that why Obama is 17% ahead of Romney with women in the polls?
  • schjaz carolynb 2012/04/07 16:46:43
    schjaz
    Do they work?
  • carolynb schjaz 2012/04/07 16:51:32
    carolynb
    Yes, they do.
  • schjaz carolynb 2012/04/07 17:08:45
    schjaz
    you can't say that because you don't know that. you are talking about polls....show the link to the poll of WORKING women that support Obama over Romney.
  • carolynb schjaz 2012/04/07 17:15:10
    carolynb
    I dont have to send you anything. I am not asking you how many republican women work or are educated because it doesnt matter. repubs war on women is going to be what wins this race for Obama and all the republican states.
  • schjaz carolynb 2012/04/08 15:59:46
    schjaz
    There is no war on women...its a lie perpetrated on American by the Obama administration and you know it.
  • carolynb schjaz 2012/04/08 18:34:00
    carolynb
    Keep living in your fantasy world. Over 1100 bills on womens reproductive rights in the last year or two by repubs.
  • schjaz carolynb 2012/04/09 17:07:55
    schjaz
    site them.
  • carolynb schjaz 2012/04/09 17:17:33 (edited)
    carolynb
    I am not going to site each and everyone. Listen to the report.
    http://video.msnbc.msn.com/ja...
  • schjaz carolynb 2012/04/12 16:29:32
    schjaz
    MSNBC???!!!! Are you serious? GE, Obozo's jobs czar who exported jobs out of the U.S. owns MSNBC. They have an agenda and are as far from objective reporting as you can get.
    ridiculous.
  • carolynb schjaz 2012/04/12 16:33:43
    carolynb
    Prove that they arent legit. I would put the truth meter up against Fox anyday of the week.
  • schjaz carolynb 2012/04/12 16:40:03
    schjaz
    its no wonder you are blue.
  • carolynb schjaz 2012/04/12 16:44:20
    carolynb
    You dont want to hear the truth.
  • carolynb schjaz 2012/04/12 16:40:49
  • schjaz carolynb 2012/04/13 14:55:42
    schjaz
    omg....THAT IS NOT NEWS...ITS OPINION! i give up on you. you are way too far left radical for me. i am a moderate independent.
  • carolynb schjaz 2012/04/13 15:16:42
    carolynb
    Fine with me.
  • ☆Ed☆ carolynb 2012/04/07 03:37:51
    ☆Ed☆
    +1
    LOL, I knew you were far too lazy to read ANYTHING, especially when it comes to FACTS that prove how horribly lacking you are in your comprehension of the definitions of "socialism"!!!

    Although I'm certain it's a waste of time, I will once again attempt to help you avoid looking anymore foolish than you've already shown yourself to be by supplying you the definitions of "socialism" from the Merriam - Webster dictionary;

    Definition of SOCIALISM
    1
    : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
    2
    a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
    3
    : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
  • carolynb ☆Ed☆ 2012/04/07 11:17:24
    carolynb
    Your number 3 is where we are headed if the republicans take control. Oligarchy is what they are aiming for. Just like I said.
  • ☆Ed☆ carolynb 2012/04/07 15:19:49
    ☆Ed☆
    +1
    Once again, your poor lobotomized head is unable to THINK.

    I could care less about their party affiliations, it is BOTH political party's that are responsible for the sad state of affairs this nation is in, although it is the democraps that are in charge now, yet, when they had FULL CONTROL of the Senate, House, and the WH for TWO FULL YEARS, they were completely incapable of accomplishing anything more than playing the blame game and pushing through a health care bill that will soon be ruled to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/01 08:16:30

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals