| We have been lied to! |
|---|
Yeah, so what's new?
Did you know we shipped 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" uranium ore, removed
from Tuwaitha, Iraq, to Canada for their power plants as partial payment for
their help in the liberation in Iraq? That is enough to make 100
medium sized Nuclear BOMBS! Yeah, Saddam had no WMD... uh huh.
All the while we are STILL being told the lie that "there was no WMD."
Isn't this the basis for the chant "Bush lied" that everyone says?
Then this is a lie too? "We have known for many years that Saddam
Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction..."
- Ted Kennedy (September 27, 2002)
Ever wonder what the Liberal Press and Democrat Congress WON'T DO to mislead us?
|
Least we forget:
In 1998, the U.S. Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed, the
Iraq Liberation Act. That Act stated, "It should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein
from power in Iraq, and to promote the emergence of a democratic government
to replace that regime." This legislation passed the Democrat controlled
House by a vote of 360 to 38, and it passed the Democrats Senate without
a single vote in opposition.
Kinda removes the validity of the ignorant chant "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11" that
is also used repeatedly to mislead us. No one ever said it did, so why the
continual repeating of the statement by the Democrats and their puppet press?
|
On 11 November, President Bush noted: "While it is perfectly legitimate
to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible
to rewrite the history of how that war began."
|
"The disconnect between what Democrats are saying about Iraq and what is
actually happening there has reached grotesque proportions. Democrats won an
exhilarating electoral victory in 2006 pledging withdrawal at a time when
conditions in Iraq were dire and we were indeed losing the war. Two years
later, when everything is changed, they continue to reflexively repeat their
'narrative of defeat and retreat' (as Joe Lieberman so memorably called it)
as if nothing has changed... Obama and the Democrats would forfeit every one of
these successes to a declared policy of fixed and unconditional withdrawal. If
McCain cannot take to the American people the case for the folly of that
policy, he will not be president. Nor should he be."
---Charles
Krauthammer
|
A popular Leftist bumper sticker during the Vietnam War read:
"What if they had a war, and no one came?"
An appropriate sticker for today might ask:
"What if the U.S. won a war, but the media didn't report it?"
Or, another appropriate sticker might ask:
"What if they really found WMD, but the media didn't report it?"
| Note to those still voting for Obama: |
|---|
"Barack Obama, parroting the received wisdom of the Democratic foreign policy
establishment, said that victory in any meaningful sense was not only unlikely,
but that the presence of large numbers of American soldiers actually fed the
insurgency and decreased the prospects for stability."
If the war is LOST, then why is Al-Maliki declaring that Al-Qaeda,
(our enemy and responsible for 9/11), has lost in Iraq?
Facts: Fifteen of eighteen benchmarks have been reached, all the
parties are in negotiation over future politics, al Qaeda is close
to dead at the hands of the US and the Iraqis, and oil contracts are
being handed out amid four-year lows in violence. Attacks in Iraq are
down more than 90 percent over the previous year.
"Let me be as clear as I can be," says Obama. "I intend to end this war. My
first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in and I will give
them a new mission and that is to end this war - responsibly, deliberately,
but decisively."
The only way to end a war "responsibly, deliberately and decisively"
is victory.
Don't grab defeate out of the jaws of victory, please!
Arguably, since our nation's founding, no candidate has been less qualified
than Obama to be his political party's nominee for president of the United
States. And nowhere is Obama more ill prepared than in matters of national
security.
Barack Obama, the national security neophyte, continues to
prove himself unworthy of the title "Commander in Chief." Obama tripped up
on national security numerous times this week. First, as the situation in
Iraq continues improving, Obama continues to stick by his 16-month plan for
withdrawal. However, his campaign did scrub his Web site over the weekend,
removing all criticism of the surge. Instead, it cites an "improved security
situation" en route to advocating more change (read: retreat). Barack will
travel to the Middle East beginning today, with a stop in Europe on the
way. And he will have groupies -- namely ABC anchor Charles Gibson, CBS
anchor Katie Couric and NBC anchor Brian Williams, who will tag along and
fawn appropriately.
Next up, the infamous New Yorker magazine article referenced above quotes Obama
as saying, "My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was
bombed, fought in Patton's Army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields
of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz
and Treblinka..." Obama stuck his foot in his mouth on Auschwitz before, and
we noted that the Red Army of Soviet Russia liberated that camp. Treblinka,
on the other hand, was closed and destroyed by the Germans in 1943. Oops.
Finally, a gaffe that is far more worrisome than the others: According to
Obama, the U.S. "cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve
the national security objectives we've set." He continued, "We've got to have
a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong,
just as well-funded." Wait a minute. Will this "national security force"
also wear brown shirts? Oddly enough, it seems that Obama's campaign realized
that wouldn't fly -- the line was stricken from the transcripts given to the
media, though it is still in the video posted on YouTube.
And tell me why again we want this man as our Commander in Chief? - jb
|
| Obama Just Doesn't get it yet! |
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed." --Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Yesterday, in a narrow 5-4 vote (Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Thomas and
Kennedy), the Supreme Court reaffirmed, in District of Columbia v. Heller,
that the people's inherent right to keep and bear arms is plainly enumerated
in our Constitution. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment ensures an
individual right, that DC could not ban handguns, and that operable guns
may be maintained in the homes of law-abiding DC residents.
In a masterful feat of doubletalk, Barack Hussein Obama, who erroneously
asserts, "The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun
laws isn't borne out by our Constitution," claims the Supreme Court agreed
with his interpretation.
Mind you, this is the same Barack Obama who recently said, "I have never
favored an all-out ban on handguns," even while denying the plain truth
that his signature appears on a questionnaire indicating that he does favor
such a ban; the same Barack Obama who recently said during a 16 April debate
when asked by Charlie Gibson whether the DC gun ban is consistent with the
Constitution, "Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven't listened to the
briefs and looked at all the evidence."
Would Obama make the same argument about local jurisdictions regulating
issues like segregation? Does he suggest, by extension then, that our national
Constitution can be amended by judicial dictates and local ordinances?
I can't help but ponder how future 2A cases would fare if the Obama/Clinton
ticket wins in November and then stacks the courts with judicial
activists who subscribe to their adulterated view of a "Living Constitution."
Michelle Obama says her husband will fight for equality for gays just as he
fought to help working-class families overcome poverty.
The wife of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama spoke Thursday
night in New York City at a fundraising dinner for the Democratic National
Committee's Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council.
She spoke about her husband's record pushing for workplace discrimination
legislation in Illinois when he served in the Legislature there.
Barack Obama has said it should be up to individual states to decide whether
to allow gay marriage. Michelle Obama says he wants equal treatment for any
relationship recognized under state law.
And you still think Obamama is better than McCain? Think again. -JB
|
From our guestbook:
The first document of the founders was written before America was even a united nation.
That first document is the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson, already proven
to be a Deist and not a Christian, wrote this document. In the Declaration God is referred
to as Nature's God, the Creator, Supreme Judge of the World, and divine Providence.
Nowhere in the Declaration is God referred to as Jesus, Jehovah, or any other Judeo-Christian
name. If America was intended to be a Christian nation the Declaration of Independence
would have been filled with Biblical references. But the contrary is true. There is not
one reference in it to the Bible or any Christian character or dogma.
I agree, see what Ronald Regan said about this, he said it well.
Just above that, read what our Constitution actually says about it. - JB
|
"The big difference between Republicans and liberal Democrats is the way
each party views people. Republicans see us as individuals and respect our
God-given human dignity. To liberal Democrats, we're not individuals; we're
members of a herd with all the dignity of a cow or pig dependent on its owner
for daily rations of hay or slop... They submerge
us into pools that define us as members of groups instead of as what we are as
God sees us - as any father sees his children - each being different from one
another, and each child being a separate and distinct individual with his or
her own specific talents and abilities, and all deserving of his love... This
Marxist view of human nature embraces group-think, despises individuality,
and seeks to eliminate all vestiges of the dignity to which every human
being created in the image and likeness of God is entitled. Only the hopes
and aspirations of the groups matter, and they matter solely because they
create dependency on the state - which seeks to supplant God as the source
of all that is good and necessary for survival." ---Michael Reagan
Read: The Democrats still don't get it.
|
And what about Obama? I can just see the Republican's commercial now:
Opening up with the Reverend and his G-D America rant, then going to the announcer
explaining how it was that Oprah quit the Church because she wanted no part of such
attitudes, and Rev. Wright attacked her for it, then maybe a picture of Wright with
Farrakhan and Qaddafi, then maybe Wright with the Obamas on their wedding day, and
closing with something like, "It's not a question of free speech. It's not about
religious freedom. It's about judgment, and whose you trust your future to..."
|
|
If it takes Obama
20 years to notice that his pastor is a traitorous, racist nut-job, it will
probably take him his full term of office to realize that the U.S. has been
invaded and subdued by al-Qaida. Let's just hope President Obama pays closer
attention during national security briefings than he did during 20 years of
the Rev. Wright's church services." ---Ann Coulter
|
As one of our founding fathers once said:
"[D]emocracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy
that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's
life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every
one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination
of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers
of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the
capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few."
-- John Adams (An Essay on Man's Lust for Power, 29 August 1763)
Reference: Original Intent, Barton (338); original The Papers of
John Adams, Taylor, ed., vol. 1 (83)
So, go ahead and vote for a "Democrat", you will get just what John Adams and the
others knew they would be. That is also why we are not, and were never supposed
to be a "democracy"! - John Beaman - Read more...
Still don't believe it? Maybe you need a refresher course: Read this.
|
And what about Obama? I can just see the Republican's commercial now:
Opening up with the Reverend and his G-D America rant, then going to the announcer
explaining how it was that Oprah quit the Church because she wanted no part of such
attitudes, and Rev. Wright attacked her for it, then maybe a picture of Wright with
Farrakhan and Qaddafi, then maybe Wright with the Obamas on their wedding day, and
closing with something like, "It's not a question of free speech.
It's not about religious freedom. It's about judgment, and whose you trust
your future to..."
|
|
If it takes Obama
20 years to notice that his pastor is a traitorous, racist nut-job, it will
probably take him his full term of office to realize that the U.S. has been
invaded and subdued by al-Qaida. Let's just hope President Obama pays closer
attention during national security briefings than he did during 20 years of
the Rev. Wright's church services." ---Ann Coulter
|
ARCHIVES # 1
ARCHIVES # 2
ARCHIVES # 3
ARCHIVES # 4
ARCHIVES # 5
ARCHIVES # 6
HOME PAGE
This website is a not-for-profit effort, and is
totally funded by the author, with a little help
from contributors. If you feel you have
been helped by our information, we would appreciate
any contributions you feel appropriate. Mail to:
John Beaman
The Patriots Page
2300 River Valley Road
Fort Mojave, Arizona [86426]
Or, send it thru PayPal to JRBeaman@w3f.com
and mark it "Donation" in the subject line.
Note: To avoid the plethora of IRS regulations on the editorial
content of "charitable" publications (and targeted audits against
conservative organizations), we have not chosen "charitable" tax
status and contributions are not tax deductible.
|
|
|
|
