"WHAT'S HAPPENED TO YOU AMERICANS?"

Obama, the radical boy revolutionary, got what he deserved from his Chinese elders: no raise in allowance, until he shows them the books. The question is do we the people deserve humiliation by association?  Unfortunately, yes.

Obama's inept representation of the office of the presidency has been an embarressment. I would laugh if it were not so tragic.  By repeatedly bowing to others, who are supposed to be equals in status, Obama appears scripted and boyish, rather than manly, powerful and dignified.

 

 

Cry America: the man who represents you by his machinations appears as a serf before his one-world, feudal master(s).  It is a powerful image: A son of Africa delivers a nation of unknowing serfs (slaves) to his fellow-travelers.

Cry America: Obama and all the other leftist-Soros-brainwashed discards are tearing apart and bringing to shame everyone of us in front of their red-communist allies.  Cry:  for we have brought this onto ourselves by allowing God's memory to dim. Consequently, we have Marxists governing, "We the people."

To bring the point home, I am submitting two presentations.  One is simplistically grotesque in its stupidity.  The other is profound in its wisdom born of pain. Here is a test: which is which?

The question was asked from afar: What happened to you Americans? Simply put, we began to think of life here as heaven on earth and, the more we venerated our creation, we forgot our Creator. Bishop Sheen, shown elsewhere on this blog, would agree.

Knowing what you do today, would you still have voted for Obama? I would like your comments. If you did or didn't vote for him, answer the world's question: what happened to you Americans?


Clotilde Frazier

What is Communism?

View more presentations from DHUMPHREYS.

Pt 3 BURNED NEWSPAPER ARTICLE THAT NEVER WAS:A TRUE STORY Copyright 2009

Dear MGMers,

The publication of the Sporadic was not the end but the beginning of a conflict that would continue for  awhile.

As she entered her classroom, the day her article was to appear in the campus paper, SL was told that a bonfire had been held. The fuel? The Sporadic.  The right to speak was terminated. Few would learn about revolutionaries on campus. The bearer of the bad news that day was Mr. Swibach, her poly-sci instructor and the campus's SDS sponsor, who entertained every malcontent in the state.

Swibach took malignant delight in reporting the bonfire, enough to suggest that he played a role in it. A narcisisstic superiority veiled his countenance as arrogance found its way into a  smirk. Would she respond? shake? whimper? lose control? He was attempting to find a weak spot into which he could more deeply thrust malevolent barbs. 

If he couldn't make her bleed, he could humiliate the one person whose voice was raised against him. She remained silent, thinking it curious that the long-haired-hippies in the room laughed at Swibach's remarks, just as they did when the Latin revolutionary spoke.  SL noticed that they were enjoying the workover.  "Cowards," she thought.

"I'ts too bad no one got to read your article.  It was pretty good," Swibach was still looking for an opportuntiy to escalate his state of euphoria.  His SDS malfactors laughed on cue. SL turned in her seat, leaned forward and took a long look at her tormentors.  Her daughters used to say that look could terrify. "You think I lost something today. But it was you that lost your right to free speech.  I exercised mine."  Bodies moved uncomfortably in their seats as quiet overtook Swibach and his useful "worms" as he later called them. She had delivered a kind of coup d' e'tat - words failed them.

Suddenly a voice to her right arose.  "Mr. Swibach, if she hadn't been here I would have bought you, but I don't now."  Swibach had won a battle. He obviously played an advisory role in overseeing the destruction  of one issue of the college newspaper, but SL's voice was joined with another and maybe another.  She would never know, but that wasn't the point.  Evil does exist when good men (and women)  do nothing.  SL was determined to do all she could to counter deception.

SL would never did see her special article  published for all to read on campus that year. A few copies of the newspaper were  saved, however.  SDS lackies had broken into the journalism office and took everything after painting epithets on the office door. As if by fate's design, the paper's sponsor, Mr. Weldon, had placed extra copies in his car.  SL would get two of them as a momento of tragic historical touch-point.

One might think that SL would feel the need for vengeance. Not so. She had been formed in the ideals of the Franciscans and hateful thoughts were out.  Instead, revenge was placed in some far off place meant to house deformities temptations.

SL was a realist; she knew her nemesis was a predator and regarded him as a mentally ill product of the drug culture. She didn't hate him, but she would by the grace of God push back or outsmart whenever possible.

SL continued to learn, as she had when she worked in the early days of the civil rights movement, that freedom required vigilance at home and abroad. Soon, she learned that there were more prices to be paid for exercising hers and that the process would be life-long.


Having previouly worked in the Democrat Party, she knew how easily people are corrupted by power, and she was determined not to sacrifice soul to Ego and power. The resistance between the radical Swibach and herself was both temporal and spiritual. She wondered if he realized that.

To be continued.

DENNIS PRAGER MISLEADS

NEXT

       

       RADIO HOST TALKS LISTENERS INTO A FAIRNESS TRAP AS CONDITIONED,       

       CHILDREN'S ARMIES ARE BORN AGAIN

Note: this post was made earlier and was lost and found. Here it is again.

Dear Mr. Prager:

It is important to think for ourselves. Tuesday, you said it was unfair to judge President Obama before listening to his address (words) to the children of the U.S. You called for fairness, implying that your contemporaries were unfair because they wanted to stop a revolutionary President from a take-over of the public school system. Fairness: is that akin to tolerance?

Bishop Sheehan once said that "Americans have grown so tolerant that they tolerate evil." One never knows with you. Your pressure-cooked insistence that we Americans should stupidly allow our Marxist-loving president to address the Nation's ill-informed students is troublesome and presents me with a get-in-your-face moment. Results loving, I am a: "Don't talk of love - show me," person.

Your defense of President Obama was more in keeping with a high school basketball coach and shows a significant insensitivity or indifference to our dangerous times. It would be understandable if you were ignorant, however, you are informed, maybe a little touched, but smartly so. 

Obama's  presentation before the Nation's (captive) students and their secular handlers, was intended to be an enlistment, brainwashing session. How do I know this?  I follow the facts and listen carefully to our President, especially since I see him as an adversary.

Just what do you want to hear from his lips?  He has demonstrated that he is in the process of taking over the country.  Again, how do I know this? He said he would, the signs are there, and I can still add. 

What do you think he meant when he said he would T-R-A-N-S-F-O-R-M the country?  What do you think he meant when he said he wanted to create a civilian army?  Are we to assume that the only "fair" thing to do is allow him to succeed? I love my children and grandchildren. I don't want them to have to face down paid bullies who will lead us to History's garbage bin.

 I had posted  a comparison picture of the Obama Brigades, hoping to cause you to think critically about this  President's Master Plan, and the darn thing disappeared.  I was ready to give up, but I remembered our troops were being blown-up like sitting ducks and said, "Self, you cannot be wimpy when they are dying and suffering."   

Speaking of the military: they have their lives before them, as do the children in our schools. I have a question: if revolutionary personalities frequently use children as future cannon fodder, why would you want to be "fair" and give a radical revolutionary like, President Obama, a national forum from which he can propagate  lies through folksy words?  Eveyone knows he is just a down-home-folks kind of nice guy. Right? If you believe that, or want to, you're not my kind of talk-show host.

It pains me to think about the useful who are making it possible for Obama to seed his lies, like a malevolent shade of Johnny Appleseed.  Youth are easy pickings and sometimes rapidly used up. Young armies, of the kind President Obama disclosed he desires, should be told that their desirability lies in the fact that they are easily formed, controlled and exterminated.

You are something of a Historian, Mr. Prager.  You know that  "Final Solutions" are created to deal with undesirables and used-up idiotic followers, all of whom find permanence in mass graves, firing squads, beheadings etc. Do you think that totalitarian leaning leaders know what "fair" is? Is this what you want for our youth?  Of course not; you are, after all, a "fair" man.  How do I know?  You say so, over and over again, and I am a good listener.

 It is down-right perplexing to me that you ignored the expose` prior to the day the President addressed the children.  You know, the one that disclosed el Presidente Obama had lesson plans aka (Core Curriculum) ready to impose on teachers and the kids, just like Fidel Castro's youthful Pioneers aka (future bullies). This old lady's blood pressure must have gone up by ten as you prattled on about being "fair."

I am not telling you anything that you do not know;therefore, it would have been appropriate if you have used the airwaves to shout out a warning, telling parents to empty the schools. Praise for a radical  in a white shirt, who smoothly propagates a false, benign image of  himself, is a little like eating "husks with the swine."

In light of all the fuss, what did Obama say to the students that was so important? Bottom-line: Work hard! You all have talent! The nation needs you! Who could find fault with that? Precisely the point! Who could find fault with those words? But then there were a few troublesome parts about that talk.

 Obama, the narcissist, must always embellish.  I wish he and his wife, Michele, would quit beating us over the head with attempts to prove he is one of us, as he continously campaigns on our dollar. Obama, one of the fallen: (hint at drug use), deserted son, single mother, food stamps, misspent youth, fallen youth, hard times, yawn, again created a false image of poverty, not to be construed with periods of stress that are encountered by most.

Standing before them resurrected, straight and upper-class, what youth would believe Obama to be a Marxist with designs on their souls? It isn't what the President said that was so threatening; it is what he didn't say that raises a cautionary flag. He has a Marxist history and a present (those rascal, nihilist, communist,czars), that should cause us to be alert 24/7.

Frankly, you are a disappointment, Mr. Prager. During your Tuesday talk show, a male caller unsuccessfully tried to pull you back from chasing windmills and indulging in self-reflections. The caller pointed out that children lack the knowledge to discern the difference between a man and his words. Well said (applaud, applaud).

You were morally undone by that comment but you seemed indifferent and inclined to stick to your verbal guns. By the way, I understand that there were brave picketers at the school where Obama spoke.  Their signs reportedly read: "Hands off our Children.   Right on fellow Americans.!  Don't eat husks with the swine, Mr. Prager, it is not good for soul or body.  

Sincerely,

A senior citizen and Nana
Self quiz Question: is the Obama Icon "merely advertising?" http://www.hellocuba.ca/castro_education.php