One of the many conservative-type organizations that I 'subscribe' to has just sent me a mailing with two documents in it: an Internal Directive, "providing answers to extremely alarming questions about Barack Obama," and a Formal Interrogatory for the Impeachment Inquiry of Barack Hussein Obama, for delivery to Rep. Bob Goodlatte, Chairman of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee. Included in the covering letter were such comments as "The questions are beyond concerning and point to a deliberate plan to undermine the U.S. Constitution, diminish our standing in the world and compromise the security and safety of every American…After reviewing countless confidential reports and undergoing numerous classified briefings I have come to the conclusion that Barack Obama is deliberately attempting to destroy our nation." To which observation I have two things to say:
a) Well, duh; and
2) I could have told you that without going to half that trouble. And so could have any discerning grassroots American, not privy to 'inside intel' on the matter.
But at least The Issue Of Our Time is being addressed with seriousness. Not with quite the full degree of seriousness with which it needs to be addressed. But getting there.
The Full Monty would include the fact - the very pertinent fact - that this man wasn't eligible for that office - that crucial office, to TPTB and to the operating of the American ship of state - in the first place. (Not to go into that here.) But yes; he is not just a Usurper. He is a Destroyer. Of the American Dream, of free enterprise and essential liberty. To be replaced with the collectivist dream, of a command-and-control economy and society, as part of the totalitarian New World Order planned for the world en toto by what can quite fairly be called Satanists.
This man, this ringer must go to bed snickering himself to sleep at night. Putting a Big One over on Whitey, eh Barry???
I'll sign this group's Formal Interrogatory For the Impeachment Inquiry of BHO, because it is, at least, something, to go on, in this horrendous matter (which involves as well the likes of 9/11, and the Sandy Hook shady affair, and the Boston Marathon sinister business; all of it enacted as tools in order to pry guns/weapons of self-defense from the hands of American patriots, who aren't going to go into the dark night planned for them, and this nation, without a fight).1 But it didn't mention, in its 20 questions to be addressed by such an Inquiry, one that it should have, and which I penned in at the end. The Interrogatory closed with the statement above the space for our signing: "I am asking you to immediately initiate an Impeachment Inquiry with this Interrogatory as a basis for questioning." I added: "…including NSA unconstitutional overreach, and drones-over-America surveillance.'" As part of the 'total surveillance state' instruments that TPTB are engaged in putting in place, to keep us in place.2
To which I for one do not subscribe.
"Please respond with urgency, Mr. Stanfield," the covering letter concludes.
I do. I do. Oh, how I do.
With a question:
Where have you been???
---
footnotes:
1 As I said just today as well, in fact, in reply to Rand Paul, who sent me a letter in support of the National Association for Gun Rights:
"Once guns - the means of self-defense, of person, family and property - have been taken out of the hands of The People, they become no longer The People. But the cattle. Chattel. Property of the state. To be done with, as the state sees fit.
"Rein these, our erstwhile Masters in, Rand. Give them no inch, or they will take a mile.
"As Churchill said in another, though similar, context: 'We will never give in. Never. Never. Never.'" (signed)
2 And 'smart' meters. And EMFs. And vaccines with disgusting, even heinous stuff embedded in them, to hasten our demise. And. And. And…
--
…and a late entry into the The Way We're Headed category:
fromteaparty.org: 'Big chill: Feds want to scour Net, media for 'hate speech' - April 29 (orig. posted at Markey.Senate.Gov)
..
Stan Stanfield · Top Commenter · Stanford University (April 29)
Just what is the working definition of 'hate speech' and what precisely is the law regarding this threat to the fundamental right to free speech in this country?
This same ogre raised its head in Australia back in the '90s when I was living there, and TPTB were trying to get the law ultimately to read that anything that merely "offended" someone was not to be allowed by the Nanny State. You have to draw a very tight line on this sort of thing, otherwise it's just a foot in the door for more, and more, and more, until you - we - are totally under the thumb of the almighty state.
No comments:
Post a Comment