Those red colons really scream, “Patriotism!” Don’t you agree?
Those red colons really scream, “Patriotism!” Don’t you agree?
…It is short but to the point.
An associate came by today. His brother works in Belgium for the Pentagon in a high ranking position. He told my associate that, “if you do not get out of America by July 1st, YOU WILL NEVER GET OUT.”
[Email text ct’d]
What does this all mean? What is this Pentagon source alluding to, that he dare not say openly? Simple. Let me translate his hidden message for you.
BRUSSELS, BELGIUM is the home of NATO headquarters. It is also the headquarters for the EU.
NATO TROOPS will be heavily involved in patrolling the streets of America when we finally come under MARTIAL LAW.
They have long been secretly preparing FOREIGN UN/NATO TROOPS for the hour of martial law NWO takeover in America.
I have reported on this extensively throughout the years, even interviewing German troops in America who admitted they too would be doing this also in America in my previous reports.
The UN/NATO FOREIGN TROOPS will be involved in GUN CONFISCATION and arresting and firing upon on uncooperative Americans, among other duties.
Therefore they have been informed of WHEN MARTIAL LAW WILL BE TRIGGERED IN AMERICA AND WHEN THEY WILL BE USED TO ENFORCE IT NATIONWIDE.
Two FBI officers warned a friend of mine, Barbara, that WHEN MARTIAL LAW IS DECLARED AND MANIFESTED FULL FORCE, THE AIRPORTS WILL BE SEIZED AND EVERYONE WILL BE TRAPPED LIKE RATS IN A CAGE. NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN US BORDERS WILL BE SEALED to keep panicking Americans from fleeing into either country under martial law.
I therefore urge my readers to take this warning seriously, and watch the time period around July 1st, 2012, and take precautions.”
By George! If brother-in-laws of associates of devout New England Christians are in the know, we really ought to take heed. This Barbara sounds reliable, too, what with her tea-and-crumpets catch-up sesh with the Feds and all.
PS. You can read the full text of Obama’s Executive Order on National Defense Resources Preparedness here.
Finally! Some hardened evidence that President Obama is unfit to run a country.
Again with the exclamation points, eh? The rest of the sentence got stiffed in the punctuation department, but by golly, that is one strong sentiment!
But I haven’t had my second cup of coffee yet…
Wouldn’t wanna cross paths in a darkened alley with this guy.
Welp. Guess that’s my cue to amp up my SPAM settings.
Obama: The Affirmative Action President
By Matt Patterson (columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner)
“Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world’s largest economy, direct the world’s most powerful military, execute the world’s most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Obama’s pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a “community organizer”; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote “present”); and finally an unaccomplished single term in United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as legislator.
And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama’s “spiritual mentor”; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama’s colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal:
To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.
Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass — held to a lower standard — because of the color of his skin.Podhoretz continues:
And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) “non-threatening,” all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon — affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don’t care if these minority students fail; liberals aren’t around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin — that’s affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn’t racism, then nothing is. And that is what America did to Obama.
True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks?
In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama’s oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people — conservatives included — ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that’s when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth — it’s all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.
And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.
But hey, at least we got to feel good about ourselves for a little while. And really, isn’t that all that matters these days?
As you can see, the email cites no link to an original story source. Baffled by the lack of essential information, I dug deeper.
After a quick search, I located the original piece - an editorial by Matt Patterson originally posted on the American Thinker. I could find no such “article” on the Washington Post website.
Snopes.com gives the full scoop:
The article itself doesn’t burn my biscuits. Hell, I’m all for free speech. Misquoting sources, on the other hand? Inexcusable. The reckless circulation of propaganda is OK by me so long as sources are cited properly. Give credit where credit is due, folks.