redeemedhippiesplace

Archive for January, 2009|Monthly archive page

Obama Zombies sing praises to their god

In Obama Zombies on January 25, 2009 at 2:16 am

More Obama zombies singing their praises and worship to their fake messiah. Singing, “Obama we do need you now.” Wonder when they will start passing out the kool-aid.

Obama Zombies “Trash” The Capitol

In Obama Zombies on January 25, 2009 at 2:10 am

Video that shows just how the Obama zombies trashed the capitol. Where was the responsibility of picking up after youself and putting it in the garbage can? I have a thought; give these people a job of cleaning up their own trash. Wherever they make it!

Wake Up America!

In Warnings to America on January 17, 2009 at 2:08 pm

Wake up America! Must see video.  http://www.usawakeup.org/America_Wake_Up.htm

How to Know You are a Good Liberal

In Things I Agree with in the Political Arena on January 11, 2009 at 2:19 pm

Author unknown

HOW TO KNOW YOU’RE A GOOD LIBERAL
 
1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.
 
2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
 
3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are more of a threat than nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Iran or North Korea . 
 
4. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical changes in the earth’s climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV’s.
 
5.You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being homosexual is natural.
 
6. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.
 
7. You have to believe that a teacher who isn’t qualified to teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach them about sex. 
 
8. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
 
9. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
 
10. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
 
11. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Edison.
 
12. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.
 
13. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn’t worked anywhere it’s been tried is because the right people haven’t been in charge. 
 
14. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens and transvestites should be constitutionally protected but seasonal decorations put up by a city should be illegal.
 
15. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right-wing conspiracy: GOD BLESS AMERICA !

2 Socialists for price of 1?

In Obama, Socialism; Something that Pukes Me on January 10, 2009 at 1:24 pm

Michelle Obama’s ‘give up piece of pie’ remark invokes Marxism

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79977

While Sen. Barack Obama has caught flak for his socialist-sounding remarks about “spreading the wealth around,” his wife’s own Marxist-tinged rhetoric has gone largely unnoticed.

During an April campaign stop in Harrisburg, N.C., Michelle Obama spoke with a group of about 50 working moms who were having a hard time making ends meet, including some who complained about health-care benefits. Obama said the rich would have to start giving up more income to pay for health care for everybody.

“The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more,” Obama said.

Her remark, quoted by the Charlotte Observer, did not make national news. In fact, a search of the Nexis database of media citations turned up a total of just five references to the remark in periodicals, wire services, broadcasts and newspapers, including the Observer.

Mrs. Obama’s pie metaphor did not sit well with many residents of Charlotte.

“Michelle Obama says enacting universal health care will mean ‘someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.’ I find that attitude worrisome. If my neighbor’s possessions are better than mine, am I entitled to take his property so that we’re equally furnished?” asked Brooke S. Dickson of Charlotte. “I shudder at how big a slice of the pie Ms. Obama and her husband have in mind.”

Barack Obama, meanwhile, has called for “major redistributive change.” Critics say both Obamas believe the American economy is a fixed quantity, like a pie, in which the rich get richer at the expense of others, and it’s up to government to redistribute wealth to bring about “fairness” in the system. Economists call such thinking “zero-sum economics,” a central tenet of Marxism, which believes capitalism breeds classism and static economic stations.

Redistributing wealth is “a principle as basic as apple pie,” Sen. Obama told ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson.

However, GDP figures showing dynamic growth in the overall U.S. economy refute the notion of finite wealth. And Federal Reserve income data defy notions of a fixed class system in America.

A recent Treasury Department study examining such data found considerable income mobility of individuals in the U.S. economy from 1996 to 2005, with more than half of taxpayers moving to a different income quintile over the period. In fact, roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom income quintile in 1996 moved up to a higher income group by 2005, while many of the richest fifth slid to lower income groups.

Get “The Audacity of Deceit,” and learn about the looming hostile attack on Judeo-Christian values and freedoms Americans hold dear

Overall, economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the 10-year period.

“If my real income does not fall, how am I hurt when Bill Gates makes another billion dollars?” asked economist Bruce Bartlett, a critic of higher taxes on the rich. “We don’t want to be equally poor.”

Sen. Obama argues that wealth does not “trickle down” when taxes are cut at the top. But his critics say his plan to soak the rich, particularly in a recession, will only result in “trickle-up poverty.”

Unlike Bill Clinton, Obama has not presented himself and his wife as a buy-one-get-one-free proposition. The Clintons were criticized for operating a co-presidency.

However, Michelle Obama has strong views and like her husband is a trained lawyer.

She drew criticism earlier in the year when she said on the stump that, “For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country,” before adding “really proud” later on.

Then she damned business as “the money-making industry” and encouraged young people to go into “the helping industry” like she and her husband did.

Visiting a day-care center in Zanesville, Ohio, the would-be first lady advised the women there not to “go into corporate America.”

“Become teachers,” she counseled. “Work for the community. Be social workers.”

“Those are the careers we need,” she added. “And we’re encouraging our young people to do that. But if you make that choice, as we did, to move out of the moneymaking industry into the helping industry, then your salaries respond.”

Actually, Mrs. Obama made plenty of money in the private sector, or “money-making industry,” as she calls it. She received 7,500 in stock options worth $72,375 last year from Treehouse Foods, whose biggest customer is Wal-Mart. And she earned $51,200 as a Treehouse board director – on top of the more than $300,000 a year she banks as “vice president of community and external affairs” for the University of Chicago Medical Center.

Sen. Obama, meanwhile, has earned millions from his books. The couple donates less than 1 percent of their income to charity.

Conservative Hippie>>>[Amazing to me how the elite can expect and demand that we give up our “piece of the pie” to those who do nothing and when they themselves only give less than 1 percent of their income to charity.]

The Night We Waved Good-Bye to America

In Obama on January 10, 2009 at 1:19 pm

The night we waved goodbye to America… our last best hope on Earth

Article Gotten Here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1084111/PETER-HITCHENS-The-night-waved-goodbye-America–best-hope-Earth.html

Anyone would think we had just elected a hip, skinny and youthful replacement for God, with a plan to modernise Heaven and Hell – or that at the very least John Lennon had come back from the dead.

The swooning frenzy over the choice of Barack Obama as President of the United States must be one of the most absurd waves of self-deception and swirling fantasy ever to sweep through an advanced civilisation. At least Mandela-worship – its nearest equivalent – is focused on a man who actually did something.

I really don’t see how the Obama devotees can ever in future mock the Moonies, the Scientologists or people who claim to have been abducted in flying saucers. This is a cult like the one which grew up around Princess Diana, bereft of reason and hostile to facts.

It already has all the signs of such a thing. The newspapers which recorded Obama’s victory have become valuable relics. You may buy Obama picture books and Obama calendars and if there isn’t yet a children’s picture version of his story, there soon will be.

Proper books, recording his sordid associates, his cowardly voting record, his astonishingly militant commitment to unrestricted abortion and his blundering trip to Africa, are little-read and hard to find.

If you can believe that this undistinguished and conventionally Left-wing machine politician is a sort of secular saviour, then you can believe anything. He plainly doesn’t believe it himself. His cliche-stuffed, PC clunker of an acceptance speech suffered badly from nerves. It was what you would expect from someone who knew he’d promised too much and that from now on the easy bit was over.

He needn’t worry too much. From now on, the rough boys and girls of America’s Democratic Party apparatus, many recycled from Bill Clinton’s stained and crumpled entourage, will crowd round him, to collect the rich spoils of his victory and also tell him what to do, which is what he is used to.

Just look at his sermon by the shores of Lake Michigan. He really did talk about a ‘new dawn’, and a ‘timeless creed’ (which was ‘yes, we can’). He proclaimed that ‘change has come’. He revealed that, despite having edited the Harvard Law Review, he doesn’t know what ‘enormity’ means. He reached depths of oratorical drivel never even plumbed by our own Mr Blair, burbling about putting our hands on the arc of history (or was it the ark of history?) and bending it once more toward the hope of a better day (Don’t try this at home).

I am not making this up. No wonder that awful old hack Jesse Jackson sobbed as he watched. How he must wish he, too, could get away with this sort of stuff.

And it was interesting how the President-elect failed to lift his admiring audience by repeated – but rather hesitant – invocations of the brainless slogan he was forced by his minders to adopt against his will – ‘Yes, we can’. They were supposed to thunder ‘Yes, we can!’ back at him, but they just wouldn’t join in. No wonder. Yes we can what exactly? Go home and keep a close eye on the tax rate, is my advice. He’d have been better off bursting into ‘I’d like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony’ which contains roughly the same message and might have attracted some valuable commercial sponsorship.

Perhaps, being a Chicago crowd, they knew some of the things that 52.5 per cent of America prefers not to know. They know Obama is the obedient servant of one of the most squalid and unshakeable political machines in America. They know that one of his alarmingly close associates, a state-subsidised slum landlord called Tony Rezko, has been convicted on fraud and corruption charges.

They also know the US is just as segregated as it was before Martin Luther King – in schools, streets, neighbourhoods, holidays, even in its TV-watching habits and its choice of fast-food joint. The difference is that it is now done by unspoken agreement rather than by law.

If Mr Obama’s election had threatened any of that, his feel-good white supporters would have scuttled off and voted for John McCain, or practically anyone. But it doesn’t. Mr Obama, thanks mainly to the now-departed grandmother he alternately praised as a saint and denounced as a racial bigot, has the huge advantages of an expensive private education. He did not have to grow up in the badlands of useless schools, shattered families and gangs which are the lot of so many young black men of his generation.

If the nonsensical claims made for this election were true, then every positive discrimination programme aimed at helping black people into jobs they otherwise wouldn’t get should be abandoned forthwith. Nothing of the kind will happen. On the contrary, there will probably be more of them.

And if those who voted for Obama were all proving their anti-racist nobility, that presumably means that those many millions who didn’t vote for him were proving themselves to be hopeless bigots. This is obviously untrue.

I was in Washington DC the night of the election. America’s beautiful capital has a sad secret. It is perhaps the most racially divided city in the world, with 15th Street – which runs due north from the White House – the unofficial frontier between black and white. But, like so much of America, it also now has a new division, and one which is in many ways much more important. I had attended an election-night party in a smart and liberal white area, but was staying the night less than a mile away on the edge of a suburb where Spanish is spoken as much as English, plus a smattering of tongues from such places as Ethiopia, Somalia and Afghanistan.

As I walked, I crossed another of Washington’s secret frontiers. There had been a few white people blowing car horns and shouting, as the result became clear. But among the Mexicans, Salvadorans and the other Third World nationalities, there was something like ecstasy.

They grasped the real significance of this moment. They knew it meant that America had finally switched sides in a global cultural war. Forget the Cold War, or even the Iraq War. The United States, having for the most part a deeply conservative people, had until now just about stood out against many of the mistakes which have ruined so much of the rest of the world.

Suspicious of welfare addiction, feeble justice and high taxes, totally committed to preserving its own national sovereignty, unabashedly Christian in a world part secular and part Muslim, suspicious of the Great Global Warming panic, it was unique.

These strengths had been fading for some time, mainly due to poorly controlled mass immigration and to the march of political correctness. They had also been weakened by the failure of America’s conservative party – the Republicans – to fight on the cultural and moral fronts.

They preferred to posture on the world stage. Scared of confronting Left-wing teachers and sexual revolutionaries at home, they could order soldiers to be brave on their behalf in far-off deserts. And now the US, like Britain before it, has begun the long slow descent into the Third World. How sad. Where now is our last best hope on Earth?