The Real Truth About the Obama's....from Another Black Man....

BEST SUMMATION OF BARACK AND MICHELLE EVER!

Mychal Massie is a respected writer and talk show host in Los Angeles.

The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn't like the Obama's? Specifically I was asked: "I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama's? It seems personal, not policy related. You even dissed (disrespect) their Christmas family picture."

The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation. I've made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don't like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.

I don't hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same, Michelle Obama's raw contempt for white America is transpicuous. I don't like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress.

I expect, no I demand respect, for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people.

  The Reagan's made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish. Obama's arrogance by appointing 32 leftist czars and constantly bypassing congress is impeachable. Eric Holder is probably the MOST incompetent and arrogant DOJ head to ever hold the job. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?

Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama's have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry, and they display an animus for civility.

I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to not being able to be proud of America. I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world.

Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same. I have a saying, that "the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide." No president in history has spent millions of dollars to keep his records and his past sealed.

And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother's death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father's military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nausea. He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today.

He opposed rulings that protected women and children that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel. His wife treats being the First Lady as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement - as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.

I don't like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.

Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin; it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their constantly playing the race card.

It is my intention to do all within my ability to ensure their reign is one term. I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them, as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people, as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.

As I wrote in a syndicated column titled, "Nero In The White House" - "Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood...

Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation, and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement - while America's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed."

The TRUTH About Gun Sales and Background Checks..And As Expected Obama Distorted the Truth AGAIN!

Wouldn't it be great to have a President that actually told the truth instead of distorting every fact to agree with his bias....

Gun Sales and Background Checks: Obama’s Bogus 40 Percent Stat

By John Fund January 17, 2013 10:01 A.M.

Of all the gun-control measures touted by President Obama on Wednesday, the one that got top billing was a dramatic tightening of background checks on gun purchasers. Obama himself said the need was urgent because “40 percent of all gun purchases are conducted without a background check.” But before we make the most sweeping changes in federal firearms law since the 1960s, shouldn’t we at least examine the validity of that figure? It’s about as dubious as they come.

The administration is focusing on background checks in an attempt to drive a wedge between staunch anti-gun-control absolutists such as the National Rifle Association and the average gun owner. Background checks are easily the most popular proposal out there. A new poll by the Pew Research Center shows the public closely divided on banning “assault weapons,” but 85 percent of those surveyed supported universal background checks. “If you look at the combination of likelihood of passage and effectiveness of curbing gun crime, universal background checks is at the sweet spot,” New York senator Chuck Schumer told reporters this week.

Most advocates of gun control believe the “loopholes” in federal law are the rule and not the exception when it comes to gun purchases. A 2011 study by the office of New York mayor Michael Bloomberg claimed that “40 percent of guns are sold through private sellers.” His study went on to says “these sales — which take place in many venues, including gun shows and, increasingly, on the internet . . . fuel the black market for illegal guns.”

Current federal law requires anyone who is “engaged in the business” of selling guns to get a license and have any sales go through law-enforcement background checks — whether those sales occur in a shop or in a gun show. If a gun is sold over the Internet, a background check is mandatory. As Breitbart News reported: “If a resident of Denver bought a gun from a store in Tampa, the (licensee) in Tampa would send the gun to (a licensee) in Denver. Once it arrived, the buyer would pay a fee for shipping, taxes on the gun, as well as any mark-up for services. He would also have to submit to a back-ground check just as if he had bought the gun off a shelf in Denver.” In all cases, sales are denied if the person attempting to buy a gun has a felony conviction or, in many cases, a misdemeanor conviction, or if he has a history of mental illness.

The guns that Obama, Bloomberg, and others claim escape background checks are those sold or transferred between private parties. But can that number really be 40 percent?

The dubious statistic of guns that avoided background checks — which is actually 36 percent — comes from a small 251-person survey on gun sales two decades ago, very early in the Clinton administration. Most of the survey covered sales before the Brady Act instituted mandatory federal background checks in early 1994.

If that alone didn’t make the number invalid, the federal survey simply asked buyers if they thought they were buying from a licensed firearms dealer. While all Federal Firearm Licensees do background checks, only those perceived as being FFLs were counted. Yet, there is much evidence that survey respondents who went to the smallest FFLs, especially the “kitchen table” types, had no idea that the dealer was actually “licensed.” Many buyers seemed to think that only “brick and mortar” stores were licensed dealers, and so the survey underestimating the number of sales covered by the checks.

Another reason for the high number is that it includes guns transferred as inheritances or as gifts from family members. Even President Obama’s background proposal excludes almost all of those transfers.

If you look at guns that were bought, traded, borrowed, rented, issued as a requirement of the job, or won through raffles, 85 percent went through Federal Firearm Licensees and would have been subject to a background check. Only 15 percent would have been transferred without a background check.

Economist John Lott, the author of several landmark studies on the real-world impact of gun control, has concluded that if you take out transfers of guns either between FFLs or between family members, the remaining number of transfers falls to about 10 percent. Those were the numbers from two decades ago. “We don’t know the precise number today, but it is hard to believe that it is above single digits,” he told me.

Lott says that before any universal background system is passed, flaws in the current system should be fixed. If they aren’t they could lead to “unforeseen” tragedies that would outweigh the benefits of any expanded background-check system.

Lott notes that 8 percent of background checks are initially denied, with almost all of the delays until they are finally approved taking three days or longer. When the reviews were finally finished, 94 percent of “initial delays” were dropped because they were cases of mistaken identity.

Delays are undoubtedly just an inconvenience for most people buying guns. But for a few, such as those in imminent fear of a stalker or others who suddenly need a gun for self-defense, universal-background-check laws could prevent them from defending themselves against assailants.

Lott says his research suggests that expanding background checks “might actually contribute to a slight net increase in violent crime, particularly rapes.” Before we expand background checks he suggests we focus on the real-world statistics, not Obama’s “magical” number, and recognize that criminals are seldom burdened by background checks because they buy weapons on the black market. As for gun bans, they do little to combat crime. When guns were banned in Washington, D.C., or Chicago, the rate of violent crime went up. Even in island nations such as Great Britain, Ireland, and Jamaica, murder rates went up after gun bans were put in place.

And as for background checks, even the most vigorously policed would have done nothing to stop the killers at Newtown or the theater in Aurora, Colo. Adam Lanza stole his guns from his mother’s storage locker after murdering her, and Joseph Holmes’ problems with mental illness were not reported to authorities by his psychologist.

Lott says that it may well be that expanded background checks are reasonable, but only if flaws and delays with the current system are addressed and a cost/benefit analysis is conducted. As he says “passing gun-control laws may make people feel better, but they can actually prevent people from defending themselves.”

A Good Analysis of Obama's Latest Power Grab and another Miss.....

January 16, 2013 3:15 P.M. By The Editors Of National Review

Gun-Control Theater

President Obama announced his plans for gun control just before noon today. He put 23 executive actions in place immediately following his speech, and called on Congress to take additional measures. There are useful small steps in the president’s agenda, but his boldest proposals are misguided — and unlikely to pass the Republican House. The announcement — during which Obama was accompanied on stage by four children, and which he frequently punctuated with emotional appeals — was primarily an act of political theater.

Many of the actions the president has taken or proposed are unremarkable. For instance, few would object to his appointing a director for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; requiring federal agencies to supply relevant information to the background-check system; or making efforts to educate mental-health professionals about their options for reporting threats of violence. Congress should indeed stiffen penalties on straw purchasers, those who buy guns from dealers and then pass them off to people who are not allowed to have them. It is not the federal government’s role to fund local schools’ safety efforts or provide money for hiring police, but such efforts are hardly out of the ordinary or a serious threat to liberty.

The president overstepped his bounds, however, in directing the Centers for Disease Control to study gun control. Congress has taken steps to deny the CDC funds for this purpose — the unfortunately imprecise statutory language is that the CDC may not “advocate or promote gun control” — primarily because the agency has proven itself unable to address this topic in an unbiased fashion. If the president wants to spend federal dollars on these studies, he should go through Congress. Anyway, the administration does not seem interested in learning from the research we already have. Serious research reviews by the National Academy of Sciences and the CDC itself have failed to find evidence that gun control reduces crime — despite the massive amount of work that has been done. (And in case anyone in the administration is unclear on this point, gun ownership is not a disease.)

President Obama also called for restoring the assault-weapons ban and capping magazine size at ten rounds. As we have explained previously, these measures are not useful if the goal is to reduce crime: President Obama can call assault rifles “weapons designed for the theater of war” all he wants, but in fact they are semiautomatic guns, functionally indistinguishable from hunting rifles. High-capacity magazines, meanwhile, are of dubious benefit to someone intent on harming innocents: They require less frequent reloading, but are more likely to jam, and at any rate changing magazines is not difficult even for the untrained.

In addition, the president backed mandatory background checks on gun sales between private individuals; under current law, checks are required only for sales conducted through licensed dealers. In theory, a comprehensive background-check system could be helpful — but in practice, any attempt to implement such a system would probably be cumbersome and unworkable, and the president did not offer specifics. It would be wrong to make gun sales difficult and expensive, or to spend massive amounts of money on a project with dubious benefits.

All in all, the president’s agenda seems better designed for the polls than for public safety. Gun control means hitting what you aim for, goes the slogan, and Obama has picked his target carefully.

To Say Obama is a Hypocrite is an Understatement...the NRA is absolutely Correct!

Obama is Overstepping His Bounds and His Constitutional Authority

IF Obama does overstep his bounds today with gun control it IS time stand up and start the process of impeachment...

People Will Be Pissed At Obama Once they See Their Paychecks Go Down

Happy New Year...Obama WILL Take Us Down!

The object of the game is to destroy American capitalism by having the government take over everything! Want to play? No??? Too bad, you're already playing... And by the way….. You're not winning!!!!