Galt's Gulch

Nothing in government happens by accident

Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 1 month ago to Government
23 comments | Share | Flag

If this is true, there are a whole lot of conspirators that need to be thrown out.
SOURCE URL: http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/03/obama-was-hand-picked-not-a-natural-born-citizen-congress-knew-it-protected-him/

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • Posted by ewv 10 years, 1 month ago
    Of course nothing happens by accident in Washington. It is constant power grabbing, wheeling and dealing, and pressure group politics. That does not validate the bizarre, ongoing birther conspiracy theory. Obama was not "hand-picked" by anyone with the power to bypass the usual political processes and he was not born in Kenya. He was supported by the usual factions for what he was ideologically and strategically as the candidate they wanted.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 10 years, 1 month ago
    Have you ever looked at something, or been told about something that you knew was not as presented? That there was something wrong with it but you couldn't prove it? Or didn't have the resources to prove it. That's how I felt when first hearing of, and then being presented with, BHO. I am sure that he is not who and what he is. He is no more real than a shadow, and puppet masters who project the shadow have succeeded like no one before in American history. So -- call me a conspiracy theory buff. I am in this sense and you can shut your trap O'Reilly.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by wiggys 10 years, 1 month ago
    our government is an ongoing accident. it is not an accident waiting to happen, but an accident in process. it is as corrupt as any government is in every other country in the world.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by johnpe1 10 years, 1 month ago
      well, the stuff which the govt is doing on purpose
      is happening, by accident, in most of the voters'
      estimations. . they intended different when they voted! -- j

      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 10 years, 1 month ago
    I am very tired of our current government. Its not going to change anytime soon, and in fact is getting worse by the day. There are just so many uneducated people who dont understand what made our once-great country great. I dont listen to anything the government says anymore cause its all a smokescreen for hidden agendas
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by eilinel 10 years, 1 month ago
    Not to blow a good conspiracy theory, but I'm thinking these resolutions were also during the time when Ah-nold was being touted as a Presidential possible.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 1 month ago
      That's very possible as well, but Arnold was shouted down by the Republicans as soon as he was proffered.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by SaltyDog 10 years, 1 month ago
        He should have been shouted down. He himself described his political philosophy as being "fiscally conservative and socially liberal".

        I have no idea how that's even possible...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 10 years, 1 month ago
          Isn't fiscally conservative and socially liberal pretty much the definition of liberatarian?

          Fiscally conservative because you don't want the government spending money it doesn't have and controlling the marketplace. Socially liberal because you don't think it's the governments business to decide how people should run their lives.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by SaltyDog 10 years, 1 month ago
            I don't really think so, William. A 'social liberal' seeks social justice, and sees a place for government to be active in fields like education, healthcare, poverty, etc. And the California variety is decidedly further left.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              -
            • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 10 years, 1 month ago
              There are a lot of different flavors of "social liberal". The libertarian version is that the government avoids regulating personal behavior, such as sexual orientation, personal drug use, how much soda you can drink etc. The liberal version includes government attempts to regulate people's lives to achieve specific goals.

              I'm referring to the libertarian version.

              One of the problems is that, as George Orwell pointed out in '1984', liberals have a pattern of redefining words so that they control the debate by controlling the meaning of words (NewSpeak)
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ jdg 10 years ago
              That I don't buy. A "social liberal" is someone who wants personal freedom. Which has nothing at all to do with the evil system of anti-thought known as "social justice." "Social justice" is all about locking in, permanently, the unearned privileges of official "victim" groups such as blacks, so that they can behave as badly as they like without ever having to answer for it.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 1 month ago
          It's the definition of a libertarian as far as I know.

          I think the real difference is in who is their deity:
          Conservatives believe in the traditional notion of the Judeo-Christian God and He sets the rules (rights stems from God).
          Libertarians deny the existence of God (natural rights, but no deity).
          Liberals believe themselves to be God and that they get to set the rules (rights stem from government).
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by ewv 10 years, 1 month ago
            That does not characterize the various terms.

            _Religious_ conservatives keep pushing their religion in politics. Not all conservatives do that.

            Libertarianism is likewise a political term. Some libertarians, like Ron Paul, do push religious proscriptions like anti-abortion in the name of a very confused religious notion of the rights of the individual.

            Some liberals are religious and some not. Being an authoritarian does not mean believing that oneself is a god, which is a religious, not a political, notion.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 1 month ago
              I have heard some who like to say that Libertarian refers to the political party while libertarian is a mindset. It works for me. And just like with conservatives and liberals there is a huge ideological spectrum over which each is spread and likely some overlap between them. You are absolutely correct in pointing out that no classification scheme for people is going to be definitive!

              "Being an authoritarian does not mean believing that oneself is a god, which is a religious, not a political, notion."

              God is a term which denotes to "religious" people an ultimate lawgiver. It is a title as much as it is to the religious a reference to any specific being. When someone ascribes to themselves the role of being the ultimate lawgiver, they are setting themselves up as a god in title, even though they may choose to use the title "king", "dictator", etc. instead. The ancient Egyptians had it right in their use of the word "pharoah" which to them denoted both a king and a "god". There is no difference whatsoever in their purpose or station. And let's look at the word "authoritarian". Is it not one who purports to be the single author or creator of law?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 10 years ago
    This makes the whole immigration scenario a sham. It shames immigrants who came here at the beginning of the 20th century to make new lives for themselves and have children born in the USA. So, they could achieve their dreams. This isn't what we have now! We have an un-naturalized Pres with an un-constitutional government. Then we have Ms. Clinton who is an accessory to murder wanting to be coronated Queen President or someone is is not even a citizen becoming president who will be managed by another country. Which looks like what we have already.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ibecame 10 years, 1 month ago
    This is part of the fifty shades of BO-Gray. In reading the article, I am not sure they would have gone to that much trouble and effort just to shoe-in one candidate. Its like the birth certificate issue that created such a distraction. They depended on a lack of intelligence and overwhelming apathy to push past that issue along with a good media campaign. Eventually they made it socially unacceptable for anyone to question the validity of the BC when anyone who had taken Typing in High School up through the mid 80's could clearly see (you didn't need to be an expert) that the professed "Genuine Article" of the BC was printed with a Typewriter font on a Laser Printer (the first Laser Printer was manufactured in 1976) not a Typewriter. The point here is that no one notable was calling them out on this except perhaps Donald Trump and Sheriff Joe in Arizona. This was blatantly obvious, but the average person went along with the whatever the media presented without question. I suspect the politicians know this.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo