Obama Secretly Destroying the Republic

In a previous post I talked about Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus. They lived during the Roman Empire and were brothers and part of the Sempronii. As civil leaders they helped destroy the Roman Republic while allegedly attempting to better the country. I found another piece of evidence that suggested our President, Barack Obama is doing the same thing. This is my opinion and connecting the dots.

"President Obama, reversing a long-standing ban on most offshore drilling, unveiled a plan Wednesday [03-30-2011] to allow oil drilling off the Eastern seaboard and potentially the western coast of Florida." [S] On the outside this sounds pretty good and something that we need to do to stop our dependence on foreign oil. But what aren't they telling you?

• These new areas have never been explored before and may not even contain oil.
• Reversing the bad in one step. The next step would granting the leases and permits to start oil exploration in these areas.
• In order to get these permits almost takes an act of God thanks to new regulation (Cass Sunstein) with last year's Gulf oil disaster.
• In reality, it could take years, even decades before we see any real benefit from lifting this ban.

Don't get me wrong, I am totally for new exploration. It is something I believe this country needs to do in the long-term to stop that dependence on foreign oil. We also need to open up drilling on our lands as well, just not in the oceans.

But what about the Gulf of Mexico? The moratorium is still in place. Meaning that the oil rigs that were drilling there aren't and haven't been for months and won't for who knows how long! How about we reopen the Gulf of Mexico and start extracting the oil where we already know where it is! At the same time opening up new areas of exploration. But apparently it's too dangereous.

And then there's Brazil. President Obama recently visited Brazil and granted the permits and licenses for a Brazilian oil company to drill in the Gulf of Mexico! What!? An article on Investor.com writes, "Obama wants to develop Brazilian offshore oil to help the Brazilian economy create jobs for Brazilian workers while Americans are left unemployed in the face of skyrocketing energy prices by an administration that despises fossil fuels as a threat to the environment and wants to increase our dependency on foreign oil." In addition to these permits, our government is also loaning them $2 billion of our tax dollars to help with their effort! President Obama explains: "We want to help you with the technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely. And when you're ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers." [S] So he's giving them money and permits to get the oil that we will then buy from them. Hmmmm, uh, how about we use that $2 billion for our U.S. companines, put people back to work, drill for the oil ourselves, and then we won't have to buy it! It just doesn't add up.

So he's doing stuff that on the outside looks like he's doing it to better the country, but it's actually helping to destroy our own economy and the Republic. I believe this is Obama's true intentions and has been wanting it for a very long time...even before he was President.

Obama to SEIU: Your Agenda Has Been My Agenda

If you haven't read my last post, Economic Terrorism, please do so now. It talks about Steven Learner - who is "considered one of the smartest organizers, if not the smartest organizer, working in the labor movement"[S] and supposed former SEIU member/leader. While employed with SEIU he spent millions of SEIU's dollars to bring about the plan as described in my previous post.

Now watch the clip below where Obama passionately tells SEIU members that "your agenda has been my agenda..."



Is it too far of a stretch to think that the White House knows about Steven Learner and his plans? He, Learner, has visited the White House at least four times. It is little stuff like this that connects the dots for me that make me believe that Obama is like the Sempronii Brothers who - as civil leaders - helped destroy the Roman Republic [and now America's Republic?] while allegedly attempting to better the country.

By the way, SEIU spent over $60 million dollars to help get Barack Obama elected as President of the United States. Don't you think they are expecting a return on their investment? Read about that here.

Economic Terrorism

Obama's Brazilian Tour

I saw and read an interesting news article on The Blaze titled "Between Soccer Games in Rio, Obama Urges Arab Countries to Follow Brazil's Democratic Lead" and my first thought was Brazil's Democratic Lead? Wow! It wasn't too long ago when the nations and countries of the world were looking to America's lead.

That's another thing that bugs me...our country is not a Democracy, it's a Republic! Don't know the difference? Look it up or read the book The 5,000 Year Leap.

A couple of paragraphs in the news article got my attention and gave me a puzzled look, and I think my head exploded. I quote:

"...Brazil – a country that shows that a dictatorship can become a thriving democracy. Brazil – a country that shows democracy delivers both freedom and opportunity to its people. Brazil – a country that shows how a call for change that starts in the streets can transform a city, a country, and the world.”

"Brazil was ruled by a military dictatorship from 1964-85, a regime that was eased from power not by a sharp, violent revolution, but through a long, massive popular movement of peaceful protest and strikes led in large part by labor unions and dissident political groups. New President Dilma Rousseff, the nation’s first female leader, who took power in January, was a key member of a Marxist militant group that battled against the dictatorship."

Stop. Go back and read those two paragraphs again. Obama is praising Brazil and how change started in the streets and can transform. The leader in power in Brazil was a key member of a Marxist militant group that battled against the dictatorship isn't much better than before. Probably worse. Coo-coo.

You got to read the entire article.

The Sempronii

I'm reading this fantastic book titled Celebrate Liberty! that's full of famous patriotic speeches and sermons that was compiled with historical annotations by David Barton and came across a reference to the "Sempronii."

The reference comes from an Oration given on July 4, 1796 in Boston by John Lathrop Junior. One of the best lines in his Oration inspired me and have caused me to ponder on the power of one individual. It reads,

"To preserve - to perpetuate - the independence of our country is the duty not only of our civil rulers but of every individual. Much depends, frequently, upon the exertions and designs of a single member of society. The fate of empires has been decided by an aspiring demagogue or an ambitious hero!"

David Barton's annotation of an 1830s definition of a demagogue would like a people half educated; enough to read what is said, but not enough to know whether it's true or not. That way, I suppose, you can manipulate the masses and they wouldn't be the wiser.

The next paragraph in the Oration is really what caught my interest and thought it relevant today...

"Intrigue [secret scheming] and faction [seeking special interests rather than the common good] are the instruments which designing and artful men employ to produce the destruction of good government and the consequent annihilation of order and of law. When those infernal agents [evil influences] are at work, he who bellows loudest for liberty intends to be the tyrant-in-chief. Let us be jealous [suspicious] of those Sempronii - unmantle their nefarious [wicked] intentions and convince them of the fallacy of their hopes to effect their purposes in the midst of an enlightened people."

Again, David Barton's annotation about the Sempronii were two Roman brothers (Tiberius & Gaius Gracchus) who - as civil leaders - helped destroy the Roman Republic while allegedly attempting to better the country.

I immediately thought of our current President Barack Obama and the people he surrounds himself with. If you know anything about President Obama (i.e. childhood, early education, college, background, etc.) you would probably think the same thing. I wholeheartedly think that Obama's intentions for this country are not good. He's like the Sempronii brothers destroying the America Republic with policy and regulation while "allededly attempting to better the country." Obviously there's no way to prove this theory, but getting to know President Obama you can get a pretty good idea.

I just thought it was interesting that something that was said in 1796 was so relevant today.

Stickin' to 'em Guns

In a bold move "Republican state senators in Wisconsin have successfully pushed through a provision stripping public employees of their collective bargaining rights by separating it from Gov. Scott Walker’s controversial budget bill." The Blaze By separating it from the budget bill, it didn't require any Democrats to be present as did with the budget bill. Genious, pure genious! It's almost as genious as my idea. One of the Republicans should've pulled an Arlen Specter and switch parties so the budget bill could be voted on.

I am very impressed with Gov. Walker and not backing down and sticking to his guns! I started to lose respect for him earlier today because I heard on the radio that there was some talk of him giving in to some concessions with the Unions, but it may have all been a ploy to pass the stripping of the collective bargaining rights in a separate bill.

Of course the Senate Democrats are up in arms about it and came out with this statement: "In thirty minutes, 18 State Senators undid fifty years of civil rights in Wisconsin. Their disrespect for the people of Wisconsin and their rights is an outrage that will never be forgotten. Tonight, 18 Senate Republicans conspired to take government away from the people. Tomorrow we will join the people of Wisconsin in taking back their government." The Blaze

Keep in mind it's the Democrats fault it came to this in the first place! If they didn't run away like a dog with its tail between its leg at least they could've said they tried and will continue to try to protect their precious union buddies. Also, I think the Dems would've done the exact same thing, if not something more sneaky, if the roles were reversed.

Stripping of bargaining rights of unions is starting to spread as well. Idaho lawmakers just recently approved a bill restricting the teachers union. The Blaze

I think we are seeing the beginning of the end of unions in America.

The Beginning of Slavery

After submitting my last post about the Constitution declaring a slave as three-fifths of a person it got me thinking of how it all started? We know how it ended, but no one really talks about how it all began...at least I couldn't remember. I decided to do some research and to find out.

At first I did a Google search for "history of slaves in america" and found a lot of the results brought back were how Africans were brought over in ships and sold as slaves, but there had to be something before that right? I dug deeper. What led to full blown out slavery was something called indentured servitude.

Indentured servitude was a common practice throughout the globe in which a land owner hired servants to work their land. The land owners paid for their passage on ship and were provided room and board. The servitude usually lasted between 2-7 years and were given the opportunity to work hard, pay off their debts, and become land owners themselves. Oh, I also found that servitude wasn't based on color, rather creed and whether or not you were a Christian. Servants were both black and white.

I also found the story of one individual known as Antonio, a Negro as was entered on a manifest. He was an indentured servant and worked really hard and in four years was able to pay off his debts and became a land owner himself with a 50 acre plot of land with supplies and equipment called "freedom dues." Antonio changed his name to Anthony Johnson and hired five indentured servants himself increasing his land to 250 acres. As part of the contract each servant increased the land ownership by 50 acres.

One of Anthony's servants was named John Casor (also a Negro) in which he contested the length of his servitude and believed that his employer unfairly extended the length of servitude. The case went to court and ruled in favor of Mr. Johnson and John Casor's length of servitude was extended for life! Anthony Johnson, a black guy, was essential the first slave owner of another black guy! Because of this, is one of the main reasons why reparations for blacks and slavery is difficult, if at all, to enforce or pass.

At around the same time this was happening with Anthony Johnson another case of a land owner had three runaway indentured servants. One was black, two were white. They servants were captured and taken to court and the two white servants had an extension on their servitude of four years while the black servant's was extended for life, which started slavery being based on color rather than creed. By the way this was early 16th century (1600-1630's) and slavery didn't become law until 1665 so it evolved gradually over time that started out as hired labor to enslaved labor for life.

Interesting eh? This is obviously isn't something taught in the text books so one should question, why? I'll leave that for another post coming soon!

The 3/5 Compromise

I was on my lunch break the other day at work working on my netbook computer of which I have a picture of three of the Founding Fathers: George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Samuel Adams. This striked up a conversation between me and a couple of my co-workers. One of them said the Founding Fathers were all racists. After investigating further they thought they were racists because they owned slaves and only counted negros as three-fifths of a person in the Constitution.

This lit a fire underneath me because I knew that these individuals had no clue what was actually meant when the Founding Fathers put this into the Constitution. I felt the need to educate my co-workers. They thought that the 3/5 statement was in the Constitution because the Founding Fathers wanted to continue slavery when in actuality it was the exact opposite.

"The Three-Fifths compromise was a compromise between the Southern and Northern states reached during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 in which three-fifths of the population of slaves would be counted for enumeration purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the appointment of the members of the United States House of Representatives. It was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman.

"Delegates opposed to slavery generally wished to count only free inhabitants of each state. Delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves in their actual numbers. Since slaves could not vote, slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College [which would be more difficult to abolish slavery]. The final compromise of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual number reduced the power of the slave states relative to the original southern proposals, but increased it over the northern position." - Wikipedia

The actual text in the Constitution found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 says: "Representative and direct Taxes shall be appointed among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Wikipedia continues: "Following the Civil War and the abolition of slavery by the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1865), the three-fifths clause was rendered moot."

Once I explained this to these individuals, I saw their mind enlightened and were surprised, and they didn't have anything further to say. It irks me to no end when someone just spits out something like that they have no understanding of...just something they heard or thought without doing their homework.

The Adjustment Bureau

Choose your own path! Click here.

It's just been over three months since my last post and it took me going to a movie called The Adjustment Bureau to inspire me to write a new post.  Let me explain why.

Here is the synopsis of the movie according to http://www.imdb.com/: "Do we control our destiny, or do unseen forces manipulate us? Matt Damon stars in the thriller The Adjustment Bureau as a man who glimpses the future Fate has planned for him and realizes he wants something else. To get it, he must pursue the only woman he's ever loved across, under and through the streets of modern-day New York. On the brink of winning a seat in the U.S. Senate, ambitious politician David Norris (Damon) meets beautiful contemporary ballet dancer Elise Sellas (Emily Blunt)-a woman like none he's ever known. But just as he realizes he's falling for her, mysterious men conspire to keep the two apart. David learns he is up against the agents of Fate itself-the men of The Adjustment Bureau-who will do everything in their considerable power to prevent David and Elise from being together. In the face of overwhelming odds, he must either let her go and accept a predetermined path... Written by Universal Pictures"

This "bureau" basically nudges individuals on a path that has already been written by the Chairman. If these nudges don't work sometimes it turns into shoves. If shoves don't work then the bureau makes you do it without really giving you a choice.

Your path is clear...retire within 12-24 months. Click here.

Right off the bat, this movie reminded me of Cass Sunstein, Obama's Regulatory Czar, and his book Nudge. In it he talks about how through regulation you can manipulate people in making decisions. It gives them the illision of free will and making their own choices, but someone else is actually pulling the strings and guiding them on a path that maybe, just maybe they wouldn't normally take.

For example, if Cass wanted to ban guns...there would be no way Congress would ever pass a law that goes against our Constitutional right, but he could put in place new regualation that it would make it more difficult to be a gun owner like increasing license fees, more paperwork, etc. So Obama's the Chairman and Sunstein is head of the Adjustment Bureau manipulating our choices and what they think is right. The movie, unlike the Obama administration does have a happy ending.

You're being nudged to win $25,000! Click here.