“In other words, the SPLC is advising left-wing political hacks Holder and Napolitano to forget about Islamic terrorists, organized crime gangs, criminal aliens and other lawless groups and concentrate on patriotic American citizens who oppose Big Government, Statism, and New World Order actions by politicians,” said attorney and political strategist Mike Baker.
“This means that freedom and liberty must be defended by the states under their Constitutional Balance of Power, or we are headed to Civil War wherein the people will have no choice but to take matters into their own hands.”
Question: Why would we rule out anyone? It seems that these types are all inclusive in the gangstalking business. Does it not sound as if the speaker is saying to just leave the major problems alone. They’ve got work to do in the destruction of good, wholesome, non-commi, Americans?
In Obama’s Inaugural Speech in January of this year, did it not mention the following:
1. The patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace tyranny of kings with the privleges of a few or the rule of the mob.
mstmha *But we are now in the midst of ‘gangstalkers’ and massive government control?”
2. Together, we discovered that a free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fairplay.
mstmha *”Fairplay? Where was my remote during their “Game” when I was being poisoned, baked, etc.? Why was I not told that my life and my family’s lives would be at risk? Why could I not protect myself if it is all in the name of fairplay? Do I smell set-up?”
3. We do not believe that in this country, freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few.
mstmha *Ok, now who exactly do they consider to be the lucky? Gangstalkers?”
4. But we are also heirs to those who won the peace and not just the war, who turned sworn enemies into the surest of friends, and we must carry those lessons into this time as well.
mstmha *Can you please be more specific in your definition of enemies? Who did we ‘friend’ exactly?”
5. And we must be a source of hope to the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the victims of prejudice-not out of mere charity, but because peace in our time requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes: tolerance and opportunity, human dignity, and justice.
mstmha *Can I assume, based on what I have seen thus far, that when he says a ‘source of hope’, that maybe he or even the writer of his speech meant that the source, good, hard-working Americans, would have to trade places and spaces with those that were less fortunate when they had the same opportunites that we did? In other words, we should continue to allow them to steal everything we have actually worked for; money, houses, cars, etc, so that they may feel equal or statused while we sit on the sidelines? After all of the scraping and saving that we have done, the control goes to those who never really tried? The ones who like to continuosly ‘cheat’ their way through life while others who made an effort suffer. Could he please define his “common creed” as well because it just looks as if that is what is happening. Even with the release of so many illegal immigrants, the ‘creed’ looks just a bit shady and, of course we should be ‘tolerant’ of this, give away our opportunities in the name of someone else’s definition of ‘justice’.
6. Being true to our founding documents does not require us to agree on every contour of life; it does not mean we will all define liberty exactly the same way, or follow some precise path of happiness.
mstmha *Bam, he hit the nail on the head with that one! Should we even ask?
Doesn’t the world seem, now, like a new age version of “Demolition Man” or maybe it’s going to be more like “Mad Max’s Beyond Thunderdome… Hmmm….”
Now, don’t get me wrong, I loved Obama. I cast my vote and I cried during his first election after they announced his big win. That particular campaign was one that I believe no one will ever forget but maybe his version of ‘Change’ was a lot different from mine? Do you think?
By Webster’s New World Dictionary, the meaning of change is as follows:
change: 1. to put or take (a thing) in place of something else [to change jobs] 2. to exchange [to change seats] 3 to make different; alter—vi 1. to alter, vary 2.to leave one train, plane, etc. and board another…
mstmha *I wish I were told beforehand what plane, train, or automobile that I should have taken. Could he have, possibly, provided a guidebook, a dictionary, and maybe even a map of his intentions? The ‘seat’ that I had before felt pretty good to me and I refuse to believe that after so many years of hard work, that they would unblindingly take everything away as if you never worked a day in your life. It definitely was not the “lifestyles of the rich and shameless” but it was good for me. And I never minded working hard to achieve any goal in my family’s interest but why do I feel so bamboozled, led astray, and run amuck? I didn’t land on Plymouth Rock, Plymouth Rock landed on me!