Constitution Party: ‘Game On’

by Mary Starrett
Constitution Party Communications Director

The messiah of the disordered new world is now president of the United States.

With eyes wide shut Americans elected Barack Hussein Obama even though it’s doubtful he was even eligible for the office; even though he promised bona fide socialism; even though virtually every “change’” his supporters thought they were voting for likely won’t transpire; and even though changes that probably will take place will be horrifying.

If you made it through the media’s servile flattery of candidate Obama, and then the wild-eyed hysteria of the inauguration, then a little mirth is in order, as a distraction from the pain of all this.

We can take a break from the Jumbotron Obama-as-savior coverage to play a little game. The rules are simple – you ask an Obamaniac a question. For every wrong answer you get to gloat. Tally up the points and you’re the easy winner of the game. But don’t get too excited. You’ll win the game, but in the end we lose our country.

First Question:

“Did you vote for Obama to see an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?”

A “YES” answer means you score a point. This is where you mention that Barack Obama has been breaking a sweat back pedaling on his promise to bring the boys and toys home from the unconstitutional and immoral wars being fought in those countries. (For the record, however, Obama has stated “I don’t sweat. You ever see me sweat?”)

During the campaign, Obama tried to draw a contrast between himself and his Republican opponent saying he’d “bring US troops home within 16 months” of his inauguration. Before he ever raised his hand and swore to uphold the Constitution, he had added a qualifying phrase saying he would “remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months with the understanding that it might be necessary – likely to be necessary- to retain a residual force.” He added “ It’s also critical that we recognize the situation in Afghanistan has been worsening.”

He wants to send more troops. 70,000 more troops there.

Now that you’ve scored one, it’s time for extra game points- mention Obama’s new Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who promised a “departure from the Bush foreign policy” while she was campaigning to be president. How did she plan on doing that when she voted for the Iraq war and supported the Afghanistan surge?

You can now add that Obama’s left hand man, former Illinois Congressman and Democratic Congressional Campaign Commission Chairman Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel (whose family name was Auerbach) has been called the “most powerful voice in the House of Representatives.” Rahm has been such a persistent war monger that while 60 % of the country is against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he made it his business to oppose and torpedo every single Democrat who opposed the wars (that we now wage at Israel’s behest) during party primaries. In fact, jokes circulating include possible bumper stickers we might see in an Obama administration that read ‘Invade and Bomb with Hillary and Rahm’.

Rahm Emanuel, former Clinton aide, is the guy who said: “All Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 should be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic civil defense training and community service.” (Wonder if he read the 13th Amendment to the Constitution which states “involuntary servitude” is a no-no “except as a punishment for a crime.” Rahm’s right in step with Obama’s plan to force middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of “community service” per year.

Here goes the country’s first (half) Black president reinstating slavery.

And while Obama’s talking up “job creation,” his boy Rahm was head cheerleader to get the Democrats to buy into the job-destroying NAFTA passed over a decade ago. Politico says Rahm “has the soul of an inside Washington operator.”

While Obama’s mamma’s baby’s daddy was a Kenyan, Rahm’s father was an Israeli and a member of a Zionist group called Irgun. Oddly enough, Rham means ‘lofty’ in Hebrew. Others call him “Rahmbo.”

So far you should be racking up an easy win in this game, so let’s keep playing!

Next question:

“Obama supporter, are you sure you voted for a “change” to end status quo- business as usual Washington-insider politics? This is where you continue to explain that every single Obama cabinet member is a firmly entrenched, deep down and dirty District player.

Name names like Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve Board Chairman tapped to lead the new president’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board. Volcker’s been at this since 1952 when he went to work for the Fed (which Constitutionalists agree ought to be abolished posthaste for causing the economic mess we’re in.)

Volcker is a founding member, along with David Rockefeller, of the global elite Trilateral Commission. Volcker is also a former director of the United Nations Association of the USA which promoted more U.N. funding and power, and therefore less sovereignty for the U.S.

Then there’s Obama’s pick for Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner who was “careless” about not paying $34,000 in taxes. (Oops, my bad.) Just try being that “careless” and see what the IRS will do to us little people.

Stop here because by now you’ve made your point and if you were to continue to list the bona fides of the rest of Obama’s new D.C. posse you might see a grown man or woman cry.

Next question:

“Obama supporter, did you vote for Barrack so he could put an end to the egregious assault on the 4th amendment that Bush was known for when he sanctioned eavesdropping on Americans, though that’s clearly considered a no-no in our land of the free?

Now you point to the fact during his time in the Senate, Barack Obama endorsed Warrant-less Wiretaps, okayed in the so-called Protect America Act which authorized Congress and the president to poke around in our emails and on our phone calls without court orders.

(Maybe that’s how they do it in Kenya and Israel.)

Now, pack up your game and go home. But before you do, remind your vanquished opponent that in addition to all you’ve pointed out about the so-called “change’ they thought they were voting for, the new president’s economic “stimulus” plan will not bring any positive “change” either. It can never work, because, while he was bashing Sarah Palin and McCain on the “Bridge to nowhere,” now Obama will apparently preside over lots of “bridges to nowhere” in make- work programs that didn’t help during the last depression and won’t help now.

Tally up your points and leave your opponent with the words of the late minister and three-term president of the Southern Baptist Convention Adrian Rogers who wrote:

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation.

You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”

Oh, one more thing. Before you gloat too terribly much, remember, the president who just left office leaving a catastrophic mess was a Republican and the man you likely voted for for president was virtually identical to Obama on the major issues like the war and the Bailouts and immigration.

Unless, of course, you voted for a third party candidate.

Posted to IPR by Paulie

21 thoughts on “Constitution Party: ‘Game On’

  1. HS

    A small majority of Americans support Afghanistan, although the majority also would agree it has been botched. Obama also always said he wanted to remove troops from Iraq and send them to Afghanistan. While the issue of the war itself is debatable, it seems this particular writer is playing with the facts to achieve the desired conclusion.

    I think some of her wordings about Obama (“Obama’s mamma’s baby’s daddy”) also appear borderline racist. And going after Rahm Emmanuel because he has a Hebrew name and his father was a Zionist is like going after Cynthia McKinney for being an anti-Semite because her father was quoted as such.

  2. paulie cannoli Post author

    @ Delaware Libertarian:

    “Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.” Rahm Emanuel – November 2008

    “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” Barack Obama – Audacity of Hope

  3. Trent Hill

    The mere fact that all of these people feel they must mention his middle name is indicative of scare tactics and under-the-rug racism. I have alot of respect for Mary Starrett, but she should stop using his full name, unless she can prove that she used George and Bill’s middle names. She only cites “hussein” in an attempt to conflate him him “muslims”, “arabs” or “terrorists”.

  4. Trent Hill

    Even if he was–why does this disqualify him for office? I voted for a Buddhist-athiest over a Christian recently. The Buddhist-athiest was a CP candidate, the Christians were the Democrats and Republicans.

  5. Ross Levin

    That’s interesting that a Buddhist-athiest was a CP candidate.

    paulie – what’s wrong with those quotes? For Emanuel, it just shows that he’s a good politician and he embraces an idea embrace by millions – if not billions – of people. Haven’t you ever heard that popular saying about “crisis” and “opportunity” being the same character in Chinese?

    I guess I could see someone having a problem with the Obama quote. Regardless of how you feel about him, he’s a damn good candidate.

  6. paulie cannoli Post author

    paulie – what’s wrong with those quotes?

    “Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.” Rahm Emanuel – November 2008

    What he means is that it is an opportunity to have government take away more of our money and liberty than it could before.

    “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” Barack Obama – Audacity of Hope

    If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.

    (I can’t remember who said that, but it rings true).

  7. Ross Levin

    I don’t think that means Obama “doesn’t stand for anything.” I think, at worst, it means that Obama campaigns in order that people see him how they want to see him. He stands for something, but doesn’t let most people see exactly what it is. That’s the most cynical analysis I could come up with.

  8. paulie cannoli Post author

    OK, so he’s honest, and he stands for something, but people don’t know what that is, despite the fact that he just successfully spent the better part of a trillion dollars over the course of over a year to become the #1 celebrity newsmaker in the world, has written at least one book, has served in the US Senate for several years, has been in numerous debates and interviews…how does that add up?

  9. Ross Levin

    No, I’m not saying he definitely stands for some single ideology or he’s definitely honest.

    You can still be an honest person and be kind of manipulative in the way you campaign. Plus, if anyone was really interested, I think there was ample information about him out there to determine “who he is.” That includes books and interviews and stuff written about him all of that.

    And I think he’s spent closer to a billion than a trillion.

  10. John C Jackson

    I have a hard time believing CP people ( or anyone else) would use the same type of rhetoric if McCain or some other Old White Guy had been elected ( maybe if he were Jewish- i don’t know). You know, another guy who embraces socialism and is loved by the media. Now, I’m sure they couldn’t stand him either, but it seems like there is an extra special type of hate reserved for this half black guy with a Kenyan father and Muslim-sounding name. And it’s pretty ugly. There are plenty of legitimate beefs with Obama without resorting to cheap shots and race baiting. Race baiting, immigrant bashing, classy “Constitutionalism.”

  11. John C Jackson

    “Obama’s mamma’s baby’s daddy was a Kenyan”

    Wouldn’t it make more sense and be much easier to say/write ” Obama’s father”? Is there any point to this phrasing other than just being asshole-ish and possibly playing up racial things?

    I was reading a blog earlier where someone was referred to as a “baby daddy,” and some comments were critical of the wording. But in the context, I didn’t see anything wrong with it. This case is just stupid (at best).

    If I were talking about John’s father and John’s father and mother happened to be married ( which is apparently what distinguishes from a “baby daddy” ) I would not write ” John’s Mom’s Husband who impregnated her and conceived John.” Obviously I would just say “John’s father.” And FWIW, my mother and father were not married. If I were important enough for people to write about me, I doubt anyone would refer to my white father as my mamma’s baby daddy.

    But I get it. According to right wing idiots, black people don’t have fathers or families. And white women who are involved with black/African men are merely sperm receptacles.

    And what is the significance of Emmanuel’s family name of Auerbach? Did they run the Celtics? Is this some kind of wink for anti-semites or something? Perhaps I should be glad I don’t get that code.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *