ACTION

Obama Political Appointees Tell DOJ,

"We Want you to Ignore 'Motor Voter Law'”

Of all our Constitution-granted rights, “franchise,” the right to vote is the most essential. Recently, however, Obama’s political appointees to the Department of Justice have adopted a policy of only enforcing voter laws and voter cases in line with the interests of Obama himself. Wiping repeat voters, dead voters and fraudulent voters off the voter rolls; and stopping voter intimidation against White voters is apparently not considered to be in line with the nation’s interest.

In the world of Barack Obama and the Obama administration, “racism” is a one-way street. In that world racism can only be expressed by Whites toward Democrats or Blacks, Hispanics and other minority groups and only by policemen against these same minority groups . . . in the Obama world racism can apparently never occur the other way around.

Today, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is scheduled to file its case against the second of Arizona’s two anti-illegal immigration bills. The specter of this case apparently filed by the Obama administration to agitate some Democratic-leaning Hispanic voters, is troubling enough (the Obama administration is apparently trying to rescind the 10^th Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution) . . . but Rajjpuut has just learned from friends in the media that the very same lawyers chosen to prosecute that case within the DOJ, have already proven themselves less than competent and more than politically corrupt supporters of Obama style racism. These Obama toadies, in their disposition of a case from Election Day, 2008 involving the New Black Panthers, have crawled through miles of broken glass to give Barack Obama the legal decision he wanted . . .

Of all our Constitution-granted rights, “franchise,” the right to vote is the most essential. The right to vote regardless of race, creed, color, religion or political persuasion is fundamental. The case involved is one where New Black Panther members in Philadephia appear in black or navy-blue military get-up and taunt incoming White voters with racial slurs while one of them brandishes a night-stick. Since political representation in our republic is based upon the democratic principles of one man one vote, one uncoerced vote . . . this is about as serious as any voter intimidation^^ case one’s likely to see. The fact that the man with the night stick is shown in separate video of a separate instance (when he was trying to agitiate passing Blacks on the street) carrying a microphone and shouting, “I hate White people, I can’t stand them crackers . . . we need to kill some crackers . . . we need to kill they (sic) babies . . .” only goes to prove how bankrupt the DOJ refusal to prosecute the voter intimidation case vigorously actually is.

The fact that DOJ members guilty of dropping this case were quoted as opining that civil rights laws were created to protect only the minorities from the majority Whites is shameful. The fact that on top of that, a Black Republican poll watcher was told by the Panthers “not to show your ni__er face” and repeatedly terrorized by the group gives a far more complete picture of the nature of racism and political bigotry by the intimidators. Black’s who don’t follow the Democratic party-line (the Clarence Thomases of the world) are just as much a target as the Whites all too many of them hate.

Equally important but thus far drawing less criticism or attention in the media is the fact that an Obama political appointee, a Ms. Fernandez has commanded a roomful (reportedly 40-50) people) of DOJ employees not to enforce the ’93 motor voter law. Thus under Ms. Fernandez, wiping repeat voters, dead voters and fraudulent voters off the voter rolls; and the aforementioned stopping voter intimidation against White voters is apparently not considered to be in line with the nation’s interest.

Richard Cloward and Frances Piven of “Cloward-Piven Strategy” infamy were present when Bill Clinton signed the motor voter law into effect. Many political observers at the time called the motor voter law “a license for unlimited voter fraud.” Cloward and Piven (after their “C-P manufactured crisis strategy” created the American Welfare Rights Organization which swelled state welfare rolls by eight million persons and bankrupted New York City in 1975 and almost bankrupted New York state) in 1976 called for C-P strategy to be applied to housing (as ACORN did) and voter registration (as Clinton’s law did and ACORN did) and now the Obama folks have decided not to enforce even greatly weakened voter laws. If voter franchise is the most cherished right in our republic, then voter registration fraud is its greatest threat.

Ya’ll live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

** Now lets talk about even earlier (2007) when Raila Odinga in Kenya asked for Obama’s help and . . . .

A. Obama then went campaigning for a communist Odinga for the presidency of Kenya

B. Obama at campaign stops for Odinga twice appeared in Muslim garb

population are Muslims, there are several other religions represented in Kenya with Christianity

at 43% being the largest) to institute Sharia Law in the country akin to what the Taliban has in

other countries. This agreement was discovered and the discovery basically ended Odinga’s

slight chances of becoming president . . . Odinga said the letter was a fraud and a lie but then

later signing another accord with the Muslims (the original letter was blatant and would have

made Islam the religion of Kenya and made missionary work by religions other than Muslims

against the law and banned radio and television missionary programs as well). The eventual

Liberal Yahoo and the ultra- liberal Associated Press have both shown great insight and generated greater incitement (stimulus to action) for the opposing parties in the November elections and outlined how they’ll probably play out . . . .

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100705/ap_on_el_ge/us_nationalized_election

In the excellent article linked just above, Charles Babington of the AP says that “Democrats and Republicans are framing the elections in starkly different terms, with GOP strategists painting it as a national referendum on President Barack Obama and the party in power, and Democrats working feverishly to make all politics local.” Rajjpuut who, in his school teaching days could boast of coaching several Colorado State Chess Team Champions, agrees whole-heartedly because the art of politics should be successfully conducted as a strategic magic act for the have nots; and a strategic trench warfare for the haves. Just as the Democrats were in most people’s eyes, the haves in 2006 and 2008 (they were perceived as having the issues on their side); in 2010, clearly conservatives have the issues favoring them. In a larger sense, however, this strategic view clearly underlines the failings of the Republican Party to represent the needs of the nation and of its conservatives over the last 109 years as Progressivism^^ has progressively brought the country more and more evil and closer and closer to utter ruin.

When good men fail to act effectively, evil gains a toe-hold. When good men fail to understand their cause, evil makes its case. When good men fail to act, evil comes to power. When good men fail to act and to understand, evil comes to dominate. When good men act wrongly either by failing to act or failing to understand or both evil WINS. This short paragraph outlines why and how the Republican Party has failed conservatives and the country in the past, is failing them now, and will (unless serious change occurs) continue to fail conservatives and America in the future. More on this later

. . . .

When coaching his scholastic champion chess teams, Rajjpuut made a point of hammering away at tactics as a blended-subsidiary to strategy so that whether elementary, middle school or high schoolers were involved . . . the big picture always stood out stark and clear: own the center, develop and coordinate your pieces, before you touch a piece or pawn (touch-move rule in championship events) prefer attack to defense; then stop, ask yourself the question “What could go wrong?” If nothing could go wrong, you’ve selected your move and except for finding a better one which also has no downside . . . you’re moving toward victory. Throw in good tactics and knowing how to crush in the endgame and victory was virtually assured.

This approach was gained from studying management principles at Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas via the Kepner-Tregoe Management System . . . clearly the Republican Party could benefit from understanding and complying with good management principles, the basic economic and constitutional imperatives of Republicanism, and the underlying common sense fundamentals of free market economics.

Our neighborhood was recently plagued by a Democratic campaign worker for the more liberal of that party’s senate candidates (Ex-speaker of the state house Romanoff who was running against semi-moderate Bennett. Romanoff had been considering running for governor but didn’t wish to contest the seat against popular ex-Denver mayor and the whole nation is, thanks to Obama’s efforts to influence Romanoff to drop the race against Bennett as well as the Sestak issue in Pennsylvania, aware of this particular race). The fellow was a polite and curious sort and discussed politics with Rajjpuut for roughly 25 minutes. Here’s what impressed him – our progresive opposition -- the most:

1. That our $13 TRillion national debt was the least of our problems.

2. That the $110 TRillion in unfounded liabilities (Social Security, Medicare and the federal side of Medicaid) were not being addressed by either party.

3. That congress had recently done a great thing with its Pay-Go law requiring that before any new spending measure can be passed a way to pay for it either by instituting a new tax or by cutting spending be found . . . . but that congress had since passing that law refused to use Pay-go even once since, just as it had failed to honor the set-asides for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and thus since 1934 has built up that $110 TRillion in unfunded liabilities.

4. That Obama has told the nation his energy policies will “necessarily make the price of electricity skyrocket” and that he’s told the San Francisco Chronicle his policies will “bankrupt the coal industry.”

5. That Obama has promised (threatened?) to create five million new green jobs when green technology is NOT yet viable. That Spain in 1997 led Europe with a booming economy and only 3% unemployment before they turned to green jobs and today Spain has 21% unemployment and is, next to Greece, the weakest economy in Europe. That according to a Spanish study each green job required $667,000 in subsidies which cost the real economy 2.2 jobs. And because only 10% of the green jobs proved permanent (the vast majority lasted from three months to eighteen months) that meant that IF Obama instituted his five million green jobs it was likely that only 500,000 of them would prove permanent at the cost of eleven million jobs in the real (unsubsidized) economy a 22/1 ratio that perfectly explains why Spain’s economy went south.

6. Yes, green tech would be ideal, but green tech is not yet viable. So it would make much more sense instead of subsidizing $677,000 for one green job . . . to subidize instead $6.77 Billion for research for the top hundred winners in green-tech viability from a national contest judged by the best scientists available and seeing if that stimulus can get us a green-tech Edison and a highly desirable green-tech future based on independent American innovation.

7. And tah-dah! more than anything else the following information impressed the Democrat and he took down the particulars to research later on his home computer:

A. This crucial website (the most famous brief essay in ecomics and the simple and utter refutation of Keynesian approaches such as Obama’s stimulus-stimulus and more stimulus approaches) explains what free markets are and what their strengths are:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html

B. Information about this site:

http://jim.com/econ/

and after hearing the “one lesson” (from “Economics in One Lesson” by Henry Hazlitt, linked just above) he too realized that: when you look at economic situations which present themselves you must get the whole picture not just the supposedly desirable government spending stimulus plan. And then illustrating the one lesson with the briefest of fables: “The Broken Window Parable,” which utterly and totally caught him by surprise and clearly delighted him (both linked right here) . . .

http://jim.com/econ/chap01p1.html

A. Republicans have failed to understand who and what the enemy is. That enemy is and has been Progressivism and Progressives since Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, became the first notable Progressive. Not saying that Teddy Roosevelt didn’t do any good . . . just that he was the first president to champion Progressive causes which later in the hands of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter and to a lesser extent Bill Clinton and George W. Bush led us to our present disastrous economic collapse. Republicans haven’t been able to effectively oppose progressivism and get support against progressivism from would-be conservatives because they don’t understand it themselves.

B. Most Republicans do NOT understand Republicanism (the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution is the most Republican document in the history of the world; and the 10^th Amendment of the Bill of Rights taken in conjunction with the doctrine of Separation of Church and State are by far the most important parts of the Bill of Rights the spark plug for all the other Amendments) and . . . because they do NOT understand Republicanism, they cannot and do not explain Republicanism well and thus educate liberal, Democratic-conservative and independent-conservative voters.

C. Many Republicans continuously and deliberately violate Republicanism by opposing Separation of Church and state in Public Schools. The Founding Fathers (virtually all of them Christian) did NOT set up a Christian nation, they deliberately set up a nation where ALL religions would be welcome but in which no one particular religion could dominate (remembering the problems with England's state supported church) and endanger our freedoms. If you want one reason why Independent and Democratic conservatives are more likely to abstain or to vote Democtat, this is the one.

D. Two isues here, Republican corruption as shown in sexual and business scandals on the one hand and the simple fact that most Republicans have ceaselessly been UNTRUE to fundamental Republican principles such as fiscal conservativism; limited federal government; adherence to the Constitution; protection of our borders; and balanced budgets. Most Americans are conservative on these issues and have been routinely disappointed by Republican candidates promising to adhere to these principles and then abandoning them once in office. ALL Americans are conservative on political integrity.

E. Anti-abortion and even Anti-contraception are linked in much of the public’s collective mindset as Republican values. History has linked the Republican Party to this stance and it is why many women vote for Democrats. If Republicans had a stance that the Independent voter could buy into that would be one thing, and it would probably NEVER cost even one vote. However, Republicans have adopted a losing argument and paraded it before the public as the most visible aspect of Republicanism.

That losing argument is that abortion should be denied to victims of incest; victims of rape; mothers whose health is endangered; very young girls; and other victims in extraordinary cases.

Americans pride themselves on rooting for the underdog and the victim and consider old Republican opposition to contraception and family planning as totally unjustified state interference (10^th Amendment again) into their personal lives.

Because that old Republican stance is so unwieldy, progressive opponents have made the Republican Party look outdated and uncaring. Abortion (unfortunately abortion virtually on demand), has been the law of the land for thirty-eight years now. One could argue that abortion (freedom over one’s body in exigent circumstances like those named above) and contraception and the resulting freedom to plan one’s family size and spacing are actually Republican causes, but in any case, because the Republican Party deliberately adopted the losing argument outlined in italics above . . . for most voters abortion on demand by contrast to the obdurate Republican stand seemed preferable. For women, in particular, this hardened Republican anti-victim stand has made the Republican Party a political destination to avoid.

To sum it up: politics is a game of strategy and tactics. The United States Constitution is the greates winning political game plan ever created. The U.S. Constitution is a decidedly conservative document designed to protect state, county, and local freedoms as well as individual freedoms against the ever-present tendency of centralized governments to expand and become more expensive and more intrusive. We are now in big trouble because for roughly 109 years, the Republican Party, the standard-bearer for conservativism has not stood strong against progressivism. In all strategic encounters, the basic rule of victory is this: find a strategic and tactical path that makes your own strengths the single most important consideration at issue and your opponent’s strengths of negligible import, while effectively managing your own weaknesses and exposing your opponent’s weaknesses and making them them of paramount importance. So let it be written, so let it be done . . . .

Right now and for all the foreseeable future, only overt and honorable conservativism (fiscally and Constitutionally) can save us. The Republican Party needs to re-invent itself in light of and in line with the party’s original conservative, Libertarian values (fiscal and Constitutional conservativism, strong borders and strong national defense, and largely a live-and-let- live social** agenda). No single election has been more crucial in the history of our country and the Republican Party must deliver or the nation is quite likely LOST!

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

Issue Trust Dems more Trust GOP more

Economy 39% 48%

Gov’t Ethics 33% 29%

Immigration 32% 47%

National Security 34% 51%

Abortion 36% 46%

Taxes 36% 52%

Social Security 37% 48%

Health Care 40% 51%

Education 41% 43%

Meanwhile, 40% of likely voters call the Obama administration LESS ethical than most past administrations; 31% believe the current administration is MORE ethical than past administrations; and 26% say they’re ABOUT the SAME ethically as past administrations were. This marks a decided loss of trust for the Obama adminstration in the last year when 54% rated the president’s and his people as more ethical.

As far as Obama, personally, 39% say he is LESS ethical than most past presidents; 28% say he is MORE ethical; and 28% are not sure. Since ethics is the only area in which Democrats have earned more trust than Republicans over the last two months of Rasmussen Reports, the broader base of Democratic officials are not being hurt by the President on this issue.

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

Barack Obama is still highly interested in “redistributing the wealth.” This is a process known as socialism. The standard way of describing socialism is that “misery loves company.” That is, in enforcing their ballyhooed “equality,” socialistic countries bring the populace down to a miserable level of existence.

If that’s true, and Rajjpuut suggests it largely is, than perhaps capitalism ought to be described as “a rising tide raises all boats.” What does that mean? Let’s start with that poverty line statistic: 15% of Americans, 40 million that is, live at or below the poverty line standard of $22,000 income for an urban family of four. But the “rough conditions” for the nation’s poor have been documented over the last twenty years and the results are surprising . . . in a 1990 study talked about below, Nationwide, some 22,000 "poor" households actually had heated swimming pools or Jacuzzis.

"Poor" Americans both then and today are better housed, better fed, and own more property than did the average U.S. citizen throughout much of the 20th Century. In another 1988 study, the per capita expenditures of the lowest income fifth of the U.S. population exceeded the per capita expenditures of the median American household in 1955, after adjusting for inflation. There's that "rising tide" of capitalism Rajjpuut was mentioning. But Obama would have us all equal just a bit above the poor folks' level.

The poverty line established by the Department of Health and Human Services in 2009, means sadly that the average "impoverished" American lives better off than at least 88%^^^ of the world’s peoples. For example: Robert Rector, the researcher at the Heritage Foundation collected data in 1988 and published in 1990 from several government sources for a report titled “How Poor Are America’s Poor?” Recently the study was redone ahead of the new census and conditions for American poor had improved further yet from in the relatively “wealthy” earlier study, today:

• 43 percent of all poor households own their own homes, the average home having three bedrooms, one-and-a-half baths, a garage and a porch or patio.
• Two-thirds of poor households have more than one room per person, and the typical poor American has more living space than the average — not necessarily poor — individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, and other European cities.
• 80 percent of poor households have air conditioning, nearly three-quarters own a car, and 31 percent own two or more cars.
• 97 percent of poor households own a color television, more than half own two or more color TVs, and 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
• 89 percent own a microwave oven, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Walter Williams, an economics professor at George Mason University and a syndicated columnist, writes in the Jewish Daily Review after examing and analyzing the study, “poverty as it has historically been defined barely exists in the United States.” He added lower income households are “poor” only in relation to the rest of the American population, but not compared to the rest of the world. Material poverty can be measured relatively or absolutely,” Williams observes. “An absolute measure would consist of some minimum quantity of goods and services deemed adequate for a baseline level of survival. Achieving that level means that poverty has been eliminated.”

Poverty levels are typically decided upon by the census bureau. A key reason that the Census undercounts the financial resources of the "poor" is that, remarkably, it ignores nearly all welfare spending when calculating the "incomes" of persons in poverty. Thus, as far as the Bureau is concerned, billions of dollars in in-kind benefits to poor Americans have no effect on their incomes. Out of $184 billion in welfare spending, the Census counts only $27 billion as income for poor persons. The bulk of the welfare system, including entire programs that provide non-cash aid to the poor, like food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid, is completely ignored in the Census Bureau's calculations of the living standards of the "poor." The missing welfare spending that is excluded from the Census Bureau poverty reports comes to $158 billion, or over $11,120 for every "poor" U.S. household.

Williams thinks the Census Bureau's poverty reports should be replaced by a new survey that counts income and assets accurately. With accurate counting, the number of poor persons would be shown to be only a small fraction of the Census Bureau's current estimate of 40 million. Now getting back to brass tacks, perhaps, Mr. Obama ought to help the truly poor by cutting government spending and taxes and allowing the private sector the honor of creating jobs***?

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Financial Times Limited Reports that GE's CEO

The old song says, “This Could Be the Start of Something Big,” well, could it be? Could this be the beginning of the end of corporate sponsorship of naked progressivism and virtual communist candidates who want to gut corporations or want them taken over by ever-expanding and ever- expensive big government? Could “the Naked W-hore, Big Business" be returning to its senses? Could Atlas be shrugging right before our very eyes? YAWN, probably NOT!

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ed654fac-8518-11df-adfa-00144feabdc0.html

On July 1, 2010, the London, England-based Financial Times Limited on its blogsite (FT.com) ran the story linked immediately above beneath the headline “Immelt hits out at China and Obama” a story coordinated between two writers Guy Dinmore (in Rome, Italy) and Geoff Dyer (in Bejing, China). According to the regretably mostly UNinformed duo of reporters, “Jeffrey Immelt, General Electric’s chief executive, has launched a rare broadside against the Chinese government, which he accused of being increasingly hostile to foreign multinationals.” Gosh, do you think RED China might be tilting the playing field instead of playing nice, Mr. Immelt? Grow Up, little boy!

The article depicted Immelt expanding upon China’s cut-throat methods (and goals?) and then going on to attack the Obama administration for its anti-business sentiment and legislation. Once again, do you think a child raised by a communist mother and communist grandfather whose Kenyan birth-father wrote the essay linked immediately below (which shows us a typical communist discussion of 100% taxes on the rich, takeover of international business firms in Kenya, and the dire need to transfer wealth from Kenya’s White and Asian citizens to its Black ones) might disapprove of capitalism, Mr. Immelt? Again, Grow Up, little boy!

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_eastafrica.html

The story, unfortunately is NOT what it seems to be, here are the facts about Mr. Jeffrey Immelt, GE CEO . . . .

1. GE and Mr. Immelt are in bed with Barack Obama. GE and he personally have not only abetted the campaign funding of candidate Obama but gone out of their way to tie their company into Obama’s pie in the sky “green initiatives” and into the dishonorable lie of global warming (despite the well-known corruption of science in the name of $34 million worth of grants, etc.) and Immelt and GE have been . . .

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936289.ece

doing so from the start. When it comes to Washington bucks, no large corporation gets more attention than GE from the Obama’s administration. Here at home GE and Immelt continuously pour praise on the Obama administration and its goals.

2. GE (traces its origin to Thomas Alva Edison, so one would hope the company would be laissez faire capitalistic to its very core) is the w-hore of w-hores in the business world. GE has monstrous holdings in the media and entertainment industry. When it comes to putting its media money where its media mouth is, it takes just three sentences to let the reader know where GE’s sympathies lie . . . . a) GE’s Spanish-language speaking Telemundo went out of its way to ensure Obama’s election and deliver him 69% of the Latino vote in 2008. b) emboldened by Telemundo Group’s propaganda potential, the owner of Telemundo and various media interests in Latin America and Puerto Rico, and Obama and the Democrats surprised Americans and actually sought to bring into law Puerto Rican statehood this April (even though Puerto Ricans themselves have consistently voted against the idea over the last 60 years) for the purpose of giving Obama a much needed two extra senators and five extra representatives in Congress c) GE owns NBC and NBC Universal and MSNBC the cable news channel which has been infamously kissing Obama’s butt-crack for the last three years even more than the rest of the NBC "journalists" do.

3. GE appears to have the inside track for receiving boons to corporations if and when Obama passes his promised legislation “creating five million new green-tech jobs” (Rajjpuut's readers remember that in the Spanish green-experiment taking that country from 3% unemployment in 1997, to 21% unemployement today . . . 22 permenant real jobs in the real economy were lost for every permanent green job because 2.2 real jobs were lost for every single $677,000 subsidized green job created and only one in ten of these green jobs eventually proved permanent).

4. GE is even tied into CCX (the originally Obama-directed Chicago Climate eXchange) which will prosper wildly when Obama's and the progressive** Dems ill-advised cap and trade bill becomes law.

So then, the semi-confused reader asks, ". . . these two reporters for Financial Times Limited got the story wrong?"

No and yes, they reported what Immelt said, exactly what he said. The problem is that if you report on a corporate lamb in corporate wolf’s clothing like Immelt and GE (when they can afford to dress so in foreign lands), it just helps to know the big picture and get that big picture across or the full truth will be lost in the shuffle. Mr. Immelt was trying to impress big European bankers as well as her corporate CEOs, top execs and other bigwigs “at a private gathering in Rome” that he was a realist and a capitalist and well on top of the global situation (where China is using semi-capitalism on top of unveiled ruthless communist techniques tied into spying, piracy and unfair trade practices to eat the rest of the world’s lunch, profitwise). Mr. Immelt presumably didn’t even bother to ponder that via the internet his “unkind” remarks would get back to American audiences.

Accordingly, GE has issued a no-denial denial^^ saying that Mr. Immelt’s words “were misinterpreted, taken out of context and reported inaccurately.” Horse sh_t! GE-sundheit! (Rajjpuut hates sneezing while blogging).

GE, you see, still needs to sell products to China. GE, you see, still needs to be allowed close enough to Barack Obama to run their corporate tongue over Barack’s backsi__ so the great man will continue to favor them . . . you get the idea . . . . hence the non-denial denial by the GE board of directors. Always a bad idea to let a little truth slip, Mr. Immelt.

Yes, China is a ruthless mafia-like entity that may someday soon dominate the entire world’s economy and yes, Barack Obama as you’ve stated, Mr. Immelt, “does not like business and most business (other than GE) does not like him.” Jeff, baby, you even went so far as to praise German Chancellor Angela Merkel for her defense of German industry and commitment to spending cuts and tax cuts (while Obama encouraged all of Europe and the G-20 to continue with the stimulus-stimulus-and-more stimulus spending ideas he’s so in love with) . . . but that doesn’t make you a good guy, Mr. Immelt, quite the contrary. It makes you an unimaginable phony and very, very dangerous to freedom lovers and American patriots.

You and the GE board of directors have taken a mighty and once great American corporation and sold out the principles of capitalism and integrity and corrupted her just as ex-British Petroleum CEO Tony Hayward and BP’s board did. BP, by becoming Obama’s biggest oil-company campaign contributor, got in bed with the devil too. Not surprisingly, BP, much like GE owns 7.59% of Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. a London-based company that owns Mr. Obama’s Chicago Climate eXchange . . . not surprisingly both GE and BP will presumably make more money if cap and trade legislation passes, (for doing nothing but collecting your share of the carbon-trade commissions) than they now do by drilling for oil. And not surprisingly, you two who have sold out the magnificent principles of integrity and capitalism will gain your largesse by raping the American taxpayer, and . . . all the while America waits in vain for its John Galt.

Ya’ll live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

^^ Mr. Immelt can thus avoid losing face in front of his European contacts

** Unfortunately, while 95% of Americans think they know what a progressive is, only about 10% do know. A progressive is an ultra-leftist who wants to "progress" beyond the limitations of the "outdated" U.S. Constitution just as Barack Obama does. However, Barack Obama is telling the truth when he says, "I am not a socialist, I'm not," because technically a "socialist" who's interested in 100% taxes and 100% take over of the means of production is a communist, which he is, which is how he was raised. Of course, his first autobiography (ghostwrit by Bill Ayers the Weather Underground '60's bombplanter) "Dreams from my Father" has not been vetted by the media . . . most Americans have never heard of this book, nor has his whole background nor that of those closest to him ever been vetted. Barack is a saint and stories that put him in lesser light or stories contrary to his agenda (like the Climate Gate one linked above) canNOT be aired or printed by the mainstream media.

On July 8, 1947, roughly 63 years ago, witnesses claim that an unidentified flying object (UFO) with five aliens aboard crashed onto a burro ranch just outside Roswell , New Mexico . This is a well known incident that many say has long been covered up by the U.S. Air Force, various American intelligence groups and other federal agencies. However, what you may NOT know is that in the month of April 1948, nine months after that historic day, the following famous people were born:

These sort of things often occur whenever aliens breed with donkeys. Why should we expect their offspring to oppose amnesty for illegal aliens.

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut