Wednesday, July 23, 2014


I am not posting this to start a debate about gay rights (or LGBT rights, as I guess the new politically correct term has become).

Rather, I wanted to highlight that with all that is happening on the international front, where the President is focusing his attention.

On July 21, President Barack Obama signed an executive order aimed at protecting workers at federal contractors and in the federal government from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

“I firmly believe that it’s time to address this injustice for every American,” Obama told a group of LGBT activists gathered in the East Room of the White House. Later, he added, “we’re on the right side of history.”

The administration had held off on the order as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act made progress moving through Congress, including a bipartisan 64-32 vote in the Senate. But after months of inaction from the House, and as Obama responds to midterm pressures, the White House chose to act where it could this summer.

“I’m gonna do what I can with the authority I have” to protect workers, Obama said. “This is not speculative, this is not a matter of political correctness. People lose their jobs.”

Besides highlighting Obama's misuse of executive orders when he does not get his way, this really serves to highlight why he is such a poor president.

In the wake of the Ukraine crisis, Obama has done very little, reinforcing his status as a joke on the world stage.

Instead he retreats to the cause that is his secret passion, and the only activity where he feels comfortable.

To lead, you must be decisive.

Governors are leaders. They typically make pretty good presidents.

Senators do not lead. 

They make laws. 

That has been Obama's answer to everything during his tenure as a White House tenant-he uses executive orders to make more laws.

Obama has shown a talent for reading off of a teleprompter and fooling some of the people all of the time, but he has never demonstrated any leadership ability.

Obama has never lead.

He's afraid to. 

He never had the guts.

Plain and simple, he is a puppet. 

A punk.

And I am not advocating that we send troops off on yet another fool's errand.

But heck, some kind of response would be nice.

Remember Reagan's address after the Russians bombed a Korean flight a few decades ago?

He may have not been perfect, but at least the guy was a LEADER!

By contrast, here is our Puppet-In-Chief's televised statement.


How sad that our celebrated "first black president" is basically Stepin Fetchit.

And I fully expect that I'll get a comment from someone accusing me of racism.

That's the other Obama strategy.

Executive orders and the race card-it's all he's got.


  1. >>... Instead he retreats to the cause that is his secret passion...

    I wonder why it is.

    Nah. Not really I don't.

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

    1. He also suffers from the ailment that so permeates our generation...he's worried about being liked.

      Those who benefit from his "little causes" love him!

  2. I think that picture of him with the dog says it all. If you aren't the leader of your own little pack (your family and your DOG) then how can you lead a town, state, or country? Anyone who thinks this guy makes a good POTUS needs to look closely at this photo and keep in mind that he cannot lead his own dog. Sad fact.

    1. Once again, we got what we deserved...he won in 2008 purely because of his speech at the last Democratic convention.

      So we got a guy who can read off of a teleprompter...except in the address I link to, he's not even doing that very well.

      Did you order your "Hilary in '16" bumper sticker yet?

    2. No, but last night my mom and I went to trivia with a couple from our church. He is a die-hard Democrat, which makes me crazy when he wants to talk politics. But I digress... there was a question about how the POTUS should be addressed, with the correct answer being Mr. President. I said something like, "I bet that will change in 2016 to Mrs. President." My mom and this guy's wife couldn't believe that ANYONE would vote for Hilary. I know for a fact that they will and she probably will be the next president. We are fast tracking it on the highway to hell.

      So, I tap the only Democrat at the table, since he wasn't paying attention to this conversation, and ask him if he would vote for Hilary in 2016. Without missing a beat, and in all seriousness, he gave a resounding, "Yes." Didn't surprise me a bit. His wife and my mother gasped.

      One of them said, "You're kidding, right?" He wasn't. I knew he wasn't.

      And I said, "There you go, folks."

      My mom then said something about moving to Ecuador if that happened. Yeah, like you can escape a NWO in Ecuador, but I let it lie.

      Prepare yourself, LC. I do believe that the train is picking up speed.

    3. It doesn't need the speed-who do the Republicans have?

      I'll be amazed if it's anyone but Monica Lewinsky's gal pal!

  3. If I was the girl in that "Obama is a pussy" shirt, I wouldn't wear it unless the back of it said, "...but not MINE."

    1. ...and here I thought she meant he was a cat...DOH!

  4. I still can't even figure out where Obama stands on gay rights. I mean, at one point he said, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."

    But he's also said “For me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

    So which is it?

    But hey, in order for him to be liked by everybody, that's pretty much the point, right? Cover all your bases?

      I believe I can answer your question. And I don't for one second think it has anything at all to do with Obama wanting to be liked. (I disagree with my friend LC's premise there. I don't think Obama gives one crap about whether or not he's liked by ANYONE... except his fellow Communists.)

      The answer to the question is: He was lying the first time (because he wanted to seize and retain power) and he was telling the truth the second time because THAT is who Obama REALLY is.

      Obama is quite possibly a homosexual (and there are good reasons for suspecting that). I believe he's "bi-sexual" at "best".

      Furthermore, he is obviously a Marxist, and the first rule for Marxists is to obtain a position of power; and the second rule is 'overturn the established order of things - politically, economically, and socially'.

      So those two diametrically opposed quotes from Obama simply show Obama being who and what he really is. And as long as the Communist party likes him, that's plenty enough "Likes" for him.

      ~ D-FensDogg
      'Loyal American Underground'

    2. McDogg-

      The only part of your premise I struggle with is that to overturn the established order shows far more initiative and leadership than our pal Barry has shown.

      I think he's a puppet...but would not dispute that whoever pulls the little string that makes him talk may be a Communist.

      I do not know if Obama knows his own thoughts about anything.

      Or maybe the three of us are simply racists...

    3. Bryan-

      I am not sure Obama knows what a man is...Stephen T. raises an interesting point-where I assume incompetence, McDogg is giving O credit for following an agenda...but I wonder if that assumes too much intelligence in the man...

      Hillary will save us all! Eight more years of Clintons in the White House!


  5. LC ~
    I have no doubt that the three of us are racists. I mean, there could be NO OTHER POSSIBLE REASON that White men wouldn't love Obama and embrace everything he stands (or more accurately "FALLS") for.

    >>... The only part of your premise I struggle with is that to overturn the established order shows far more initiative and leadership than our pal Barry has shown.

    To overturn the established order does NOT require initiative and leadership. All you need to do is acquire a position of power and then follow instructions. How does "following instructions" require "initiative" and "leadership"? In fact, they are pretty much polar opposites by definition.

    And to be a Marxist does not require intelligence. No genuinely intelligent person could possibly be a Marxist.

    It's plainly evident that powerful people have been behind Obama's rise to power for a very long time. It's also apparent that those who control Obama also control the Republican party, because otherwise the Republicans could have had him removed from office years ago. (Better yet, they could have prevented his first election had they wanted to.)

    What we're talking about here are two different evil entities but they both share a similar goal, which is why the more powerful of the two entities has always promoted and protected his evil, little brother.

    LC, you seem to have forgotten things you once knew... or something.

    I urge you to dig out your copy of 'THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND' and read the Summary on page 283, and the photo captions on page 284.

    Obama is and always has been a Marxist (just like his real father was), but the Marxists exist ONLY because of the International Bankers, who are not Marxists but are able to use the Communists to further their own agenda.

    Obama is a friggin' idiot - a "friggin' USEFUL idiot" - and he follows orders (those orders are to do all he can to tear down the established order, which he HAS been doing) but even he knows that there is a power bigger than the Communist party, and THAT power is really the true evil influence behind all the other subservient evil powers.

    I mean, this is just "New World Order 101", and you took THAT class years ago, my friend. What up?

    The only people Obama cares about being "liked" by are his puppeteers behind the scenes. He also knows that there are puppet masters pulling the strings of his own puppeteers, and he could be replaced as early as sunrise tomorrow if he doesn't follow instructions.

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

    1. I do not think we're that far apart after all-I read into your first comment that Obama was the man with the agenda-but we both see him as a pawn. The people pulling the strings have the agenda-in that we agree.

      The notion that Obama wants to be liked was not the point I was going for-quite frankly, he is more the "I'm taking my ball and going home" president, using executive orders to (unconstitutionally) get his way.

      Maybe I misused the "stepin-fetchit" analogy-I was definitely going for the man wanting to please his masters.

      He's a lap dog. And the bankers have the box of milk bones.

  6. No, I do NOT miss Bush yet. Why is it, that the GOP and their followers have to refer to Obama and the democrats with such hate and all the negative name calling as you spew here? ie. He's a BIG PUSSY, etc.--pretty childish, which granted FAUX (Fox) News and their ilk have more or less set the template for such things. Yet you want to feel above it all and open and fair minded, etc. How badly did Bush and Reagan fuck everything up--I know, they were saints to you and the GOP. What do you think Obama should do as far as the Ukraine?? He put sanctions on Russia or would you rather him go on TV and spout off a bunch hot air badmouthing the Russians? What good does that do? Is calling your enemy "baby killing cocksuckers" really going to get the job solved or endear you to them?

    Yeah, I know Reagan and the GOP take credit for the tearing down the Berlin wall, but it's BS. It would have happened anyway due to economic issues--let some of these countries implode on themselves sometimes that's the best way, and unless they're invading us/doing us harm, the best way as it doesn't cost us anything, sit and wait. Plus I prefer the non-involvement, which by the way is why Obama is trying to keep us out of Iraq currently. Hell, he can't get an funds anyway as the GOP bitches about the budget so much.

    Out of curiosity, what informs your opinion? Faux (Fox) News, the right wing propaganda talk show host, care to share, or do you try to unbiasedly seek out neutral news sources regardless of what they may shed light on? Can you stand the truth or do you just like spewing the negativity? I'm not saying Obama has been perfect, far from it, but he's done an okay job, which by the way has been an uphill battle.

    1. Nice of you to ignore the fact that by forcing their hands in the arms race and Afghanistan, Reagan purposefully accelerated the economic factors that allowed the wall to fall. Oh, but I forgot, you're too busy being objective.

    2. Well, Anon, I model my style on this blog after Bill Maher's act, so I would put forth that followers of the other party spew bile as well-not that that makes it right.

      I spent years watching Maher insult Obama's predecessor, call anyone of faith a moron, and basically set himself up as the smartest person in the world.

      And I laughed while doing so, even when I disagreed with him. All that gave me the idea for a blog where I'd take a position, but try to spin it the same way as Maher only polarized the other way.

      If you were to read more of this blog, you'd see that it is tongue in cheek, because I agree with you-both parties are full of it.

      Now I am inferring here, but it sounds like you would discredit Fox News' objectivity, as would I. But I cannot tell if that means you think CNN is an objective source. I would LOVE to find an objective news source-but every one I see is spewing venom at one party or the other.

      Which is the myth-that either party is really any different. I consider myself a Constitutionalist, and have written in a candidate (Ron Paul) in the last two elections because I am tired of casting a vote for someone I do not want to see get the job.

      So do I take extreme positions on this blog? Yes.

      Is it often in bad taste? Yes.

      Am I as funny as I think I am? Maybe not.

      Should anyone take this blog all that seriously?

      Not really.

      Should EVERYONE get more involved in what is going on in this country, challenge their leadership, and stop thinking along party lines or simply along "liberal" or conservative" lines?


      But seriously, I appreciate your stopping by. As long as a discussion can be civilized, I do not mind someone with a differing point of view. But once comments stoop to name calling, I've found it a more effective us of time to employ the delete key.

      I would like to directly comment about two points you make:

      I know, they were saints to you

      Not so-after eight years of Bush, I started having a hard time pronouncing all the words he butchered on television. I did like some things about Reagan and Bush Sr, and have always credited Clinton for being able to get things done.

      Why is it, that the GOP and their followers have to refer to Obama and the democrats with such hate and all the negative name calling

      If the left can spend eight years attacking, vilifying and trying to undermine a Republican incumbent, why do we have to treat the current Democrat with kid gloves.

      I heard Bush called idiot, warmonger, accused of stealing two elections...on and on for eight years.

      But mock Obama, and you're a hatemonger.

      Since I fully expect Hilary Clinton to be our next President, I'm warning you now...there's going to be jokes about PMS on this blog!

      But rest assured, should a Republican take office, I have a hunch I'll find fault with them, too.


  7. Addressing your remark--He's a lapdog and the bankers have a box of milk bones--really? Do you think the GOP/Republicans would do matters differently? There's no way they would. Both parties are heavily swayed by big money, Wall St. etc.

    1. Addressing your question-


      A thousand times no!

      I think that is the big myth that has been perpetrated on the American people, that there is any difference in these parties!

      Look at how they behave!

      Raising the debt ceiling vote in 2008- All Democrats against, all Republicans EXCEPT Ron Paul, in favor of.

      Same issue under Obama-Democrats for, Republicans against. Only Ron Paul was consistent.

      I pick on Obama because somehow he has this "man of the people" image versus Bush being the corporate puppet.

      They are ALL corporate puppets! How many of the "common folk" are buying plates at those $5K dinners?

      I do feel strongly about the point I make regarding the background of a senator in relation to the job of president. All things equal, I'd look at a former governor first-simply more relevant.

      And while guys like Christie and Walker get vilified by the left, and while I would have concerns with both as presidential candidates, they both had the guts to take an unpopular position in order to address some dire economic realities....something NO president has done in the past several decades.

      I know that message gets kind of lost in all my mudslinging, but again, I'm not going to apologize for you not finding me as amusing as I find myself.

      The fact that you realize that both parties are in someone's pocket tells me that you are at least aware that the issue of "Republican" and "Democrat" or "Liberal" and "Conservative" is not one of "Good" versus "Evil."

      There is a time to be liberal. Legalize marijuana, for crying out loud.

      There is a time to be conservative. Only spend the money we have and stop borrowing from China.

      But do not think for a second that I do not believe Bush was wagging his tail for the milk bones the bankers had six years ago...I just didn't have the blog back then.