WISE WORDS TO GUIDE GOVERNING AMID TODAY’S GLOBAL CHAOS!

aPHOTO BANNER ... GREAT ECONOMIC DEPRESSION

OH DEAR, stomach SOMEONE ELSE AGREES WITH MY CATASTROPHIC ECONOMIC FORECASTS!

[Simply Click Once On The Highlighted Web Link Below:]:

http://www.bioprepper.com/2015/10/03/experts-warn-these-5-things-will-follow-the-collapse-of-the-dollar/

AND MY OWN PREVIOUS PERSPECTIVE:

 

 

 
U.S. CONSTITUTION_PHOTO

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM LEADS TO DESPOTISM

By Bob Meyer

Judicial activism is the outgrowth of a theory of law known as “Legal Positivism”.

It began to take hold after the Civil War when the president of Harvard University, there Charles William Eliot -- who was an ardent Darwinist -- appointed Christopher Columbus Langdell as the first dean of Harvard Law School.

Under Langdell’s auspices the theory of evolving rather than fixed standards began to permeate legal theory, viagra sale displacing Natural Law as the benchmark.

The evolving standards concept became pervasive in all aspects of intellectual culture, with change being tantamount to progress. In law, it became the responsibility of judges to guide these changes.

The legal positivism theory -- that all change equals progress -- encompassed what a secular philosopher, Mary Midgley, dubbed as the “Escalator Myth”

By the early 20th century we saw this doctrine migrate from the law schools to application in the courts of law. The late Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughs once quipped:

“…we are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is whatever the judges say it is.”

Who needs a Legislature when the courts can do all that, huh?

But perhaps it would be wises to heed the advice given by Thomas Jefferson to a jurist in his era:

“On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to a time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

Frequently left-leaning commentators will suggest that SCOTUS and lower court decisions favored by a majority of Originalist judges, in turn, constitute “conservative judicial activism.” They obviously don’t understand the activism concept. While political ideology might provide a motive for activism, it doesn’t guarantee the decision is an exercise resulting in activism. However, left-leaning jurists are more prone to meddle in judicial activism because of their judicial philosophy.

If one professes that the Constitution is a “living, breathing” document, then there are no parameters as to the possible meaning of a particular clause, because it’s up to the whim of the jurist to guide that understanding.

Cultural trends, personal opinions, and even foreign laws, will be high priorities influencing that decision.

If one believes that role of the court is to weight in on the constitutionality of a particular issue (the view of our constitutional architects), then the role of the judge is automatically diminished or limited.

He or she CAN NOT legislate, or make decisions on the basis of “what ought to be.”

The judge may decide that since the Constitution is silent on an issue, then the court has no purview or jurisdiction in that area. That would automatically make courts less powerful and nix the temptation to become modern philosopher-kings.

That sort of thinking is joined at the hip with the Originalist judicial philosophy. In fact, while all the justices on the conservative wing of the SCOTUS probably had political or moral objectives to the majority decision on same-sex marriages, most argued that the issue was best left to the legislatures.

Many years ago a prominent Christian theologian had lunch with the late judge Robert Bork, who conceded that judicial decisions are no longer based on constitutionality. To paraphrase Justice Antonin Scalia, a recent decision written for the SCOTUS majority was a mystical pontification of language hardly different than one might find on a piece of paper in the midst of a Chinese fortune cookie.

We get worthy advice from George Washington’s Farewell Address:

“It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism…If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

Washington concedes that in the short run ‘usurpations’ sometimes result in salutary consequences, but in the long haul, they pave the road to tyranny.

“Judicial activists,” bend the meaning of the Constitution to bring about the results they desire. In doing so, they act as legislators, if not philosopher-kings, violating the separation of powers.

This practice results in the codification of abominable jurisprudence. Judicial activism is such a tempting and dangerous practice, because it allows unelected officials to do what cannot ordinarily be accomplished legislatively, thus removing civil policy entirely from the democratic processes regarding the will of the people and the rule of law.

 

 
IS OBAMA NUTS?

-- Anyone Rational Should Know That A Politician Who Got Himself Elected Masquerading As ‘The Messiah’ For The Sole Purpose Of Destroying The Country That Elected Him Is Not Only Possibly Crazy, order But Plain Nuts

By Judi McLeod

The question supposedly asked by the government of an entire EU nation (at least according to former NSA intelligence analyst John Schindler ) -- “Is Obama “literally mentally unwell” -- is as rhetorical in nature as the one that asks, “Is the Pope Catholic?”

The latter is all the more useful now that Francis willingly puts global warming/climate change ahead of the wholesale slaughter of Christians by Islamic terrorists.

Some of us Catholics don’t know if the Pope is still Catholic;but we do know that there’s more than one suspected “literally mentally unwell”  western leader running some of the countries gobbled up by the EU.

How about the mental health of Chancellor Angela Merkel where asylum seekers are now SUING Germany for not paying them benefits FAST ENOUGH?

Instead of relying on a quick-hit Tweet like Schindler -- to get the crazy theory out in the public conscience -- ask any German taxpayer, from whom Merkel is taking money to pay the asylum seeker’s freight, if the taxpayer think the German chancellor is off her proverbial rocker.

But now here’s the real headline grabber:

According to the October 14th issue of InfoWars, “A former NSA intelligence analyst has claimed that a senior European diplomat told him that the entire government of a European country considers president Obama to be literally mentally unwell … “John Schindler, a security expert and whistleblower, who now writes for ‘The Daily Beast’, has claimed that a senior EU official from an undisclosed country also inquired about impeachment proceedings [against Obama], saying that the nation believes Obama is not fit for office.”

The theory that Obama is not mentally fit for office carries more punch coming from a left-leaning outlet like the “Daily Beast”.

If former NSA agent Schindler’s short on discretion, he’s long on courage.

All the same, John Boy should hope that the ‘Daily Beast’ is exempt from NSA telephone monitoring, in the hope of keeping the identity of the “entire government of a European country” from getting out.

You don’t have to be a shrink to suspect what crazy is.

Outraged parents whose school children are being asked to make beds for refugees in Germany can tell you in graphic terms what what “crazy” is.

Not so much Western leaders, who not only miss the meaning of ‘having a screw loose’ but actually go out of their way for selfies with Obama.

If Obama is crazy so must be British Prime Minister David Cameron, who refers to the current American president as his “brother”.

Would socialist French Prime Minister Francois Hollande really do anything to get help for a allegedly mentally unfit MARXIST president?

The European country, which Schindler claims considers Obama to be literally mentally unwell, has arrived at that realization eight years late.

Had they found the intestinal fortitude to confront the possibility eight years ago, who knows what might have happened to Obama’s obsession with the ‘”Fundamental Transformation of America”, and his effort to achieve that change?

Meanwhile, anyone rational should know that a politician who got himself elected, masquerading as ‘the Messiah’ -- for the sole purpose of destroying the country that elected him -- is not only possibly crazy, but just plain nuts!

 

 
IS OBAMA NUTS?

-- Anyone Rational Should Know That A Politician Who Got Himself Elected Masquerading As ‘The Messiah’ For The Sole Purpose Of Destroying The Country That Elected Him Is Not Only Possibly Crazy, sick But Plain Nuts

By Judi McLeod

The question supposedly asked by the government of an entire EU nation (at least according to former NSA intelligence analyst John Schindler ) -- “Is Obama “literally mentally unwell” -- is as rhetorical in nature as the one that asks, “Is the Pope Catholic?”

The latter is all the more useful now that Francis willingly puts global warming/climate change ahead of the wholesale slaughter of Christians by Islamic terrorists.

Some of us Catholics don’t know if the Pope is still Catholic; but we do know that there’s more than one suspected “literally mentally unwell”  western leader running some of the countries gobbled up by the EU.

How about the mental health of Chancellor Angela Merkel where asylum seekers are now SUING Germany for not paying them benefits FAST ENOUGH?

Instead of relying on a quick-hit Tweet like Schindler -- to get the crazy theory out in the public conscience -- ask any German taxpayer, from whom Merkel is taking money to pay the asylum seeker’s freight, if the taxpayer thinks the German chancellor is off her proverbial rocker.

But now here’s the real headline grabber:

According to the October 14th issue of InfoWars, “A former NSA intelligence analyst has claimed that a senior European diplomat told him that the entire government of a European country considers president Obama to be literally mentally unwell … “John Schindler, a security expert and whistleblower, who now writes for ‘The Daily Beast’, has claimed that a senior EU official from an undisclosed country also inquired about impeachment proceedings [against Obama], saying that the nation believes Obama is not fit for office.”

The theory that Obama is not mentally fit for office carries more punch coming from a left-leaning outlet like the “Daily Beast”.

If former NSA agent Schindler’s short on discretion, he’s long on courage.

All the same, John Boy should hope that the ‘Daily Beast’ is exempt from NSA telephone monitoring, in the hope of keeping the identity of the “entire government of a European country” from getting out.

You don’t have to be a shrink to suspect what crazy is.

Outraged parents, whose school children are being asked to make beds for refugees in Germany, can tell you in graphic terms what what “crazy” is.

Not so much Western leaders, who not only miss the meaning of ‘having a screw loose’ but actually go out of their way for selfies with Obama.

If Obama is crazy, then so must be British Prime Minister David Cameron, who refers to the current American president as his “brother”.

And, of course, would socialist French Prime Minister Francois Hollande really do anything to get help for an allegedly mentally-unfit American MARXIST president?

Regardless, the European country -- which Schindler claims considers Obama to be literally mentally unwell -- has arrived at that realization eight years too late.

Had they found the intestinal fortitude to confront the possibility eight years ago, who knows what might have happened to Obama’s obsession with the ‘”Fundamental Transformation of America”, as well as his effort to achieve that negative change?

Meanwhile, any rational person should know that a politician who got himself elected masquerading as ‘the Messiah’ -- for the sole purpose of destroying the country that elected him -- is not only possibly crazy, but just plain nuts!

 

 
U.S. CONSTITUTION_PHOTO

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM LEADS TO DESPOTISM

By Bob Meyer

Judicial activism is the outgrowth of a theory of law known as “Legal Positivism”.

It began to take hold after the Civil War when the president of Harvard University, here Charles William Eliot -- who was an ardent Darwinist -- appointed Christopher Columbus Langdell as the first dean of Harvard Law School.

Under Langdell’s auspices the theory of evolving rather than fixed standards began to permeate legal theory, cialis displacing Natural Law as the benchmark.

The evolving standards concept became pervasive in all aspects of intellectual culture, cheap with change being tantamount to progress. In law, it became the responsibility of judges to guide these changes.

The legal positivism theory -- that all change equals progress -- encompassed what a secular philosopher, Mary Midgley, dubbed as the “Escalator Myth”

By the early 20th century we saw this doctrine migrate from the law schools to application in the courts of law. The late Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughs once quipped:

“…we are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is whatever the judges say it is.”

Who needs a Legislature when the courts can do all that, huh?

But perhaps it would be wises to heed the advice given by Thomas Jefferson to a jurist in his era:

“On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to a time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

Frequently left-leaning commentators will suggest that SCOTUS and lower court decisions favored by a majority of Originalist judges, in turn, constitute “conservative judicial activism.” They obviously don’t understand the activism concept. While political ideology might provide a motive for activism, it doesn’t guarantee the decision is an exercise resulting in activism. However, left-leaning jurists are more prone to meddle in judicial activism because of their judicial philosophy.

If one professes that the Constitution is a “living, breathing” document, then there are no parameters as to the possible meaning of a particular clause, because it’s up to the whim of the jurist to guide that understanding.

Cultural trends, personal opinions, and even foreign laws, will be high priorities influencing that decision.

If one believes that role of the court is to weight in on the constitutionality of a particular issue (the view of our constitutional architects), then the role of the judge is automatically diminished or limited.

He or she CAN NOT legislate, or make decisions on the basis of “what ought to be.”

The judge may decide that since the Constitution is silent on an issue, then the court has no purview or jurisdiction in that area. That would automatically make courts less powerful and nix the temptation to become modern philosopher-kings.

That sort of thinking is joined at the hip with the Originalist judicial philosophy. In fact, while all the justices on the conservative wing of the SCOTUS probably had political or moral objectives to the majority decision on same-sex marriages, most argued that the issue was best left to the legislatures.

Many years ago a prominent Christian theologian had lunch with the late judge Robert Bork, who conceded that judicial decisions are no longer based on constitutionality. To paraphrase Justice Antonin Scalia, a recent decision written for the SCOTUS majority was a mystical pontification of language hardly different than one might find on a piece of paper in the midst of a Chinese fortune cookie.

We get worthy advice from George Washington’s Farewell Address:

“It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism…If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

Washington concedes that in the short run ‘usurpations’ sometimes result in salutary consequences, but in the long haul, they pave the road to tyranny.

“Judicial activists,” bend the meaning of the Constitution to bring about the results they desire. In doing so, they act as legislators, if not philosopher-kings, violating the separation of powers.

This practice results in the codification of abominable jurisprudence. Judicial activism is such a tempting and dangerous practice, because it allows unelected officials to do what cannot ordinarily be accomplished legislatively, thus removing civil policy entirely from the democratic processes regarding the will of the people and the rule of law.

 

 
U.S. CONSTITUTION_PHOTO

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM LEADS TO DESPOTISM

By Bob Meyer

Judicial activism is the outgrowth of a theory of law known as “Legal Positivism”.

It began to take hold after the Civil War when the president of Harvard University, clinic Charles William Eliot -- who was an ardent Darwinist -- appointed Christopher Columbus Langdell as the first dean of Harvard Law School.

Under Langdell’s auspices the theory of evolving rather than fixed standards began to permeate legal theory, displacing Natural Law as the benchmark.

The evolving standards concept became pervasive in all aspects of intellectual culture, with change being tantamount to progress. In law, it became the responsibility of judges to guide these changes.

The legal positivism theory -- that all change equals progress -- encompassed what a secular philosopher, Mary Midgley, dubbed as the “Escalator Myth”

By the early 20th century we saw this doctrine migrate from the law schools to application in the courts of law. The late Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughs once quipped:

“…we are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is whatever the judges say it is.”

Who needs a Legislature when the courts can do all that, huh?

But perhaps it would be wises to heed the advice given by Thomas Jefferson to a jurist in his era:

“On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to a time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

Frequently left-leaning commentators will suggest that SCOTUS and lower court decisions favored by a majority of Originalist judges, in turn, constitute “conservative judicial activism.” They obviously don’t understand the activism concept. While political ideology might provide a motive for activism, it doesn’t guarantee the decision is an exercise resulting in activism. However, left-leaning jurists are more prone to meddle in judicial activism because of their judicial philosophy.

If one professes that the Constitution is a “living, breathing” document, then there are no parameters as to the possible meaning of a particular clause, because it’s up to the whim of the jurist to guide that understanding.

Cultural trends, personal opinions, and even foreign laws, will be high priorities influencing that decision.

If one believes that role of the court is to weight in on the constitutionality of a particular issue (the view of our constitutional architects), then the role of the judge is automatically diminished or limited.

He or she CAN NOT legislate, or make decisions on the basis of “what ought to be.”

The judge may decide that since the Constitution is silent on an issue, then the court has no purview or jurisdiction in that area. That would automatically make courts less powerful and nix the temptation to become modern philosopher-kings.

That sort of thinking is joined at the hip with the Originalist judicial philosophy. In fact, while all the justices on the conservative wing of the SCOTUS probably had political or moral objectives to the majority decision on same-sex marriages, most argued that the issue was best left to the legislatures.

Many years ago a prominent Christian theologian had lunch with the late judge Robert Bork, who conceded that judicial decisions are no longer based on constitutionality. To paraphrase Justice Antonin Scalia, a recent decision written for the SCOTUS majority was a mystical pontification of language hardly different than one might find on a piece of paper in the midst of a Chinese fortune cookie.

We get worthy advice from George Washington’s Farewell Address:

“It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism…If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

Washington concedes that in the short run ‘usurpations’ sometimes result in salutary consequences, but in the long haul, they pave the road to tyranny.

“Judicial activists,” bend the meaning of the Constitution to bring about the results they desire. In doing so, they act as legislators, if not philosopher-kings, violating the separation of powers.

This practice results in the codification of abominable jurisprudence. Judicial activism is such a tempting and dangerous practice, because it allows unelected officials to do what cannot ordinarily be accomplished legislatively, thus removing civil policy entirely from the democratic processes regarding the will of the people and the rule of law.

 

 
U.S. CONSTITUTION_PHOTO

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM LEADS TO DESPOTISM

By Bob Meyer

Judicial activism is the outgrowth of a theory of law known as “Legal Positivism”.

It began to take hold after the Civil War when the president of Harvard University, Charles William Eliot -- who was an ardent Darwinist -- appointed Christopher Columbus Langdell as the first dean of Harvard Law School.

Under Langdell’s auspices the theory of evolving rather than fixed standards began to permeate legal theory, store displacing Natural Law as the benchmark.

The evolving standards concept became pervasive in all aspects of intellectual culture, discount with change being tantamount to progress. In law, it became the responsibility of judges to guide these changes.

The legal positivism theory -- that all change equals progress -- encompassed what a secular philosopher, Mary Midgley, dubbed as the “Escalator Myth”

By the early 20th century we saw this doctrine migrate from the law schools to application in the courts of law. The late Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughs once quipped:

“…we are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is whatever the judges say it is.”

Who needs a Legislature when the courts can do all that, huh?

But perhaps it would be wises to heed the advice given by Thomas Jefferson to a jurist in his era:

“On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to a time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

Frequently left-leaning commentators will suggest that SCOTUS and lower court decisions favored by a majority of Originalist judges, in turn, constitute “conservative judicial activism.” They obviously don’t understand the activism concept. While political ideology might provide a motive for activism, it doesn’t guarantee the decision is an exercise resulting in activism. However, left-leaning jurists are more prone to meddle in judicial activism because of their judicial philosophy.

If one professes that the Constitution is a “living, breathing” document, then there are no parameters as to the possible meaning of a particular clause, because it’s up to the whim of the jurist to guide that understanding.

Cultural trends, personal opinions, and even foreign laws, will be high priorities influencing that decision.

If one believes that role of the court is to weight in on the constitutionality of a particular issue (the view of our constitutional architects), then the role of the judge is automatically diminished or limited.

He or she CAN NOT legislate, or make decisions on the basis of “what ought to be.”

The judge may decide that since the Constitution is silent on an issue, then the court has no purview or jurisdiction in that area. That would automatically make courts less powerful and nix the temptation to become modern philosopher-kings.

That sort of thinking is joined at the hip with the Originalist judicial philosophy. In fact, while all the justices on the conservative wing of the SCOTUS probably had political or moral objectives to the majority decision on same-sex marriages, most argued that the issue was best left to the legislatures.

Many years ago a prominent Christian theologian had lunch with the late judge Robert Bork, who conceded that judicial decisions are no longer based on constitutionality. To paraphrase Justice Antonin Scalia, a recent decision written for the SCOTUS majority was a mystical pontification of language hardly different than one might find on a piece of paper in the midst of a Chinese fortune cookie.

We get worthy advice from George Washington’s Farewell Address:

“It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism…If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

Washington concedes that in the short run ‘usurpations’ sometimes result in salutary consequences, but in the long haul, they pave the road to tyranny.

“Judicial activists,” bend the meaning of the Constitution to bring about the results they desire. In doing so, they act as legislators, if not philosopher-kings, violating the separation of powers.

This practice results in the codification of abominable jurisprudence. Judicial activism is such a tempting and dangerous practice, because it allows unelected officials to do what cannot ordinarily be accomplished legislatively, thus removing civil policy entirely from the democratic processes regarding the will of the people and the rule of law.

 

 
     Obey Me Or Else!

IS OBAMA NUTS?

-- Anyone Rational Should Know That A Politician Who Got Himself Elected Masquerading As ‘The Messiah’ For The Sole Purpose Of Destroying The Country That Elected Him Is Not Only Possibly Crazy, symptoms But Plain Nuts

By Judi McLeod

The question supposedly asked by the government of an entire EU nation (at least according to former NSA intelligence analyst John Schindler ) -- “Is Obama “literally mentally unwell” -- is as rhetorical in nature as the one that asks, see “Is the Pope Catholic?”

The latter question is all the more useful now that Francis willingly puts global warming/climate change ahead of the wholesale slaughter of Christians by Islamic terrorists.

Some of us Catholics don’t know if the Pope is still Catholic; but we do know that there’s more than one suspected “literally mentally unwell”  western leader running some of the countries gobbled up by the EU.

How about the mental health of German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, where asylum seekers are now SUING Germany for not paying them benefits FAST ENOUGH?

Instead of relying on a quick-hit Tweet like Schindler -- to get his "crazy" theory out in the public conscience -- ask any German taxpayer, from whom Merkel is taking money to pay the asylum seeker’s freight, if the taxpayer thinks the German chancellor is off her proverbial rocker.

But here’s the real headline grabber:

According to the October 14th issue of InfoWars, “A former NSA intelligence analyst has claimed that a senior European diplomat told him that the entire government of a European country considers president Obama to be literally mentally unwell … John Schindler, a security expert and whistleblower, who now writes for ‘The Daily Beast’, has claimed that a senior EU official from an undisclosed country also inquired about impeachment proceedings [against Obama], saying that the nation believes Obama is not fit for office.”

The theory that Obama is not mentally fit for office carries more punch coming from a left-leaning outlet like the “Daily Beast”.

If former NSA agent Schindler’s short on discretion, he’s long on courage.

All the same, John Boy should hope that the ‘Daily Beast’ is exempt from NSA telephone monitoring, in the hope of keeping the identity of the “entire government of a European country” from getting out.

You don’t have to be a shrink to suspect what crazy is.

Outraged parents, whose school children are being asked to make beds for refugees in Germany, can tell you in graphic terms what what “crazy” is.

Not so much Western leaders, who not only miss the meaning of ‘having a screw loose’ but actually go out of their way for selfies with Obama.

If Obama is crazy, then so must be British Prime Minister David Cameron, who refers to the current American president as his “brother”.

And, of course, would socialist French Prime Minister Francois Hollande really do anything to get help for an allegedly mentally-unfit American MARXIST president?

Regardless, the European country -- which Schindler claims considers Obama to be literally mentally unwell -- has arrived at that realization eight years too late.

Had they found the intestinal fortitude to confront the possibility eight years ago, who knows what might have happened to Obama’s obsession with the ‘”Fundamental Transformation of America”, as well as his efforts to achieve that negative change?

Meanwhile, any rational person should know that a politician who got himself elected masquerading as ‘the Messiah’ -- for the sole purpose of destroying the country that elected him -- is not only possibly crazy, but just plain nuts!

JUDI MCLEOD’S BIO:

Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years’ experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh, Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, and Glenn Beck.

Judi can be emailed at: judi@canadafreepress.com

 

 
     Obey Me Or Else!

IS OBAMA NUTS?

-- Anyone Rational Should Know That A Politician Who Got Himself Elected Masquerading As ‘The Messiah’ For The Sole Purpose Of Destroying The Country That Elected Him Is Not Only Possibly Crazy, adiposity But Plain Nuts

By Judi McLeod

The question supposedly asked by the government of an entire EU nation (at least according to former NSA intelligence analyst John Schindler ) -- “Is Obama “literally mentally unwell” -- is as rhetorical in nature as the one that asks, malady “Is the Pope Catholic?”

The latter question is all the more useful now that Francis willingly puts global warming/climate change ahead of the wholesale slaughter of Christians by Islamic terrorists.

Some of us Catholics don’t know if the Pope is still Catholic; but we do know that there’s more than one suspected “literally mentally unwell”  western leader running some of the countries gobbled up by the EU.

How about the mental health of German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, where asylum seekers are now SUING Germany for not paying them benefits FAST ENOUGH?

Instead of relying on a quick-hit Tweet like Schindler -- to get his "crazy" theory out in the public conscience -- ask any German taxpayer, from whom Merkel is taking money to pay the asylum seeker’s freight, if the taxpayer thinks the German chancellor is off her proverbial rocker.

But here’s the real headline grabber:

According to the October 14th issue of InfoWars, “A former NSA intelligence analyst has claimed that a senior European diplomat told him that the entire government of a European country considers president Obama to be literally mentally unwell … John Schindler, a security expert and whistleblower, who now writes for ‘The Daily Beast’, has claimed that a senior EU official from an undisclosed country also inquired about impeachment proceedings [against Obama], saying that the nation believes Obama is not fit for office.”

The theory that Obama is not mentally fit for office carries more punch coming from a left-leaning outlet like the “Daily Beast”.

If former NSA agent Schindler’s short on discretion, he’s long on courage.

All the same, John Boy should hope that the ‘Daily Beast’ is exempt from NSA telephone monitoring, in the hope of keeping the identity of the “entire government of a European country” from getting out.

You don’t have to be a shrink to suspect what crazy is.

Outraged parents, whose school children are being asked to make beds for refugees in Germany, can tell you in graphic terms what what “crazy” is.

Not so much Western leaders, who not only miss the meaning of ‘having a screw loose’ but actually go out of their way for selfies with Obama.

If Obama is crazy, then so must be British Prime Minister David Cameron, who refers to the current American president as his “brother”.

And, of course, would socialist French Prime Minister Francois Hollande really do anything to get help for an allegedly mentally-unfit American MARXIST president?

Regardless, the European country -- which Schindler claims considers Obama to be literally mentally unwell -- has arrived at that realization eight years too late.

Had they found the intestinal fortitude to confront the possibility eight years ago, who knows what might have happened to Obama’s obsession with the ‘”Fundamental Transformation of America”, as well as his efforts to achieve that negative change?

Meanwhile, any rational person should know that a politician who got himself elected masquerading as ‘the Messiah’ -- for the sole purpose of destroying the country that elected him -- is not only possibly crazy, but just plain nuts!

JUDI MCLEOD’S BIO:

Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years’ experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh, Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, and Glenn Beck.

Judi can be emailed at: judi@canadafreepress.com

 

 
aaaSTALIN AND LENIN

NOTABLE QUOTES WORTH REMEMBERING:

“We are ready to accept almost any explanation of the present crisis of our civilization except one: that the present state of the world may be the result of genuine error on our own part, generic and that the pursuit of some of our most cherished ideals has apparently produced results utterly different from those which we expected”. 

– Friedrich Hayek

-----------------

PROOF IN THE PUDDING:

http://soupcoffreport.com/2015/10/02/guest-editorial-fantasy-as-foreign-policy/

 

Proudly powered by WordPress   Premium Style Theme by www.gopiplus.com