Background Checks for Politicians

12 Jun

Obama's Unhappy Campers

Obama’s Unhappy Campers

Last April 17th, after the Obama administration’s attempt to impose more background checks on those purchasing firearms was defeated, President Obama delivered a speech [] outside of the White House.  President Obama opened his speech saying,

“A few months ago—in response to too many tragedies—including the shootings of a Congresswoman, Gabby Gifford, who’s here today, and the murder of twenty innocent school children and their teachers—this country took up the cause of protecting more of our people from gun violence. Families that know unspeakable grief summoned the courage to petition their leaders, not just to honor the memory of their children, but to protect the lives of all of our children.  A few minutes ago, a minority in the US Senate decided it wasn’t worth it.  They blocked commonsense gun reforms . . . .”

It was an interesting speech.  Several of Obama’s aids were present and visibly depressed.  Vice President Biden was so distraught that he appeared to weep.  Even the normally ebullient Obama seemed fundamentally defeated and forlorn.

Perhaps Obama sensed that he’d just become a lame duck.

In any case, there was no joy in Mudville; mighty Obama—and gun control—had struck out.

Notice that the mighty Obama based his case for increased gun control on the shooting of one Congresswoman (Gabby Gifford) and “twenty innocent school children and their teachers” [at Sandy Hook Elementary School, remember?  How quickly we forget.].  Obama certainly implied that the “too many tragedies” included far more than the twenty-one shootings of Mrs. Gifford  and Sandy Hook children and teachers.

I’m left to wonder if Mr. Obama and his administration (or anyone else in Washington DC) are truly concerned about “too many tragedies” and the deaths of several dozen children, or if they’re just faking their concern to disarm the American people and gain more power.

Part of the cause for my concern about the true motives of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Obama in particular and Washington DC in general is the Iraq War.

As you may recall (how quickly we forget?), our government invaded Iraq in A.D. 2003 and stayed until A.D. 2011.

Why did our government invade?  Purportedly, to find and destroy Saddam Hussein’s Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs).

What was our government’s strategy?  “Shock and Awe”.  Iraqis would be bombed and shot like never before.  In the name of finding and destroying Saddam’s WMDs and as a staunch anti-terrorist, our government would terrify the Iraqi people into submission by subjecting them to a shocking and awesome display of the enormous military power of the world’s only remaining “super-power”.

How many Iraqis do you suppose died in the first wave of “Shock and Awe”?  I don’t know.   How many of those victims were children?

Do you think that the number of dead Iraqi children was even more than the number of children who were shot and killed at Sandy Hook Elementary?  Do you suppose that the deaths of Iraqi children are any less tragic than the deaths of American children?

How many Iraqis died during the entire 8.5 year “war”?  No one knows.  But estimates range from at least 150,000 to over 1 million.  How many do you suppose were Iraqi children?  Do you suppose that the deaths of what are certainly tens of thousands of Iraqi children were any less tragic than the “too many tragedies” that purportedly inspired Obama to seek more gun control?

More, according to a 2013 report from Brown University, 70% of the Iraqi casualties were “civilians”.  Some unknown number of those “civilians” were Iraqi children.  Of the children who’ve survived war, some reports indicate that 60–70% are suffering from psychological problems brought on by the war.

The difference, if any, between the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi children (and the traumatization of tens of thousands more) by means of bombs or gunfire—and the deaths of several dozen American children by means of privately owned firearms—is that the Iraqi deaths were justified by the need to find and destroy Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Except there was problem, wasn’t there?  Iraq had no Weapons of Mass Destruction. Thus, there was no remotely-plausible justification for the murders of tens of thousands of Iraqi children.

If the deaths by gunfire of several dozen American children constitute “too many tragedies” and thus justify more individual gun control, don’t the deaths of tens of thousands of murdered Iraqi children constitute even greater evidence of “too many tragedies” and thus a need for greater governmental “gun control”?  How is it OK for the US government to casually murder, traumatize and terrorize tens of thousands of Iraqi children, and then go on to build more, better bombs and bullets—while that same government claims the deaths of a several dozen American children ultimately justifies disarming the American people?

And how can Obama, Biden and their aids weep over their inability to impose more gun control in this country and not give a damn about helping to cause or justify the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi children?

Their hypocrisy is evident, astonishing and shameful.

Send in the Drones

And then there’s the drones which President Obama uses to murder those on his “kill list”.  Since A.D. 1901, the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded 93 times to 124 Nobel Laureates—one of whom was President Obama. Other than President Obama, how many other Nobel Peace Prize winners do you suppose had their own “kill lists”?  Nary a one, I’d wager.

According to The Bureau of Investigative Journalism [], since 2004 in Pakistan alone there have been 368 drone strikes of which 316 (86%) are identified as “Obama strikes” and were therefore launched on President Obama’s orders or at least during Obama’s administration.  The total reportedly killed ranges from 2,541 to 3,533 of which 411 to 884 were “civilians” and somewhere between 168 and 197 were children.

I assume that each of the 316 “Obama strikes” were launched for the primary purpose of killing one individual.  That assumption might not be true in every case, but may still be generally true.  If that assumption is true, every time there’s an “Obama strike” aimed at one man, there will be an average of about eight fatalities (the target and seven others)—some of whom must be nothing more than innocent bystanders. This implies that Obama is, on average, knowingly killing seven innocent people for each purported “terrorist”.

Insofar as Obama authorized 86% of those drone strikes, it should follow that Obama is personally culpable in 86% of the 168-197 deaths of Pakistani children. If so, Obama could be accused of killing somewhere between 144 and 169 Pakistani children.  Therefore, Obama knows or has reason to know that for every two drone strikes that he authorizes, at least one child will die.

According The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the drone strikes caused between 1,173 and 1,472 Iraqis to be injured.  We can chalk 86% of those injuries and resultant trauma to President Obama—the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and enemy of global terrorism everywhere.  But, do you suppose the Pakistanis aren’t terrorized by the “Obama strikes”.

Is it possible for a man to be truly troubled by the “too many tragedies” of over a dozen children’s deaths Sandy Hook, and yet be indifferent to his personal responsibility for causing the deaths of roughly 155 children in Pakistan?  Is Obama (or Biden, or any of Obama’s aides) truly motivated by compassion for murdered children?  Or are many, most or even all of them simply psychopaths putting on a “show” to deceive the American people?

(Note that, according to The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, there’ve been additional drone strikes into Yemen and Somalia where additional children have also been killed.)

Liar, Liar, Pants On Eternal Fire

Jeremiah Wright is the controversial minister of the Chicago church Obama attended before he was elected President. It’s been reported that in order to distance himself from political liability associated with Reverend Wright, one of Obama’s closest friends offered Wright $150,000 to keep his mouth shut during the 2008 election. When Wright refused, he said he got a phone call a few days later from the candidate himself, asking to meet with him privately in some “secure location.”

According to Wright, at that meeting, Obama asked him, for the good of his campaign, to refrain from controversial remarks while he ran for President.  Wright said he couldn’t make that promise. He said Obama then told him, “The problem with you, Rev, is that you’ve got to tell the truth.” Wright said he replied, “That’s not a bad problem to have. Maybe you should try it.”

I believe that story.  If it’s true, it exposes Obama as a man who doesn’t merely lie, but does so regularly without shame or scruple for the express purposes of advancing his agenda and/or increasing his own power.  Obama depends on lies.  Obama is untroubled by lying.  For him, the end justifies the means—any means.

I’m reminded of Revelation 21:8 which provides of a “laundry list” of those destined for damnation:

“But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

If the Bible is true, based on his complicity in the murders of Iraqi children and propensity to lie to America and the world, President Obama is headed for that “fiery lake”.  Do you think he’ll get any special treatment for having won the Nobel Peace Prize?

Don’t be fooled any politician or aid who weeps at the deaths of American children and used those deaths to advocate gun control.  You can bet that they’re frauds, hypocrites, liars and in some instances accomplices in murder.

Therefore, while President Obama has failed in his attempt to cause private Americans to undergo background tests before they can purchase a firearm, maybe it’s time for politicians to undergo a “background check” (including a psychoanalysis designed to discover their psychopathic tendencies) before they can run for office and especially before they can authorize assassinations.  If we can’t trust Joe Sixpack to own an “assault rifle,” how can we trust the con-artists and psychopaths who routinely rise to power in our government to control drones and even nuclear weapons?


Tags: , , ,

11 responses to “Background Checks for Politicians

  1. Martens

    June 12, 2013 at 2:42 PM

    “How is it OK for the US government to casually murder, traumatize and terrorize tens of thousands of Iraqi children, and then go on to build more, better bombs and bullets—while that same government claims the deaths of a several dozen American children ultimately justifies disarming the American people?”

    The US government will answer that your question implies an apples-and-oranges comparison and is therefore invalid. They will say the war in Iraq, with its unavoidable toll on civilians, was necessary and therefore by no means a crime.

    On the other hand, those who claim an equivalence between the Iraq war and willful murder-by-gun will obviously disagree.

    As usual, the assumptions one starts with make all the difference.

    • Tony

      June 13, 2013 at 8:45 PM

      True, but 1)I’ll bet most know their assumption is deceiving BS for the masses and don’t believe it themselves and 2) if not 1, I would love for both sides to submit their assumptions to a debate. Their assumption would get annihilated. Things like who is preserving corporate interests and neglecting individual interests and the idea that no man is of a greater worth than any other.


  2. Michael Kivinen

    June 12, 2013 at 10:08 PM

    There are two types of criminals ones at the bottom and those at the top, actions at the top is considered legal while at the bottom its illegal, and masses are in the middle being eaten from below and from above.
    The people are like the sea’ the rubbish sinks to the bottom and scum floats to the top which filters the light of truth from far above by a single higher intelligence. Man was given freedom to choose to do right or to do wrong and the masses have chosen the scum to lead them, with lies, corruption, war, security, intelligence gathering, monitoring, assignations, acts of treasons, monetary gain, bribery, blackmail.

    This shows that Politian’s have a lot on their plate to keep their parties agenda and negotiations with powers greater than them in control like the private world banking system that can have you killed, private world corporations that can have you killed, death squad CIA that can have you killed, backstabbing secret service that can allow you to be killed, the military that can have you killed, than to worry about doing good for the people and the nation. No ! being a Politian’s is to be a puppet in show only but not in total control, but its never for the interest of the people or the nation and the masses are in a delusion as to who is in the driver seat of the real world. To be a JFK is to have a sign on them to be killed. Obarma is nothing like a JFK,
    Al Gore Nobel prise winner and now Obarma a Nobel prise winner, and both are rewarded for the lies and mass illusions given over to the nations and the people to accept.
    Deceptions of Mass deceit is now awarded by Nobel.
    It’s the same as the actions of treason are rewarded by the giving of Nobel prise by the real world leaders to their performing political puppets and its akin to about the same as a movie star of an Oscar for their acting.

    People should wake up to these truths, and the way to force change will be the whole nation to stop work, for after all the power is with all the people and not the few, but this still leaves a problem and a need for a real leader to stand by the people, or leave it to the scum in power to continue. Weapons don’t solve problems and only corrupt governments use force, So only all the people standing united unarmed do solve problems. Unless this is done, only hell on earth will continue its agenda. Ignorance leads to death and the masses are winning the ignorance prise.

    So where do stand? the fight for death and lies or for truth and life, heaven or hell on earth, right or wrong. The blood of your nation is in your hands.

  3. Yartap

    June 13, 2013 at 7:16 PM

    Giving weak, fearful people the right to vote is our greatest demise of our nation. An unlimited democracy will create a greater number of slaves. With the majority of people agreeing with the military NSA’s spying, which ends the Fourth Amendment; the demise of our nation is at hand. We would not have to have background checks for politicians, if we had truly independent people (private incomes) voting instead of the dependent public (people who receive their livelihoods from public money). One vote per independent household is truly a republican form of government.

    It is too late. We cannot return to freedom and liberty. In our democracy, it is the people who I/we should fear. It is time to separate from the People, any way, shape or form. Teach your children well. I will continue to warn the sheeple, but I will not stop the brain-dead sheeple from sacrificing their children. We will not get a better society, until we get a better class of citizen to change the system, which will not happen. Like-minded people separating and gathering together will save most. But where?

    • Adask

      June 13, 2013 at 8:45 PM

      If I recall correctly, recent statistics indicate that only 43% of the American people object to government surveillance and 57% approve. Given that the majority support surveillance, we might be discouraged.

      But my question is this: What percentage of Americans objected to government surveillance just after 9/11 in A.D. 2001? What percentage of Americans approved of government surveillance just aft 9/11 in A.D. 2001?

      I don’t know the answers to those questions. However, I’m going to guess that over the past few years, the number of Americans who approved of government surveillance was actually much higher (perhaps 80% or even 90%) than it is today.

      If so, the fact that a majority of Americans still approve may not be as significant as the possibility that the percentage of American who approve of government surveillance is falling; that the number of Americans who object to government surveillance is rising; that, in another year or so (maybe less) polls will discover that the majority of Americans have come to object to government surveillance and only a minority (of idiots) still support government surveillance.

      By themselves, numbers and percentages don’t prove much. It’s only in the context displayed by rates of change in those numbers or percentages that we can have a solid idea of whatever is really going on.

      It is not too late. At least not for the American patriots. It might be almost too late for the treasonous government.

  4. Bill Deupree

    June 13, 2013 at 10:51 PM

    The level of respect(character and integrity)I have for elected officials has been dropping for several years, setting new record lows. How many of the elected as well as appointed are guilty of not only misrepresenting what goes on but also lying to the public?

  5. Tadeusz Kościuszko

    June 14, 2013 at 6:51 AM

    Adask!! You are so damn obvious, it kills the people who you shun light on. You my friend, I do call your concern and love of the law my friend. May undeniable get me on the no fly no buy list because, I once had a plain clothed FED write down your web address and insist I take it and visit it so only much to shortly later, have a illegal uniformed local policeman provide an illegal search and seizure search for it. How can a free man now be a terrorist? How can innocent life become the enemy. How can human people fill hearts with death of there own? I have made a study of you I appreciate your standing up for the sprit of the law. God bless you more than he has

    • Adask

      June 14, 2013 at 12:52 PM

      Hi Tadeusz. Thanks for your friendship and thanks for your blessing. I guarantee that I absolutely appreciate every prayer and every blessing that’s directed towards me.

      How can government view us as “terrorists”? Easy. We, who still believe in individual Liberty, are “terrifying” to those in government who refuse to serve us and are instead determined to control and oppress us. If our ideas catch hold, those in government might not only lose power, they might even be hanged for treason. Therefore, they find our pro-liberty views to be scary. Government–which no longer seeks to “serve” us has evolved from “public servant” into would-be “public master”. This a key to the whole problem. If government is still our public servant, we are not “terrorists”. If government sees itself as our public masters, We the Uppity–the people who struggle for Liberty–are “terrorists”. We are “terrifying” to all those who reject the idea of individual Liberty. We who believe in Liberty would also have been terrifying to the former regimes of Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, Khmer Rouge, and the Bush Jr. administration–all of which regimes and administrations have been relegated to “ash heap of history”–while the forces in favor of Liberty are still here. We are not necessarily predominant, but we are persistent. The tyrants come and go–but, so far, they have never succeeded in snuffing out mankind’s impulse towards Liberty. That’s gotta be scary for the government because the closer any government has come to destroying liberty, the closer that government came to its own demise. Tyranny is self-destructive. That’s kinda funny, isn’t it? The more power a government acquires, the close that government comes to its own demise. (Smile.)

  6. thomas russo

    January 26, 2014 at 9:28 AM

    Ah, the second amendment, yes, the right to bear arms. Hello!, its the “right to bear arms”, so what is all this crap about “guns”?, it states ” the right to bear arms” it does not define what the arms are to be taken up to bear. Now, who is defining what and were is it defined and to whom does this definition apply too, in other words what is the subject matter of the legislative act apply too?, for in legislative acts there must be only one subject within the act that it applies, now what one is addressing is what is called the Dillon Rule not the second amendment, while in fact every Constituton of a bordered state that Ratified the Articles of Confederation and established a Constitution with borders like Ohio in 1803 has a Bill of Rights that has nothing to do with the Constitution “of the United States” and has everything to do with the Constitution “for the United States” which is not land owned by the “United States of America”, sounds confusing?, well in order to get through all this pick up and read Volume 1 United States Code which is inclusive of Titles 1-4 and read it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s