Michelle Malkin » The official Flag of the Obama States of America

The official Flag of the Obama States of America

By Michelle Malkin • January 17, 2009 04:58 PM

Defacing the flag in honor of the inauguration of Barack Obama?

Well, don’t you dare question their patriotism.

That would be…unpatriotic. (Hat tip: Inside Charm City)

US Flag Code: “The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.”

***

Re-branding Old Glory is, of course, simply a natural progression from the man who redesigned the presidential seal.

Commenter MtnsEdge wonders if the O-flag has 57 stars. Har.

***

Welcome to the permanent campaign.

Posted in: Uncategorized

Printer Friendly

comments (225)

trackbacks (73)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#202

On January 18th, 2009 at 11:24 am, rambler said:

Gag me! This is sickening. After 8 years of the constant Bush bashing and now the continuous suck up the He-who-can-do-no-wrong, the country has lost all sense of reality because of the MSM’s propaganda machine. By the time everything is said and done, we will have no concept of truth or reality. How “happily everafter” will we be after another terrorist attack? I guess we won’t have to worry since we will all be poisoned by the Obamadrug induced coma produced by the coming administration. All hail the new world order.
#204

On January 18th, 2009 at 11:49 am, FamilyMan said:

Thank you Boomer. I had no idea it had gone that far.
How does Idaho stand in the vote for a Constitutional convention?
#205

On January 18th, 2009 at 11:55 am, pdigaudio said:

I’d love to be able to buy rolls of two-ply toilet paper with The Messiah’s visage on it. Would be the perfect political statement.
#208

On January 18th, 2009 at 12:02 pm, Boomer said:

FamilyMan I wish I knew. Sounds like we need to send a couple of letters or e-mails off to our State legislators to find out their stand on this issue.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE (mo-lone lah-veh) Translation: Come and take them!
#210

On January 18th, 2009 at 12:10 pm, FamilyMan said:

Boomer said:
FamilyMan I wish I knew. Sounds like we need to send a couple of letters or e-mails off to our State legislators to find out their stand on this issue.

I’ll do the same.
#211

On January 18th, 2009 at 12:10 pm, gco said:

On January 18th, 2009 at 9:05 am, jenmom said:

I can’t imagine what the media would have done if Bush had been on the flag or said half the crazy and stupid things Obama has said.

How about if Bush was a smoker? There would have been no end to the hysterical outrage! After the election, I pointed out to an Obama supporter that Obama gets a free pass for his smoking habit. The guy indignantly said there’s no way Obama smokes, because if he did, he’d be publicly crucified for it. Well, those media crucifictions are for Republicans only. A couple of weeks later, there were a few media puff pieces (sorry) about which method Obama would use to quit smoking. Sure enough, there was no mention of what a bad influence he was being on children.

Hell, George H.W. Bush couldn’t even say that he disliked broccoli without getting a media attack: “He’s being a bad influence on the children!!!”
#212

On January 18th, 2009 at 12:11 pm, jjmurphy said:

Text of H. J. Res. 5: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second…

House Bill

It has been introduced by a NY Congressman. Probably won’t go any further, but is still pretty sickening.
#214

On January 18th, 2009 at 12:32 pm, happyscrapper said:

On January 18th, 2009 at 11:55 am, pdigaudio said:
I’d love to be able to buy rolls of two-ply toilet paper with The Messiah’s visage on it. Would be the perfect political statement.

With the statement under the picture…”Wipe This”. I think it would be fun to sell that at the inauguration. Free speech and all that.
#215

On January 18th, 2009 at 12:34 pm, purealchemy said:

On January 17th, 2009 at 9:15 pm, MtsEdge said:
It’s all about who he can emulate, like a groupie.

Yes, that helps to explain the desperate, repeated attempts to link Obama and Lincoln…as I said before, if Lincoln was from another state, would we even be hearing about the Obama-Lincoln connection???

Your comment also describes why Obama keeps dredging up Clinton retreads. Just when we thought we were done with these knuckleheads. Obama doesn’t have the vision to identify a “winner” for these positions, so he keeps recycling Clinton hacks and trying to justify it…of course his supporters claim he’s just being “thoughtful” and “cautious”. HA!

Later it occured to me that this is how he created a sense of his own life, by creating myths about his father especially and other aspects of his formative years because he had such tenuous and scattered personal roots. He made up his own personal mythology and that same tendency has been played out in his perpetual campaigning. Now he’s dragging the whole country into his delusions.
#216

On January 18th, 2009 at 12:34 pm, happyscrapper said:

I will be on an airplane on Tuesday and will be bringing a deck of cards to play with my grandson. I have a brand new deck of Ronald Reagan playing cards I will enjoy using! Each card has a quotation from him. I plan to read each one and somehow keep the faith!
#217

On January 18th, 2009 at 12:36 pm, purealchemy said:

If you would like your own copy of the Program for Tuesday’s Inauguration, just skip it and buy Eric Hoffer’s “The True Believer.” There isn’t a single page of that book that doesn’t offer substantial insight into the permanent Obama campaign, and the bleating sheep who are making it possible

Excellent thought. I still have my mother’s paperback of that. Need to dust it off and revisit.
#218

On January 18th, 2009 at 12:39 pm, happyscrapper said:

Did anyone see Chris Wallace this a.m. interviewing Nan Pelosi? She is such a twit! She kept interupting him before he was done asking the question. And her constant use of the term “bipartisan” is disgusting, since it is a complete lie. She is the most partisan person in Congress. That woman is third in line for POTUS! We have really cheapened that office with the people who are in power right now. Just pray they don’t destroy our country before we have a chance to have another election.
#219

On January 18th, 2009 at 12:40 pm, xler8bmw said:

It’s NOT that easy to change the Constitution! Calm Down!

Only the Congress or the states can actually CHANGE the Constitution. The only way to actually CHANGE it is via a constitutional amendment. Congress or the states can initiate that, and the amendment has to be ratified by a fixed number of states before it takes effect. We’ve got 27 amendments, the most recent as of 1992.

The Constitution can also be changed at a “Constitutional Convention,” but none have been done that way since the 1700s. There was a movement in the 1990s to call a Convention to make a Balanced Budget Amendment, but it never succeeded.

The Supreme Court can INTERPRET the Constitution, but can’t change it. A lot of people would say there’s not much difference between those, since interpretation that has the force of law isn’t much different than a new amendment.

For example, the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision by the Supreme Court legalizing abortion was an interpretation of the constitutional definition of a person (a “person” is someone who is born; hence aborting a fetus does not affect the rights of a person). To change that interpretation will likely require a “Right to Life Amendment,” as its proponents propose.

The President also can’t CHANGE the Constitution — he can only EXECUTE it (hence the term “Executive Branch”). But the President can choose which parts to execute strongly and which to not execute at all, so again this is often only a semantic distinction.

Amending the United States Constitution is no small task. This will detail the amendment procedure as spelled out in the Constitution, and will also list some of the Amendments that have not been passed, as well as give a list of some amendments proposed in Congress during several of the past sessions.

The Amendment Process

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:

Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)
It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 USC 378 [1798]):

The negative of the President applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation: He has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution.

“Informal Amendment”

Another way the Constitution’s meaning is changed is often referred to as “informal amendment.” This phrase is a misnomer, because there is no way to informally amend the Constitution, only the formal way. However, the meaning of the Constitution, or the interpretation, can change over time.

There are two main ways that the interpretation of the Constitution changes, and hence its meaning. The first is simply that circumstances can change. One prime example is the extension of the vote. In the times of the Constitutional Convention, the vote was often granted only to monied land holders. Over time, this changed and the vote was extended to more and more groups. Finally, the vote was extended to all males, then all persons 21 and older, and then to all persons 18 and older. The informal status quo became law, a part of the Constitution, because that was the direction the culture was headed. Another example is the political process that has evolved in the United States: political parties, and their trappings (such as primaries and conventions) are not mentioned or contemplated in the Constitution, but they are fundamental to our political system.

The second major way the meaning of the Constitution changes is through the judiciary. As the ultimate arbiter of how the Constitution is interpreted, the judiciary wields more actual power than the Constitution alludes to. For example, before the Privacy Cases, it was perfectly constitutional for a state to forbid married couples from using contraception; for a state to forbid blacks and whites to marry; to abolish abortion. Because of judicial changes in the interpretation of the Constitution, the nation’s outlook on these issues changed.

In neither of these cases was the Constitution changed. Rather, the way we looked at the Constitution changed, and these changes had a far-reaching effect. These changes in meaning are significant because they can happen by a simple judge’s ruling and they are not a part of the Constitution and so they can be changed later.

Popular Amendment

One other way of amendment is also not mentioned in the Constitution, and, because it has never been used, is lost on many students of the Constitution. Framer James Wilson, however, endorsed popular amendment, and the topic is examined at some length in Akhil Reed Amar’s book, The Constitution: A Biography.

The notion of popular amendment comes from the conceptual framework of the Constitution. Its power derives from the people; it was adopted by the people; it functions at the behest of and for the benefit of the people. Given all this, if the people, as a whole, somehow demanded a change to the Constitution, should not the people be allowed to make such a change? As Wilson noted in 1787, “… the people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them.”

It makes sense – if the people demand a change, it should be made. The change may not be the will of the Congress, nor of the states, so the two enumerated methods of amendment might not be practical, for they rely on these institutions. The real issue is not in the conceptual. It is a reality that if the people do not support the Constitution in its present form, it cannot survive. The real issue is in the practical. Since there is no process specified, what would the process be? There are no national elections today – even elections for the presidency are local. There is no precedent for a national referendum. It is easy to say that the Constitution can be changed by the people in any way the people wish. Actually making the change is another story altogether.

Suffice it to say, for now, that the notion of popular amendment makes perfect sense in the constitutional framework, even though the details of affecting popular amendment could be impossible to resolve.

Popular Amendment

One other way of amendment is also not mentioned in the Constitution, and, because it has never been used, is lost on many students of the Constitution. Framer James Wilson, however, endorsed popular amendment, and the topic is examined at some length in Akhil Reed Amar’s book, The Constitution: A Biography.

The notion of popular amendment comes from the conceptual framework of the Constitution. Its power derives from the people; it was adopted by the people; it functions at the behest of and for the benefit of the people. Given all this, if the people, as a whole, somehow demanded a change to the Constitution, should not the people be allowed to make such a change? As Wilson noted in 1787, “… the people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them.”

It makes sense – if the people demand a change, it should be made. The change may not be the will of the Congress, nor of the states, so the two enumerated methods of amendment might not be practical, for they rely on these institutions. The real issue is not in the conceptual. It is a reality that if the people do not support the Constitution in its present form, it cannot survive. The real issue is in the practical. Since there is no process specified, what would the process be? There are no national elections today – even elections for the presidency are local. There is no precedent for a national referendum. It is easy to say that the Constitution can be changed by the people in any way the people wish. Actually making the change is another story altogether.

Suffice it to say, for now, that the notion of popular amendment makes perfect sense in the constitutional framework, even though the details of affecting popular amendment could be impossible to resolve.
#222

On January 18th, 2009 at 12:46 pm, DesertLover said:

happyscrapper …

True …

The closest San Fran Nan has ever been to “bipartisan” is a trip to the Folsom Street Fair …
#223

On January 18th, 2009 at 12:47 pm, Storm Chaser said:

As the character on Two and a Half Men sometimes says, “I have a bad feeling about this.”
#224

On January 18th, 2009 at 12:48 pm, farmgal said:

Special k I so agree.It does remind me of Nazi Germany.What do you want to bet he will change the Presidential seal to some stupid O thing and color it blue the color of the U.N.There was a few good pieces written on World Net Daily about how the world will now be put above the United States.What do you expect with such a global citizen.I still don’t believe he’s a valid U.S. citizen.Why has he sealed all of his records?I went to Target yesterday and there’s a ton of Obama children’s books,GAG!!!!! About the hope Obama brings,give me a break.If it wasn’t for the fawning media and his tons of money from illegal donations,not to mention voter fraud and us having a lame duck candidate,he wouldn’t have gotten in there.Rush was saying McCain will be the one to pass all the Democrat bills.He will be the 60 they need.If that’s the case he deserved to lose.
#225

On January 18th, 2009 at 12:51 pm, MtsEdge said:

Now he’s dragging the whole country into his delusions.

I think too many have willingly jumped on the bandwagon, to the detriment of this nation.
#226

On January 18th, 2009 at 12:53 pm, xler8bmw said:

#181 i totally agree with you but, the best way for the likes of Obama’s to get elected are the problems the country face now.

Fear makes people do anything.

Hopefully his ego and lack of humility will be his downfall!
#227

On January 18th, 2009 at 12:53 pm, tiredofit08 said:

On January 17th, 2009 at 11:37 pm, Drews2Cents said:

On flying Old Glory upside down: that used to be the flag equivalent of calling 911, so I would be careful where one does it, if at all.

Who here doesn’t think this nation is distressed? I wouldn’t be mad at anyone who did this. I understand. I think we are a nation in trouble and have the wrong leadership in power…

you might want to rethink that idea…several people have been arrested for flying a flag upsidedown…best to know your local climate…if you offend one of these libs you might end up in some trouble….

http://papundits.wordpress.com/2008/11/29/arrested-for-flying-the-us-flag-upside-down/

http://papundits.wordpress.com/2008/11/29/arrested-for-flying-the-us-flag-upside-down/

http://www.flagsbay.com/flag/2007/10/30/flying-us-flag-upside-down-not-sign-of-protest/

Personally I like the idea of the Gadsden flag and have one on order…will be up and stay up for the next 4 years…
#228

On January 18th, 2009 at 12:54 pm, Kokonut said:

Time to display the Gadsden flag (“Don’t tread on me”)! Even some are suggesting that Israel carry a similar flag as well.
#229

On January 18th, 2009 at 1:01 pm, MtsEdge said:

Fear makes people do anything.

I think that’s why we suddenly had a financial meltdown (if I never hear the phrase “financial crisis” again it will be too soon), extremely high gasoline prices, and other “unprecedented” dilemmas that BHO continues to remind us while he tells us how bad things are going to get. It’s like a mantra, a drum beat to lull people into believing that “this guy must know something” and he will help us.

May God help us all.
#230

On January 18th, 2009 at 1:07 pm, xler8bmw said:

#185 mark my word gas will go way up again, under BHO. His energy secretary Chu wants it to hit $4 a gal. Except it will be an incremental increase. Chu wants a 300% increase.

I am also, getting tired of BHO regarding this financial problem the worst since the depression which it’s NOT!
#231

On January 18th, 2009 at 1:14 pm, MtsEdge said:

I am also, getting tired of BHO regarding this financial problem the worst since the depression which it’s NOT!

I wonder if this is his way of trying to hitch his star to the FDR wagon, just like he’s doing w/Lincoln. Problem is, he’s done NOTHING to demonstrate his own convictions, only trying to make people think of those who came before him.

I know several families that have lost homes due to foreclosure, or have lost jobs/hours cut back, etc. In fact, just this week I was told my P/T job will now be cut in half.

But in each case, the people I know aren’t wallowing or whining about “the economy”, they’re looking for a 2nd job, regrouping their finances, taking their lumps, and moving on.

I think BHO wants to convince everyone to give up re “Abandon all hope, all ye who enter here.”

Then, the transformation to the New World Order will be complete. We’ll all be forever at the mercy of the gov’t., helpless and compliant, and unable to resist the degeneration of this once great land.

My family and I aren’t going to go down that path, and I’m glad for the fellow patriots that will continue to resist. But too many people are willing to give up so easily.
#232

On January 18th, 2009 at 1:15 pm, happyscrapper said:

Everything Obama and Congress are proposing to get us out of the recession will only dig us deeper in. They are delusional to think this will work. The only thing it will do is push us closer to socialism. Oh, wait…never mind.
#233

On January 18th, 2009 at 1:21 pm, PKAmmoTroop said:

Nice, a fitting funeral shroud for the Constitution.
#234

On January 18th, 2009 at 1:22 pm, RogerCfromSD said:

So far, Obama has offered very little, if any hope.

Just gloom and doom. What ever positive rhetoric he employs sounds like he intends on “changing and rearranging” our country into a second-class nation.

That is simply unacceptable.

We need to push for Term Limits. The Senate proves what a disaster senators-for-life are.
#235

On January 18th, 2009 at 1:25 pm, RogerCfromSD said:

Another thing:

Why, if Obama is The One, are they trying to make him into another FDR? Or Lincoln?

What a wannabe. What a poseur.

Why can’t he just be himself?
#236

On January 18th, 2009 at 1:28 pm, backwoods conservative said:

Why can’t he just be himself?

He ain’t good enough. He ain’t smart enough. But doggone it, people like him anyway.
#237

On January 18th, 2009 at 1:32 pm, FamilyMan said:

xler8bmw said:
It’s NOT that easy to change the Constitution! Calm Down!

Would you like to elaborate on this statement?
U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D. Toledo) whipped the crowd up before Mr. Obama took the stage yesterday telling them that America needed a Second Bill of Rights guaranteeing all Americans a job, health care, homes, an education, and a fair playing field for business and farmers.
#238

On January 18th, 2009 at 1:32 pm, b-cat said:

All the comparisons with Lincoln and Roosevelt makes one wonder:

Under the Lincoln administration, the nation went to war with itself.

During FDR’s tenure, the economy tanked and people went begging for bread. Being a hobo became a way of life.

Is this what they have in store for us? A country in poverty wracked with violence?
#239

On January 18th, 2009 at 1:48 pm, rightisright said:

“. . . and I’m afraid Tuesday will look like Nuremburg in 1933. This guy is really starting to scare me.”

I’m with you, all this emblimatic crap reminds me of Hilter’s rise…his taking control of the press, the media, the schools the lives of the ~~German~~American people. It’s getting so I can’t tell them apart.

I will never understand how anyone but an idiot could not see how empty headed this Zero guy is with remarks as to how many states are there in America. Let’s see he’s been to 57(oh really), 1 to go(and which 1 would that be), but his campaign won’t allow him to go to Hawaii or Alaska. Just how many states are there, is it 58, 60 or 50 as I was taught in a government controlled school, possibly I was given the wrong info.

I’d like to get this off my chest, the crap about America’s 1st black president…I do not really give a crap if the president is black, yellow, brown, white, tan, pink, male or female, as long as they are true red blooded Americans that want nothing but the best for this once great country(headed to 3rd world status) by leading with the tools left by the founding fathers as laid out in the U.S. Constitution.

Be prepared folks, when it blows, it’s going to get ugly.
#240

On January 18th, 2009 at 2:01 pm, happyscrapper said:

On January 18th, 2009 at 1:48 pm, rightisright said:

I agree, we will be inaugurating the big ZERO. He has no experience, no background except for the corrupt associates the FOX News people have been able to dig up, no birth certificate, no college transcripts. He got into power in the first place by corruption and the “Politics as usual” Chicago machine and a lot of money from Soros and questionable contributions. How in God’s name did it come to this?? I know that if some KOS Kid or Huffpo were to read our posts they would say we are suffering from ODS. They are so blind, none of the above matters one bit to them. That the highest office in this country is now going to this corrupt and empty suit is the biggest disgrace in our nation’s history. On a more positive note…in four years, I really believe the majority will have had enough!! And the little missy who thinks Obama is going to pay her mortgage and put food on her table…in four years she will be on the streets and wondering wha’ happened, bro?
#241

On January 18th, 2009 at 2:01 pm, rightisright said:

On January 18th, 2009 at 5:06 am, AmericanPatriot said: It just occurred to me…Obamanation sounds almost the same as abomination

Much closer to reality is it not.
#242

On January 18th, 2009 at 2:05 pm, xler8bmw said:

#187 I believe his star hitching is his own internal belief he is not competent. Now I am not a shrink but, there must be something said when other emulate themselves after others. I belive it is a combination of his own lack of confidence and his ego.

He is becoming very much like a dictator personality of narcissism and eventually paranoia.

What I find very unsettling is that they want to repeal the 22nd and keep this idiot in office and he hasn’t even gone through 4 yrs now.
#243

On January 18th, 2009 at 2:06 pm, xler8bmw said:

#193 I did if you read the whole post!
#244

On January 18th, 2009 at 2:08 pm, happyscrapper said:

On January 18th, 2009 at 2:01 pm, rightisright said:

Definition of Abomination:
1. Anything greatly disliked or abhorred.
2. Intense aversion or loathing; detestation: He regarded lying with abomination.
3. A vile, shameful, or detestable action, condition, habit, etc.: Spitting in public is an abomination.

Yes, definitely close to reality!
#245

On January 18th, 2009 at 2:09 pm, xler8bmw said:

#193 I gave a complete explanation of how to change the constitution. Also, without a convention it takes up to 7 yrs for the change to take place if in fact it is done by congress when they put term limits on the change. 2/3rds of the states must ratify it first.
#246

On January 18th, 2009 at 2:12 pm, xler8bmw said:

#193 not to drag out the point. Just remember I wouldn’t take anyone in the congress to seriously about the constitution. reid din’t even know about the 17th amendment regarding Burris! Nor did Biden in the campaign about the responsibilities of the VP. She’s obviously and idiot!
#247

On January 18th, 2009 at 2:55 pm, FamilyMan said:

xler8bmw said:
Just remember I wouldn’t take anyone in the congress to seriously about the constitution

That IS the problem isn’t it?
#248

On January 18th, 2009 at 3:02 pm, duff65 said:

How did we get into this mess? Oh yeah, we nominated McCain (or the MSM did). Any of the other “serious” candidates would have cleaned Obama’s clock. And all he gets is worship from the media.
#249

On January 18th, 2009 at 3:27 pm, xler8bmw said:

#203 yes, yes it is!
#251

On January 18th, 2009 at 4:19 pm, MtsEdge said:

happyscrapper re definition of abomination:

Don’t forget Proverbs 6:16-19

Sound like anyone we know??
#252

On January 18th, 2009 at 4:34 pm, happyscrapper said:

On January 18th, 2009 at 4:19 pm, MtsEdge said:
happyscrapper re definition of abomination:

Don’t forget Proverbs 6:16-19

Sound like anyone we know??

Oh yes, indeed! Lots of wisdom in that Book!
#254

On January 18th, 2009 at 5:06 pm, rambler said:

Pelosi the twit wants to be for Barack what Tip O’Neil was to Jimmy Carter. The fallout might be amusing.
#255

On January 18th, 2009 at 5:19 pm, happyscrapper said:

On January 18th, 2009 at 5:06 pm, rambler said:
Pelosi the twit wants to be for Barack what Tip O’Neil was to Jimmy Carter. The fallout might be amusing.

Pelosi has an inflated view of her importance and intelligence. She is a total moron. Look at it another way…Congress approval, under 15%, Obama approval, over 75%. Who do you think wins in a stuation like that? Obama has a lot of corrupt political machinery behind him. She has no idea who she is dealing with. I would love to see her get squashed.
#257

On January 18th, 2009 at 6:07 pm, MtsEdge said:

approval, under 15%, Obama approval, over 75%. Who do you think wins in a stuation like that?

I also think that Obama is not the “typical” politician, in that he is not listening to polls. He is doing what he seems programmed to do–convert the US to a socialist/Marxist state. He definitely won’t be intimidated by the likes of Pelosi and Reid. They are about to get played.
#259

On January 18th, 2009 at 7:50 pm, By Choice said:

So let me get this straight: As to the Constitution President elect Soetero says ” the Constitution is a list of negative values that do not define what the country should do for its citizens”; in Baltimore he States “we need a new declaration of independence” and then desicrates the flag with his own image and there is no verifiable proof that he is an American citizen. Are any of these impeachable offences??

just asking……….
#260

On January 18th, 2009 at 8:46 pm, happyscrapper said:

A bit off topic…but I just heard that HBO has bought the rights to all the entertainment and activities that have been going on out in Washington…Bruce Springsteen, U2, etc. In other words, unless you have the money to get to Washington DC, you won’t be able to see the inaugural entertainnment, etc. I am not that interested in the inauguration itself, but the musical acts, etc. would be fun to see. Am I wrong to think those things should be open to everyone? Doesn’t this whole thing belong to the American people? And whose tax dollars are paying for a huge chunk of this? I wonder who was responsible for selling the rights to HBO. Anybody know?
#261

On January 18th, 2009 at 8:47 pm, purealchemy said:

On January 18th, 2009 at 6:07 pm, MtsEdge said:

I also think that Obama is not the “typical” politician, in that he is not listening to polls. He is doing what he seems programmed to do–convert the US to a socialist/Marxist state. He definitely won’t be intimidated by the likes of Pelosi and Reid. They are about to get played

I feel like the person who wrote earlier, “I don’t have a good feeling about this.”
#262

On January 18th, 2009 at 8:50 pm, tiredofit08 said:

On January 18th, 2009 at 5:19 pm, happyscrapper said:

On January 18th, 2009 at 5:06 pm, rambler said:
Pelosi the twit wants to be for Barack what Tip O’Neil was to Jimmy Carter. The fallout might be amusing.

Pelosi has an inflated view of her importance and intelligence. She is a total moron. Look at it another way…Congress approval, under 15%, Obama approval, over 75%. Who do you think wins in a stuation like that? Obama has a lot of corrupt political machinery behind him. She has no idea who she is dealing with. I would love to see her get squashed.

give him a few months he’ll whittle away at the high approval rating…wait for the buyers remorse to set in with his raising taxes, putting a hefty tax on gas and whatever else he’s got up his dirty sleeve…and Congress, well they’ll keep there rating at about 15% or less if they keep on their stupid path….the trouble is Americans keep on re-electing the same idiots that have kept us in the problems we have and sinking deeper…insanity is repeating the same and expecting a different result…
#263

On January 18th, 2009 at 8:57 pm, happyscrapper said:

the trouble is Americans keep on re-electing the same idiots that have kept us in the problems we have and sinking deeper…insanity is repeating the same and expecting a different result…

The reason everyone keeps voting these traitors back in is that most voters don’t have a clue what is really going on, they don’t care, or they are too stupid to care. So they just vote for the “best looking”, best orator, the one who promises the most, or just because mommy and daddy voted for that party. There are a lot of people who voted for Obama who don’t even know who his running mate is!! Our right to vote should be accompanied by an aptitude test before a person is allowed in the voting booth. People have desecrated the sacred priviledge to vote by their apathy. And of course, you have ACORN, an organization that seems to be getting away with voter fraud…and that will continue.
#265

On January 18th, 2009 at 9:03 pm, MtsEdge said:

On January 18th, 2009 at 8:47 pm, purealchemy said:

Ditto here.
#267

On January 18th, 2009 at 10:59 pm, ArmywifeArmymom said:

When our soldiers die defending our freedom it surely isn’t in that disgrace of a flag that their coffins are wrapped in.
#268

On January 19th, 2009 at 12:01 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

Obama Nation:
Using Racism In Order To Form A More Socialist Union

Commentary (I first posted on March 19, 2008)
on the remarks of Senator Barack Obama:
‘A More Perfect Union‘
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Tuesday, March 18th, 2008
#269

On January 19th, 2009 at 12:05 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

Why aren’t his supporters waving a flag like this?
#270

On January 19th, 2009 at 12:17 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

See the 9th Commandment of the Obamassiah:

The Book of The Obamassiah
Chapter II

The Commandments of the Obamassiah are nine but this is a living document and changes are made as needed.

I. Thou shalt not speak the middle name of the Obamassiah. To do so exposes thine as a racist and it shall not be tolerated.

II. Thou shalt not mention past associations of the Obamassiah. To do so exposes thine as a racist. For despite any recent or current friendship his holiness may have with them, he was only a child when they ran afoul of the law. Or he missed that sermon.

III. Thou shalt not mention praise of the Obamassiah by murderers and tyrants. To do so exposes thine as a racist, it is a sign that thine has truly lost one’s bearings.

IV. Thou shalt not mention the schooling of the Obamassiah at any point in his existence. To do so exposes thine as a racist.

V. Thou shalt not question the Obamassiah more than eight times. To do so exposes thine as a racist. For the time of his holiness is of a value beyond your own.

VI. Thou shalt not question the past of the Obamassiah family arrival or his birth. To do so exposes thine as a racist. For events in time matter not if they occur differently than his holiness speaks of them. It matters only that you believe.

VII. Thou shalt not question the words of the Obamassiah’s spouse. For if her words mirror those of the past associations of his holiness then thine is a racist twice over for the mention of them. (see II)

VIII. The purveyors of words to the people shall cast only praise on the Obamassiah. To turn from this exposes thine as a racist and a soldier of the unbeliever and thine should be cast out and lose any source of livelihood.

IX. Thou shalt not question the patriotism of the Obamassiah. To do so exposes thine as a racist. For by not displaying any outward love for his land only proves his love for his land.

Herendeththelesson

rihar on May 9, 2008 at 5:35 PM
#271

On January 19th, 2009 at 12:41 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

Who is “Inspired” to “Bring an Empire to its Knees”?
#275

On January 19th, 2009 at 9:53 am, RedDog said:

Most of these people are ignorant, and some quite stupid. Unless they are wilfully ignorant, I don’t get particularly steamed. It’s simply who they are, and their actions stem from that. These are people who constantly stew in a hothouse of entitlement and anti-American gas.
#278

On January 19th, 2009 at 11:48 am, Kokonut said:

Take a look at this YouTube video and skip it to about 1:52 and watch the rest. Deaf people are now going to incorporate the signed letters “O” and “b” in “Ob”ama where the letter “b” becomes into a flag.

Oooh, how patriotic. The video includes English subtitle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67V8qWQd_EM&eurl=http://gnarlydorkette.blogspot.com/2009/01/for-president-obama-your-name-sign-from.html

Not quite descecrating the U.S. flag but it’s funny for people to try and make him into the most “patriotic” of all presidents, even attempting to surpass Abe Lincoln. The problem is that Lincoln’s the honest one.
#279

On January 19th, 2009 at 12:16 pm, Kokonut said:

Here’s appropriate sign language name for Obama.
#285

On January 20th, 2009 at 9:40 am, wayiwalk said:

The 57 stars are for the new states created by splitting up and redistricting existing states so that they can continue to monopolize the senate!