LYONS: Obama, the hoax

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine. A little over one year 1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high; 2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon; 3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%. 4) the DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 + 5) American's were buying new cars,taking cruises, vacations overseas, living large!... But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes--we got 'CHANGE' all right. In the PAST YEAR: 1) Consumer confidence has plummeted; 2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing!;3) Unemployment is up to 5.5% (a 10% increase); 4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS and prices still dropping; 5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure. 6) As I write, THE DOW is probing another low~~ $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS! YES, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE...AND WE SURE GOT IT! .... REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT HAS NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF THESE ISSUES, ONLY CONGRESS. AND WHAT HAS CONGRESS DONE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. NOW THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT CLAIMS HE IS GOING TO REALLY GIVE US CHANGE ALONG WITH A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS!!!! JUST HOW MUCH MORE 'CHANGE' DO YOU THINK AMERICANS CAN STAND? "The Beach Bum"

Many people believe Obama is at the very least, a Socialist. Fox News has even stated a few times, that if if the people want a Swedish style Socialism, then so be it, or words to that effect. Do you think it is fair to the people thinking they are voting the Democrat ticket not knowing what they are really voting for. Has the U.S. news media become the Pravda of the past?

beachbum: When the Dems took over the Congress in 2006 The Canadian Dollar was worth .76 now it is on par. The Yen 116 to the dollar now 92 My 401k was at an all time high now it is down by over 40% looks like I don't have much wealth to spread around.

The major networks and drive-by media still largely control the flow of information to the public in this country. Instead of engaging in honest, even-handed journalism which is their natural role in this society, they have acted as PR spokemen for the Obama campaign, if not outright propagandists for it. When negative information about one candidate is blatantly suppressed while the positions of the other candidate are intentionally distorted, it makes the entire election process a travesty. The candidate they so actively support appears to have core beliefs that are far left, possibly Marxist, and could never have garnered widespread support if the public had been made fully aware of his background. The major networks and liberal MSM may well have put the republic itself in peril, and I hope one day that they will be called to account for what they have done.

This article makes me even more fearful about an Obama presidency (perhaps combined with Reid & Pelosi, I should say "reign"). Come January 20th, we might be facing the beginning of the People's Republic of the United States. All the horrible things that might occur from 2009 through 2012 will be blamed on Bush, a lie which will be approved of and publicized by the liberal media. Years ago, I never would have believed that a person with virtually no qualifications for the presidency could possibly be elected. Obama has proved me wrong. To make things worse, we'll have a person who wouldn't be able to get a security clearance serving as our leader. The Democratic Party should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for perpetrating this fraud on the country, but issues of qualifications and, more importantly, character have virtually disappeared as prerequisites for running for office under that party's banner. Their defense of a rapist, perjurer and pardon seller serving as their leader from 1992-2000 proves that point. People like Harry Truman and JFK must be turning over in their graves.

Spot on sir! I think if he wins, he will not last a year before he is charged with treason.

There is one thing that is certain. If the media is blocking items that could define vulnerabilities in Obama's past, they will not be proven wrong with his presidency. They will block anything closely resembling a failure on his policies and enhance blame toward someone else, just like they have done for the past eight years. They cannot manage the complexity of it all and it will end up just like the Fannie Mae dominoes. How can it not, it looks like those idiots that caused the economic chaos in Congress are going to remain.

To ditto: Charged with treason by who? The Emperor's acolytes sure as heck aren't going to tell him or those who voted for him that he's stark naked. Just as they didn't find any problem with that cash-in-freezer Democratic Congressman Jefferson (only with the Feds who found the cash there), they won't find a damned thing wrong with anything The One does. That's the main difference between Republicans and Democrats: when the former does anything morally repugnant or outright illegal (which they must certainly do...they're only human) they usually either resign or, at a minimum, are asked to resign. Dems, on the other hand, either flat out lie and say they didn't do it, or if caught in the act (by a forensic examination of a dress for example)claim that it's no big deal, someone else made them do it or set them up, etc. It never ceases to amaze me.

Admiral Lyons, as a former high level naval officer, you should be more knowledgeable of history. People will gladly surrender for the long term their rights and accept limitations on their freedom to someone offering short term economic security and free money that many did not earn --- kind of like a Roman emperor ordering free bread to thrown out to the populace. Obama's pretty clear, for instance, that he, as much as possible, will work to limit gun owners' rights, and their access to ammo and guns. Many gun owners are aware of that, but could care less, because they believe Obama's practices of lower taxes and free money. Think of "bread and circuses" for the Romans --- they willingly accepted progressively more tyrannical forms of government with each successive dictator and emperor in return for more "freebies" until the Rome of 400 AD bore little or no resemblance to the Rome of 150 BC. The USA is no different, and, when the going gets tough, the tough become socialists along with everyone not so tough. So that seems to be where we're headed. Hopefully, the barbarians in today's world will be more willing to give us a break than the ones in the past gave Rome while Obama embarks on a voyage of self-discovery in the Oval Office.

Want to see the DOW shoot up 2,000 points on November 5th? Help/vote McCain/Palin '08 Let's roll America. Nobama!

Lyons, on Nov. 5 one of two things will happen. Either McCain will be the next President, or you will be a target of an FBI or IRS investigation. I can hear the computers working away now as all your records are being pulled by Obama's minions. At least you are in good company in regard to this (i.e., Joe the Plumber).

HOORAY FOR ADMIRAL LYONS , YOU HAVE HIT ALL THE TOPICS OF WHY BARRACK OBAMA SHOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. ONE MORE JUST AS IMPORTANT , WITH HIS CHAOTIC BACKGROUND AND ADULT ASSOCIATIONS I DOUBT THAT A BARRACK OBAMA WOULD PASS ANY SECURITY SCRUTINY FOR MOST SENSITIVE JOBS IN WASHINGTON . YET MILLIONS OF FOOLS ARE READY TO GIVE HIM ACCESS TO THE OVAL OFFICE. OBVIOUSLY MOST OF OUR POPULATION IS DESCENDING TO THIRD-WORLD LEVEL, EMOTIONS TAKING THE PLACE OF REASON AND LACK OF RUDIMENTARY CRITICAL-THINKING HAS OCCURRED.

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine. A little over one year 1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high; 2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon; 3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%. 4) the DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 + 5) American's were buying new cars,taking cruises, vacations overseas, living large!... But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes--we got 'CHANGE' all right. In the PAST YEAR: 1) Consumer confidence has plummeted; 2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing!;3) Unemployment is up to 5.5% (a 10% increase); 4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS and prices still dropping; 5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure. 6) As I write, THE DOW is probing another low~~ $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS! YES, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE...AND WE SURE GOT IT! .... REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT HAS NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF THESE ISSUES, ONLY CONGRESS. AND WHAT HAS CONGRESS DONE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. NOW THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT CLAIMS HE IS GOING TO REALLY GIVE US CHANGE ALONG WITH A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS!!!! JUST HOW MUCH MORE 'CHANGE' DO YOU THINK AMERICANS CAN STAND? "The Beach Bum"

OBAMA COULD NOT EVEN BE A COP OR A SOLDIER Qualified for what? Why hasn’t someone brought this up? SPREAD THE WORD Obama could not pass the background check to become a member of law enforcement at the local, state or federal level because of his self admitted use of cocaine as a young adult. Oh Yea, I almost forgot; there is also that guy named William Ayers who held a fund raiser for Obama. Didn’t he bomb police stations? Law enforcement agencies consider the use of hard drugs an automatic disqualifier because it not only shows a lack of judgment as an adult but also shows a disregard for the laws the officer will probably have to enforce. A fund raiser and friend who bombed police stations might give them second thoughts too. The Democrats are putting up a candidate for the most powerful law enforcement officer in our country (The Justice Dept. is directly under the president) who could not even qualify for a local police force or sheriff’s department. (Obama would fail the background check) He would also probably be denied entry into the military for the same reason. So now we could have a Commander in Chief who could not even be a soldier. Don’t believe me? Call a few police departments, tell them you used cocaine as an adult and you are friends with a guy who bombed police stations and then ask if you can join. Then do the same for some military recruiters but remind them your friend also bombed the Pentagon. You would probably not only be shown the door but you might find yourself the subject of an investigation as well. Obama could not be hired for any federal position that required any security check because of his past associations with William Ayers and Bernadette Dorn; both of whom are unrepentant domestic terrorists. Another association is with Rashid Khalidi (An Obama fund raiser) who is blatantly anti-Semitic, calls the establishment of Israel a catastrophe, and worked for the PLO when it was listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. Government. Khalidi says he supports Palestinian terrorism. (Israel is an ally of the United States) Past associations indicate an individual’s ability to use judgment and indicate where their loyalties might be directed. When associations indicate an individual might be sympathetic to others who are opposed to the interests of the United States, background checks would deny the individual security clearance. So now we have the Democratic Party promoting a candidate for the highest office in the land who is not even qualified to be a law enforcement officer at any level and who could not pass a basic background check for a federal position requiring a security clearance. I am beginning to think the Democratic Party has moved into the “Twilight Zone” and the mainstream media is hooked to their coat tails. (Especially MSNBC) R.D. Cook, Lone Pine, CA (Retired law enforcement officer and author of a soon to be released book “A Primer for Conservative Activism”)

We need you more than ever, retired military. Please go to: drorly.blogspot.com scroll down to the call for your specific help. Here it is December 19, 2008 and we are working to run this "snake oil" salesman out of town.