[continued from previous message]   
      
   affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the   
   United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I   
   will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take   
   this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or   
   purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully   
   discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.   
   So help me God.”   
      
   Under the United States Constitution in Article VI, Clause III,   
   dictates that – “The Senators and Representatives before   
   mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures,   
   and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United   
   States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or   
   affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test   
   shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or   
   public trust under the United States.”   
      
   Obama’s own words clearly illustrate that in his mind the   
   Constitution does not apply to him when he forcefully stated the   
   Obama ideological doctrine which is based on (as did his wife,   
   Michelle Obama) “fundamentally transforming the United States of   
   America”.   
      
   Though most people think they know the meaning of a word, it has   
   been common to learn that people truly do not know the meaning   
   of many words. But it is essential to understanding to fully   
   analyze the language of politicians, especially if they are   
   attorneys. I need only to refer to the infamous Clintonian   
   statement where he said in a deposition before a federal judge:   
   “it depends on what the definition of is…is”.   
      
   Based upon the assumption that words mean something, the   
   definition of the term fundamental, according to The Free   
   Dictionary.com, means –   
      
   1.Something that is an essential or necessary part of a system   
   or object.   
      
   a.Of or relating to the foundation or base; elementary.   
      
   b.Forming or serving as an essential component of a system or   
   structure; central.   
      
   c.Of great significance or entailing major change.   
      
   Obviously the Obama doctrine begins with the belief in changing   
   the “necessary part of a system” predicated on Obama’s use of   
   the term “fundamental”. The system Obama openly stated that he   
   would change is clearly the United States Constitution, since it   
   is our only political system.   
      
   The other element of the Constitution is the basis of the   
   economic system of capitalism. Therefore, it is reasonable to   
   conclude that Obama’s ideological doctrine must include changing   
   America’s organizing economic system, which is protected by the   
   Constitution.   
      
   The second half of Obama’s doctrine is the term transform, which   
   according to The Free Dictionary.com means –   
      
   1.To change markedly the appearance or form of:   
      
   2.To change the nature, function, or condition of; convert.   
      
   As you can see, the term “transform” is meant to mean to convert   
   which essentially is changing something into another form. Thus,   
   anyone with a clear open mind regarding the use of the English   
   language can determine that Obama’s intent is to change the   
   political and economic form of government under which America is   
   grounded. There is no alternative understanding that can be   
   claimed because the intent is based on the actual meaning of the   
   terms that Obama carefully chose.   
      
   But let’s assume that Obama did not know the actual meaning of   
   the words Obama chose as the PRIMARY slogan for his campaign   
   were and that it was intended as some harmless political slogan.   
   Based on this contention, one cannot later claim Obama to be a   
   brilliant thinker, given that he did not even know the   
   definition of these simple common terms of the English language.   
   After all, Obama is an attorney and words have specific meaning   
   and intent.   
      
   Though Obama’s primary political objective is premised on   
   “fundamentally transforming America” does not prove Obama to be   
   a communist, it certainly establishes the foundation on which to   
   successfully assert that Obama’s intention is to “change” the   
   U.S.   
      
   The question is what Obama wants to change America into?   
      
   There are only a very few types of governmental organizing   
   principles that one can adopt or change into: socialism,   
   communism, fascism or Islam.   
      
   Certainly Obama has a passion for a “separation of church and   
   state”, thereby negating the legitimacy of Islam as a political   
   ideology Obama would prefer. This is because Islam promotes   
   religion as the organizing political ideology. Though, Obama did   
   bow to the King of Saudi Arabia. However, this is most likely an   
   indication of Obama’s weakness and desire to emasculate the   
   United States.   
      
   As far as fascism is concerned, it is not a “cool” form of   
   government. Fascism is not focused on as a legitimate form or   
   government and historically there have been few fascist regimes.   
      
   Hence, since fascism is not a popular form of government taught   
   in the elite universities and it lacks a certain degree of   
   gravitas, we can most likely eliminate fascism as a form of   
   government Obama would not desire as a political ideology on   
   which to base the “fundamental transformation” of the United   
   States.   
      
   This leaves us with the choice between socialism and communism.   
   And I’ve eliminated the possibilities of oligarchies and   
   monarchies because Obama lacks royal blood lines and he despises   
   the wealthy unless they are of socialist or communist persuasion.   
      
   One tell-tailed sign of a communist is their utter distain for   
   business and the upper class, unless they can help in   
   solidifying power. Another sign of a good communist is the   
   creation of class warfare. A third component of communism is the   
   destruction of wealth. And the fourth component associated with   
   communist rule is the control of the media, coupled with   
   limiting individual freedom.   
      
   The claim that Obama is a communist is not a logically taxing   
   conclusion given an understanding of American history. It is   
   reasonable to conclude that America has been on a track towards   
   socialism since Woodrow Wilson in 1913 and the passage of the   
   income tax and Federal Reserve Act.   
      
   Marx claimed that “Democracy” was a path to socialism, whereas   
   socialism naturally evolved into communism. Certainly there is   
   no one who resides on planet earth that can judiciously claim   
   America has not been predisposed to following a socialist path   
   based on “crony capitalism” as opposed to entrepreneurial   
   capitalism.   
      
   Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s immense push towards socialism is   
   logically impractical to attempt to defend or deflect the finale   
   outcome of Roosevelt’s economic and social welfare programs. It   
   equally futile to suggest that, Roosevelt was not a socialist   
   seeking to expand Executive branch powers via corrupting the   
   U.S. Constitution and increasing the power of the federal   
   government.   
      
   One unambiguous correlation between the socialist Roosevelt and   
   the communist Obama is their reliance on academics to solve   
   economic and societal issues. Roosevelt called his academics the   
   Brain Trust as they are referred to in Obama’s administration.   
      
   These academic non-business savvy individuals, such as Treasury   
   Secretary Timothy Geithner and Harvard academic economist and   
   Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke (who is alleged to be an   
   expert on the Great Depression), are responsible for   
   implementing “Obamanomics”. And according to an article in New   
   York Magazine, Obamanomics is a “complete repudiation” of   
   Reaganomics according to the former Labor Secretary, under   
   President Clinton, and Harvard economics professor Robert Reich.   
   http://nymag.com/news/politics/55511/   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)