Start A Petition

Obama's Vision Coming To Fruition?

US Politics & Gov't  (tags: obamaadministration, corruption, cover-up, crime, democrats, dishonesty, ethics, government, lies, obama, propaganda )

- 1850 days ago -
I finally had an opportunity to watch Dinesh D'Souza's "2016: Obama's America." And I must say that I was completely blown away!

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Carol D (346)
Sunday March 31, 2013, 2:51 pm
I finally had an opportunity to watch Dinesh D’Souza’s “2016: Obama’s America.” And I must say that I was completely blown away!

It’s not that I was surprised by the information put forth by D’Souza to support the idea that President Obama is an anti-American, anti-colonial, pseudo-Communist. The evidences supporting these realities had been uncovered well before his first presidential nomination. But to witness how thoroughly and methodically Obama had been groomed to become the divisive and transformative leader he has become was utterly fascinating and completely demoralizing.

After viewing ‘Obama’s America,’ I feel like every question has been definitively put to rest. The question that remains is: how in the world did a guy who was raised solely on fanatical anti-American ideology become our commander-in-chief? Clearly, he wants to weaken us (and our allies) as he undermines our foundations by any means possible. It is also obvious that he seeks to raise up those who despise us (since he also despises our long standing principles, values, and ideals). D’Souza’s predictions for a second Obama term are dramatically unfolding before our eyes, including Obama’s indifference to Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, his efforts to weaken our own military (increasing our national security vulnerabilities), and his vehement promotion of reckless economic policies. If our president’s goal is to economically destroy us, he’s swiftly succeeding.

One of the surprisingly poignant moments was D’Souza’s open exchange with the poverty stricken, ‘colonialist’ George Obama, a vulnerable, soft-spoken man who has been forsaken by his half-brother due to the president’s disdain for George’s politically right-leaning perspectives. After viewing this, I wished THIS Obama was the one currently occupying the White House.

It seems Obama prefers to even the international playing field at the expense of the nation he governs – talk about your ultimate conflict of interest (as well as the interests of those he’s been elected to represent). I’m left to wonder, where have all the reasonable Democrats gone? Are they so blinded by the media hype that they cannot see the long (and even short) term consequences of our President’s destructive governing philosophy?

I don’t look to disparage our president, I wish it were otherwise. But I refuse to turn a blind eye to what has been set before us. I pray that The Lord above may take hold of his soul and alter his course. Regardless, the future is in His hands.

Whatever the ultimate outcome, everyone needs to watch this! Buy it, for that matter, and make sure you share it with your friends and neighbors before complete and irreconcilable damage has been permanently inflicted upon our great nation!

Patrice M (84)
Sunday March 31, 2013, 3:01 pm
Anti-colonial!?!?! Are you PRO-colonialism? Jeez!!!!!

Patrice M (84)
Sunday March 31, 2013, 3:18 pm
And BTW, your disrespect for the president is obvious, but must you lie and call him a commie? Just because people don't support the repressive tactics and totalitarian agendas of the GOP does NOT make them communists. Basic decency and human compassion do not make one a communist. A refusal to hate your fellow man does not make one a communist. A desire NOT to see victims of disaster suffering without aid does not make one a communist. Not wanting to shut down the public school systems all over America does not make one a communist.Not wanting increased tax breaks for one percenter fat white parasites does not make one a communist, either.
Can't you all come up with anything else besides the horrible misuse of words like "socialism" and communism?" And please, if you can, tell me how the president can be a Hitler sympathizer while also being a communist and a socialist? How? How is this possible? Because you republicans call him all of that all the time. It sounds ignorant, frankly. Can't you just simply say that you disagree with his policies? Does it always have to be so over the top into high hyperbole?

BTW, I ask this "Hitler-socialist/communist" question of republicans all the time and I never get a straight answer. Is it just fun to call the president a whole bunch of important sounding names, no matter what they mean?

Somebody in your party needs to buy a dictionary or a thesaurus to get some better adjectives to pass around when you're all sitting there in front of the TV and made hypnotized and compliant by Fox (Faux) News.

Carrie B (306)
Sunday March 31, 2013, 3:41 pm
Angelica, most of us know Carol is a racist who is full of hate!

Elle B (84)
Sunday March 31, 2013, 8:12 pm

"Today's conservatives - especially social conservatives, as opposed to intellectuals and the more thoughtful politicians - define themselves by what they oppose, which is anything and everything they perceive to be liberal. That category includes everyone from Democrats to anyone with whom they disagree, and can, therefore, automatically be labeled a liberal." ―John Wesley Dean, III

“The neo-conservatives, who are closely linked to the neo-corportists, are rather different. They claim to be conservatives, when everything they stand for is a rejection of conservatism. They claim to present an alternate social model, when they are little more than the courtiers of the corporatist movement. Their agitation is filled with the bitterness and cynicism typical of courtiers who scramble for crumbs at the banquet tables of real power, but are always denied a proper chair.” ― John Ralston Saul, The Unconscious Civilization

* * * * * * * * *

“Social conservatism and neo-conservatism have revived authoritarian conservatism, and not for the better of conservatism or American democracy. True conservatism is cautious and prudent. Authoritarianism is rash and radical. American democracy has benefited from true conservatism, but authoritarianism offers potentially serious trouble for any democracy. ”

"Authoritarianism is not well understood and seldom discussed in the context of American government and politics, yet it now constitutes the prevailing thinking and behavior among conservatives."

"Empirical studies reveal that authoritarians are frequently enemies of freedom, anti-democratic, anti-equality, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, power hungry, Machiavellian, and amoral. They are also often conservatives without conscience."

"Antipathy to liberalism has been present from the outset of the conservative movement but it only became a powerful unifying influence in the early 1980s."

― John Wesley Dean, III, White House Counsel to U.S. Pres. Richard Nixon 7/1970 -4/1973

* * * * * * * * * * * *

[PS. Thank Ronnie Reagan & Associates for the latter--the intensification of pure propaganda and making it ok for multitudes of "caucasian types" to be their true racist azz selves once again playing the the i'm so pure and innocent routine--an age old favorite--that makes any true heart burst and vomit.]

"Conservatism requires liberalism for its meaning [for] without the enemy [of liberalism] to serve as nemesis and model, conservative politics would lack its organizing principle." ― Sidney Blumenthal, Washington Post

“Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals.” ― Mark Twain

Carol D (346)
Sunday March 31, 2013, 9:03 pm
Angie and Elle..There is no hope for you..everything you claim about the Republicans is exactly what the liberals are and do! It's not worth while to try and get one to see truth and facts when they refuse to open their's a waste of energy and time. Think what you will...I am just glad that more and more liberals every day are waking up to the lies that Obama has said and done! And you are right Angie.I do NOT respect the President! I respect the office he holds but he is not deserving of any respect because he is a traitor and an evil man who hates America! Remember the first time Moochelle was proud of her country was when Obama was voted in as President!? WOW!! If you can't see through either one of those fakes/frauds you are truly doomed! And getting onto racist...remember it's the Democrats who tried to stop the Civil Rights act from's the Democrats who tried to stop any and all acts that were put in place to save the blacks. I don't expect one to search or believe those facts either when they are brainwashed as bad as they are!!

Carol D (346)
Sunday March 31, 2013, 9:04 pm
And in the event you would happen to decide to see that movie which you might learn something from you would be shocked....then again I don't think you would be able to handle it.

Patrice M (84)
Sunday March 31, 2013, 10:10 pm
Well, could you please just answer the question about how the president could be a Hitler sympathizer, a socialist, a Muslim terrorist, and a communist?

How could he be anti-colonial and a Hitler admirer at the same time?

I would love an answer.

Patrice M (84)
Sunday March 31, 2013, 10:15 pm
Oh - and is pro-colonialism good? Why? What country should we attack and colonize?
Please explain.

Carol D (346)
Sunday March 31, 2013, 11:03 pm
Angie..You won't believe my answer anyway but I will tell you what I think...he camaflauges himself quite well according to whatever he needs to be to fit the situation! Here are some interesting article that can answer you your questions better than I can!!

On being a Socialist

On being a communist

Obama, The Socialist Communist Marxist Fascist Muslim Nazi

Enjoy Angie!! :-)

Elle B (84)
Sunday March 31, 2013, 11:49 pm
Don't have to research it. Studied in depth through 400 level university coursework in the early 1970's. Yes, it was "Dixie-crat" boys and girls and like-minded political and financial associates who blocked civil rights legislation. But then the majority vacated the democrat party as the civil rights movement and unions gained momentum and began aligning with Democrats. The vast majority of Republican sorts did not support Civil Rights out of good morals, ethics, conscience nor authentic kindness of heart for the most part. Eisenhower initially said it needed to happen because if the US didn't find a way. . .foreign COMMUNISTS would come and organize minorities--especially Blacks [sound familiar?] we're still hearing that tired refrain today. Lincoln was racist in the beginning--questioning if Black folks were equal but thought a nation built on slavery would crumble apart. He appears to have grown in time to genuinely advocate for legal civil rights. Lincoln was a Whig until that party limped off the stage with the death of prominent leaders. The "Union Party" made up of Democrats and Republicans that he ran for office under--died for all intents and purposes when he did. Teddy Roosevelt left the Republican Party when he figured out he had been bamboozled and shammed into it by Barrons and financiers. He the formed the Progressive Party known as the "Bull Moose Party" after his own nickname. The 2nd Nixon campaign joined forces with Strom Thurmond [former Democrat of the Old Dixie variety] because he could not get nominated without a 'Southern Racist Coalition' gThe Old Dixie Racist Consorts keep the GOP electorate and the old confederacy alive and well--without them--voter head counts and the party fall. William F. Buckley, Jr. threw the John Birch, whacko Libertarian crowd out of the conservative movement in the early '70's, rejecting their extreme totalitarian views. They've been working very hard behind the scenes ever since to circumvent and dismantle the US Government as a fully participatory democracy while building their own poli-economic infrastructure and effect a culture change no one voted for. Their little poli-socio-economic coups is about 90% complete. And guess what party the whole convoluted conglomerate mess of rejects is either in or influences now? It is the Republican party and radical right-wing [that are anything but conservative---that is just a bought and stole "brand" name] that accuse "everyone" that doesn't get on their exceptionally perverted and convoluted bandwagon of doing exactly what they do. To heck with elections--If you can't beat em--BUY 'EM n TRICK EM! It's the Republican Way. Republicans have been scamming and lying to themselves and the public for so long they've got multitudes scratching watches and winding heads and butts. All taking part in such fantastical ignorance are who lack ability and acumen in education and research. NOTE: first summer job out of high school decades ago was research aide--later working for the head of research at a major US university. Did my homework--don't need any pre-schooler sing-song lessons. . .can get to legitimate raw data, studies, published papers and those conducting the research faster than wet-behind-the ears wanna-be-es can think the word. . .mega cisterns of GROW-UP. . . highly recommended.

Carol D (346)
Sunday March 31, 2013, 11:53 pm
Both the book and movie attempt to make sense of Obama’s otherwise inexplicable decisions as president by tying them to his anti-colonialist roots and subsequent belief system. Both of Obama’s parents were anti-colonialists, as was his adolescent mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, and several of his professors and adult peers, particularly Bill Ayers and Reverend Jeremiah Wright.


Elle B (84)
Monday April 1, 2013, 12:42 am
The United States of America was founded by ANTI-COLONIALISTS. George Washington, Paul Revere, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Adams, to name a very few. Mahandus K. Ghandi was an ANTI-COLONIALIST. Nelson Mandela was/is an ANTI-COLONIALIST.

“For at least two thirds of our miseries spring from human stupidity, human malice and those great motivators and justifiers of malice and stupidity, idealism, dogmatism and proselytizing zeal on behalf of religious or political idols” ― Aldous Huxley

"When dogma enters the brain, all intellectual activity ceases." -- Robert Anton Wilson

"When ideology is involved, truth is the first casualty." ―Tim Callanan

"Propaganda is as powerful as heroin; it surreptitiously dissolves all capacity to think.” ―Gil Courtemanche

"The most heinous and the most cruel crimes of which history has record have been committed under the cover of religion or equally noble motives” ―Mohandus K. Gandhi

Carol D (346)
Monday April 1, 2013, 11:10 am
The United States of America was founded by ANTI-COLONIALISTS. George Washington, Paul Revere, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Adams, to name a very few. Mahandus K. Ghandi was an ANTI-COLONIALIST. Nelson Mandela was/is an ANTI-COLONIALIST.

Some interesting facts about colonies, colonialists, Patriots, Loyalists or Neutral people.

Patriot, Loyalist, or Neutral? You Decide

During the American Revolution, the American colonists had to decide to support the War for Independence or remain loyal to the British and King George III. Some Americans could not decide which side to choose and remained neutral during the war. Most American colonists, however, did choose sides. Those who supported independence from Britain were known as Patriots. Colonists who opposed independence from Britain were known as Loyalists.

Most Patriots supported independence because they felt that recent British laws on the American Colonies violated their rights as British citizens. This included taxing without consent, quartering soldiers in citizens’ homes, and denying colonists the right to a trial.

Most Loyalists who opposed independence tended to be wealthy landowners, clergymen, or people with business or political ties to Britain. Many Loyalists agreed that the American colonists had suffered at the hands of the British but the Loyalist hoped that a peaceful reconciliation with British government was possible. During the Revolution taking a Loyalists stance was dangerous. Many Loyalists were brutally attacked and killed. Their property was destroyed or taken away. Many loyalists left the American Colonies for their own safety. Some Loyalists moved to England or to nearby Canada.

Those living in the American colonies had various reasons for choosing their side. Most of the Iroquois Native Americans, had a working relationship with British officials. They were angered by colonists pushing into their territory and sided with Britian. Farmers often choose their side based on which side their landowner supported. For example, if a Patriot landowner was cruel and always raised the rent, the tenant would be a Loyalist. If the Patriot landowner was kind and collected a fair rent, the tenant would be a Patriot. Colonists who were in debt with British creditors often became Patriots since they hoped winning the Revolution could get them out of paying back what they owed.

It may be surprising to you that not all Americans wanted nor fought for independence. They can’t imagine why any American would want to remain part of the British Empire. You will see that the colonists had different points of view and that deciding which side to take was not easy.

Adapted from,%2520Loyalist,%2520or%2520Neutral%2520%2520You%2520Decide.doc+patriot+colonists&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=u


This section has part of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. If you want to see the whole documents, check out the National Archives and Records Administration:
Many people who lived in the Colonies were happy to be British subjects. They did not want to form their own country. Some of those people, known as Tories, stayed loyal to the British King even during the war.

Other colonists, called Patriots, came to feel that the leaders back in Great Britain did not really understand what the Colonists needed and were not interested in listening.

People like slaves and Native Americans, who lived in the Colonies but without any rights, listened to Patriots and Tories talk about what was and wasn't fair. They had their own cultures and beliefs about freedom and citizenship, yet many of them also were drawn into the battle. They chose sides according to whom they thought would be most fair to them.

The Patriots' ideas about liberty and how a country should be run were so powerful, they have influenced people's ideas about freedom and government all over the world. You can find out what those special ideas were by looking at the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. This section is a challenge. It has some language that you might not understand at first. If you still have questions when you are done, ask a grown up, or look for more information at your local library.

On July 4, 1776, the Continental Congress, with representatives from all thirteen original colonies, declared independence from Great Britain and formed the United States of America. The first part of that Declaration for Independence explained the ideals that the U.S. government would uphold. See if you can find those ideas in the words of the Declaration. If you need help, look at the notes.
We hold these truths to be self-evident,
The things we are saying here should be obvious to all people.
that all men are created equal,
Everyone should be treated equally
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
Human beings have certain rights just because they are human. These rights are given by God.
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The rights that all people have are the right to live, the right to live in freedom, and the right to do what makes them happy.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Governments should be run according to what the people who are being governed want. Governments exist to preserve people's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
People have a right to get rid of a government that doesn't protect their rights and replace it with a government that they think will be able to keep them safe and happy.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Changing a government is a very serious thing to do, and most of the time people won't do it, even if the government does things that people don't like. But when the government won't recognize or protect people's rights, the people should make a change.
Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity, which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
That is why we are changing our government.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved;
and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
As people who represent and speak for all the citizens in the Colonies, and with God's approval, we break our ties to the British government and declare that we are an independent nation. Like other countries, we have the right to trade, fight wars, make agreements, and do other things as we see fit.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
We agree to work with one another and support one another with our lives, money, and honor.


Declaring independence and going to war against the British were very hard steps to take. America's founders wanted everyone to know that they weren't doing this over something trivial. It took lots and lots of unfair actions over a long period of time before they chose drastic action. As they explained in the Declaration of Independence,

"Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury"

The second half of the Declaration of Independence is a list of what the Patriots were angry about. See if you can tell why they were upset. If you need help understanding what they said, use the notes.
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
The Patriots said, "here are the facts that support our case."
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

The King wouldn't give up his right to approve laws, but when laws were proposed to him, he wouldn't act on them. It's not that he turned them down. It's just that he wouldn't make a decision one way or another.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
The King said he would only approve requests from some groups of people if those people would give up the right to have representation in government.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
The King has tried to discourage people from participating in representative government by making them meet in places that were hard to reach.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
When elected groups disagreed with him, the King took away their governing powers.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
When the King would shut down a governing group, he would put off holding elections for replacements.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
The King made it difficult for people who might be interested in becoming citizens, to come to the Colonies.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
The King would not let the Colonists create their own courts.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
The King, alone, got to select and fire judges. He also said how much they would be paid. So judges had a strong motive to do what the King wanted rather than always following the law.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
The King sent a lot of bureaucrats (government officials) to enforce his decisions. Colonists had to pay these officials, even though they often enforced laws that the Colonists disagreed with and had no part in making.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
Without asking the Colonists, the King sent his army (not police, but soldiers) to keep order in the Colonies, even when there was no war.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
Soldiers were not subject to the same laws that everyone else had to follow. Military leaders could make up their own laws.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended

The King pretends that Colonists took part in creating the laws they have to live by, but he has imposed lots of laws that the Colonists did not approve of, including:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
When troops were moving from one place to another, they could stay wherever they wanted, even in people's homes.
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
Soldiers who murdered Colonists were put on trial for show, but were never really punished.
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
The King did not allow Colonists to buy and sell things from people in other parts of the world.
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
The King taxed Colonists without any input from those paying the taxes.
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
Some people who were accused of breaking the law were never given trials. Instead, representatives of the King just punished them.
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
People who were accused of breaking the law could be taken far away for trial, even when the case against them wasn't very strong.
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
When the King couldn't control the Colonists the way he wanted, he expanded the boundaries of nearby territory controlled by Great Britain as a way of making sure that Patriots could not extend their influence.
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
The King replaced laws created by the Colonists with his own laws.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

One responsibility of the King to his subjects was to protect them when they were attacked. In this case, not only did the King not protect the Colonists - he attacked them!
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
The British troops fought in ways that were sometimes cruel.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
The British forced Colonists to serve in the military against their will and forced them to fight against friends and family.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
The British encouraged Indians to fight against the Patriots.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the Patriots in the American Revolution. For other uses, see Patriot (disambiguation).

Patriots (also known as Rebels, Revolutionaries, Congress-Men or American Whigs) were the colonists of the British Thirteen United Colonies who violently rebelled against British control during the American Revolution and in July 1776 declared the United States of America an independent nation. Their rebellion was based on the political philosophy of republicanism, as expressed by pamphleteers, such as Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and Thomas Paine.

As a group, Patriots represented a wide array of social, economic, ethnic and racial backgrounds. They included lawyers like John Adams and Alexander Hamilton; planters like Thomas Jefferson and George Mason; merchants like Alexander McDougall and ordinary farmers like Daniel Shays and Joseph Plumb Martin.

List of prominent Patriots

Most of the individuals listed below served the American Revolution in multiple capacities.
[edit]Statesmen and office holders
Thomas Jefferson
John Adams
John Dickinson
Benjamin Franklin
Jonathan Shipley
William Paca
James Madison
[edit]Pamphleteers and activists
Samuel Adams
Alexander Hamilton
William Molineux
Timothy Matlack
Thomas Paine
Paul Revere
Patrick Henry
Samuel Prescott
Molly Pitcher
Roger Sherman
Philip Mazzei
[edit]Military officers
See also: Military leadership in the American Revolutionary War
Nathanael Greene
Nathan Hale
Francis Marion
Andrew Pickens
Daniel Morgan
James Mitchell Varnum
Joseph Bradley Varnum
George Washington
John Paul Jones
Thomas Sumter
Francis Vigo
Elijah Isaacs

So as you can see These that you claim are anti colonialists were also Patriots who were fighting for the rights that we Americans have today! Contrary to what Obama is doing being anti colonialist because of his hatred towards authority he has turned into what he hated and despised the most!! A figure of authority and he is doing the exact same thing...handing OUT authority. He is not fighting against the oppression of authority ad Jefferson, Adams and the rest did..he IS the authority...there IS a difference!

Patrice M (84)
Monday April 1, 2013, 3:13 pm
Carol, I don't agree with anything you have said. TO claim that the president is a chameleon to justify the rabid name-calling is a huge cop out. Can't you just answer the question? You gave me a bunch of dead links to a bunch of articles. What do YOU think?

You called Obama "anti-colonial." What does that mean? Why is that bad, according to the republicans? Please don't respond with a bunch of dead links. Just tell me what you think.


Patrice M (84)
Monday April 1, 2013, 5:47 pm
Why give me an article with all the names of the Revolutionary war patriots? What? What does that have to do with the questions I asked you? Isn't that just subterfuge?

Carol D (346)
Monday April 1, 2013, 8:20 pm
Angie..the link with the Revolutionary war patriots is for Elle...This article is about Obama being an anti colonial...she gave back information saying these war patriots were ALSO anti colonial....the links are to show the differences in the anti colonial patterns as in some being anti colonial for a good purpose and those like Obama who are anti colonial for a bad reason. The one being to save the country from devistation...the other to create nothing but devistation for the country!

Carol D (346)
Monday April 1, 2013, 8:27 pm
Carol, I don't agree with anything you have said. TO claim that the president is a chameleon to justify the rabid name-calling is a huge cop out. Can't you just answer the question? You gave me a bunch of dead links to a bunch of articles. What do YOU think?

No's not a cop is exactly the way I feel about him and many others do also. He says what he needs to say at the time of whatever it is to get backing, support and to pass something he wants passed! He lies through his teeth and is a habitual liar! I gave you those links because what is in them describes exactly how I feel about him! There is more information in those links than I could think of or write besides I am not going to go through all of the effort and work to explain a whole bunch of what I feel to have you turn around and say it's all baloney!! Take it or leave! Something tells me you will leave it though because you REFUSE to see any other side of Obama than your protective opinion and bias of him..your loss Angie! Maybe someday you will wake up!

Carol D (346)
Monday April 1, 2013, 8:29 pm
By the way you REALLY should see this movie. It's not bashing Obama at all but is shows where he gets all of who he is today and why. You really should get to know they guy you support before you support him with your life and your country! What have you got to lose other than telling me I was wrong again!?

Carol D (346)
Monday April 1, 2013, 9:21 pm
Oh Yes Nyack..feed the race issue just like the Preacher did for Obama and Moochelle on Easter Sunday! Smart move! Don't you have ANYTHING else that is factual!?

Well you just keep thinking that Nyack!! The reason we lost BOTH elections is because the Democrats committed MAJOR FRAUD!! Nothing else..pure and simple!!

Patrice M (84)
Monday April 1, 2013, 11:55 pm
Why do you call her "Moochelle?" I keep hearing that from various republicans. Don't get that either.

I guess my next questions are when is Obama a socialist and when is he a communist? When is he a Hitler sympathizer? Can you give one example of each? I am curious because I feel that his policies and positions are fairly consistent

Also, I still want to know when it is good to be pro-colonialism. If there is one thing the founding fathers were, to a man, it was anti-colonial. What is a good purpose for colonialism?

Thanks, Nyack, for the clarifications.

Patrice M (84)
Tuesday April 2, 2013, 12:05 am
The reasons you lost both elections are your party's policies towards women (punitive at best), immigrants (your own Senator King calls them wetbacks), minorities, the elderly (Ryan's granny starver budget), - and anyone else who isn't a white male. A lot of people in this country aren't white males. And sadly for the GOP, even a lot of white males don't like your party's positions towards their sisters, mothers, lovers, female friends. And they are turning away from the GOP as well. Policies of hatred and discrimination (LBGT people) can only get the party so far. America doesn't want what you all are selling. It's actually quite depressing to look at the GOP platform.

Frankly, how many Americans will support a political party that votes not to send aid to disaster victims who have had their homes decimated by a hurricane followed by a massive snowstorm, and still continues to want to reward corporate outsourcers with billions in cash for their overseas bank accounts and for ridiculous tax breaks. Those disaster victims are voters, too, you know.

The GOP has doled out more than its fair share of hatred. And now it is getting back what it put out there.
That's just karma.

Carol D (346)
Wednesday April 3, 2013, 1:48 am
Angie..Because I do not respect a woman that hates America either! As I said those links is the information that I feel he fits to a T...I do not have any specific examples right now ..I am tired of arguing with someone who appears to not want to see to what I am saying. I hope that is clear. All of these questions you want to know has it gotten us anyplace lately by me answering them!? just keep coming up wanting more's fruitless.

As far as a good purpose for colonialism you could look that up yourslef but apparently you wantedme to so here you go...

Colonialism is the extension of a nation's sovereignty over territory and people outside its own boundaries, often to facilitate economic domination over their resources, labor, and markets. The term also refers to a set of beliefs used to legitimize or promote this system, especially the belief that the mores of the colonizer are superior to those of the colonized.

Advocates of colonialism argue that colonial rule benefits the colonized by developing the economic and political infrastructure necessary for modernization and democracy. They point to such former colonies as the United States of America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong and Singapore as examples of post-colonial success. These nations do not, however, represent the normal course of colonialism in that they are either settler societies, or tradepost cities.

Dependency theorists such as Andre Gunder Frank, on the other hand, argue that colonialism actually leads to the net transfer of wealth from the colonized to the colonizer, and inhibits successful economic development.
Critics of colonialism such as Frantz Fanon and Aime Cesaire argue that colonialism does political, psychological, and moral damage to the colonized as well.

More critically, Indian writer and political activist Arundhati Roy said that debating the pros and cons of colonialism/imperialism "is a bit like debating the pros and cons of rape".

Now if you can find any good points for colonizing out of that go for it!

Angie..All of you BS reasons of why we lost are just that..nothing to them and just more liberal propaganda reasons for this or for that or for's always a long list of offenses against the poor liberals that the liberals claim the Republicans are doing. are was FRAUD...FRAUD...FRAUD by the Democrats...Romney was ahead in almost ever poll in every area and then he loses by as much as what he did and you can't see fraud!? Unbelievable! I tell you what just keep on believing your propaganda and I will keep fighting to get Obama out so we can get someone in to save this country before we have no country left...that's IF we have a country left by the time Obama gets done! Oh and the war on women....if there ever was a war on women it's from the left! There are SO many things that can be brought out about what the liberals have done to destroy women it's unreal but right now I am tried and I do not want to discuss any of this with you anymore Angie because it's not really a discussion. And your accusation about a party that refuses to send aid to disaster victims is a farce too....the aid was not sent because in the package there was major you know what that is!? had that gone through then you would have belly ached later because it was in the bill and the Republicans let it go through. You liberals are SO predictable! So we're done Angie!

Nyack..You are so full of it and what you have to say just has no importance! Sorry..I know you wanted it to mean something to me but it don't...maybe next time..maybe not!?


Patrice M (84)
Wednesday April 3, 2013, 5:01 am
This country was founded on anti-colonialism. We were a group of 13 colonies and we hated it. Out of that came the Declaration of Independence. But you are here advocating that we turn other countries into colonies so we can kill their leaders and all those who fight back, dominate them ruthlessly, and steal their resources?!?! That is astounding! Pray tell me, what country would the republicans like us to rape? I am all ears.

Women, apprently, don't agree with you about who wants to destroy them. Most women voted for Obama. The GOP doesn't want greater opportunities for women or better health care. The GOP wanted vaginal probes and the decriminalization of rape. Your own Ann Coulter advocated that women lose the vote because too many of them vote as liberals (how's that for Democracy in GOP action).

You should really stop listening to one party ideology quite so much. Your political party should not define you. You can think for yourself. I don't think everything the Dems have done is so great. You don't see me blindly defending everything they do. Step outside the box once in a while. Get some fresh air. Of course women with half a brain aren't ever going to vote republican. Get real!!! The RNC has NOTHING to offer women that isn't punitive.

Carol D (346)
Wednesday April 3, 2013, 12:15 pm
As I said Angie..............I am done with you and your propaganda!

Nancy M (197)
Wednesday April 3, 2013, 12:18 pm
All I can say is that my Father is rolling over in his grave at the thought of the direction these racist republicans have gone. He would never condone this cr*p.

Carol D (346)
Wednesday April 3, 2013, 12:54 pm
There you go again Nancy...showing your liberal side...nothing new here hearing about the racist Republicans..yup..just gotta be the racist Republicans...after all they are the ONLY ones who passed any bills to protect the blacks while all the Democrats refused to vote for anything in favor of blacks and voted against any laws, bills or whatever that would favor blacks....must be that racist Republican thing! Also while the Democrats want to promote genocide by abortion/murder of the innocent in the womb under the guise of "Pro choice" and also supports the selective abortion of female babies over male must be that Republican racist thing! SO many racist Republican things like this that the liberals just can't seem to handle because they are SO non-racist! It would actually be hysterical if it wasn't so pathetically sick!

Nancy M (197)
Wednesday April 3, 2013, 1:12 pm
I have never said that ALL republicans were racist. As BOTH my parents are Republican. And Mom who is horrified by this kind of thing at least admits she's a bigot.

And I was addressing the article. And agreeing with Angelica. Who does not seem to be promoting any particular propaganda.


Patrice M (84)
Wednesday April 3, 2013, 2:37 pm
Nancy is right. At what point, Carol, do we stop demagoging people who think differently and realize that as working Americans, we are all on the same side? And really, Carol, there is nothing wrong with having a liberal side. The way republicans talk about liberals, you'd think we were all homicidal maniacs or something.

I still don't get "Moochelle." How does she hate America? I think she's a great first lady. What on earth has she done wrong? Do you have specifics? And I really want to know who the republicans want us to invade and conquer if they are so hot under the collar about Obama being an "anti-colonialist." OMG!

Carol D (346)
Thursday April 4, 2013, 5:35 pm
Nancy is right. At what point, Carol, do we stop demagoging people who think differently and realize that as working Americans, we are all on the same side? And really, Carol, there is nothing wrong with having a liberal side. The way republicans talk about liberals, you'd think we were all homicidal maniacs or something.

Angie...What you said here is SO hypocritical it's unreal! Why don't you look back over all of your replies to me, on any topic I have added where you have replied, and see how you talked about Republicans and how you have disagreed with me and Republicans and then you say we are all on the same side!? And there is nothing wrong with having a liberal side!? it all depends on HOW liberal a side you are talking about! What I have seen around here is mostly all one liberal in my way or the highway. I would not go so far as to say what is said about liberals puts them in a category of homicidal maniacs but I would say it puts them in a category of irresponsible, selfish, inconsiderate, bullies, Selfish, greedy and a few more. After all the names that we Republicans have been called are too numerous to count and for some it's like a parrot repeating the same words over and over and over again.

Angie...........................If you can't see Moochelle hates America then I have to wonder about you!! A good clue would be to take what she said after her husband was elected President as in "For the first time I can say I am proud of America!!!" For the FIRST TIME!?!? If she was not proud of America and hated it so bad why didn't she and Obama take off to Kenya where they belong!? I'm serious Angie..if you do not know then you have done no searching about what she has done or been involved with in her life before she ended up in the White House and you support her not knowing a damn thing about her!?!? That's not smart IMO...but that's just MO! If you are willing to stand up for people you know nothing about and yet refuse to really dig into their past and what's worse is to refuse to believe anything you read about them then there is something seriously wrong!! But there are many liberals who are like that! Thus our country is in the hell hole it is! I do not expect you to listen to anything I say though because I have tried and tried and tried before with little to no results! So IMO it's hopeless!

Patrice M (84)
Friday April 5, 2013, 3:16 pm
Wow, you had to go all the way back to 2008 to find something negative about Michelle Obama (if indeed it is negative. I am not sure).

You're a divider, not a uniter. A uniter would allow differences of opinion.

When republicans in the House vote NOT to send aid to the victims of a massive hurricane in a region that has not had hurricanes of this magnitude; where homes were destroyed; and which was followed by a snowstorm - then yes. Selfish is the right word. When they vote like this to hurt ordinary Americans and still insist of providing billions in corporate welfare for those one percenters who fill their Super PAC coffers, then yes, selfish and greedy are dead on correct.

When republicans applaud Paul Ryan's budget, which has been called "The Granny Starver Budget," then yes - selfish and greedy hit their mark. When republicans gerrmander entire voting districts so they can win (even though they aren't winning), then yes. They are selfish, rapacious, and greedy.

Carol D (346)
Saturday April 6, 2013, 2:06 am
Oh Angie!!!!!!!!!
Wow, you had to go all the way back to 2008 to find something negative about Michelle Obama (if indeed it is negative. I am not sure).

Oh heavens no...there is WAY more to find about her that is negative ever since she's been in the picture!! Another instance I just remembered..remember when they were having the Memorial at ground zero and Moochelle said to Obama "All this for a God damn flag!?!?" Now THAT is something you should be proud of right!? A First Lady making a comment about something as serious and devastating as that was and a Memorial for all of those Americans lost and this is what SHE says!? How can you defend her for that Angie!? And as I said there are way more things!

You're a divider, not a uniter. A uniter would allow differences of opinion.

Allowing differences of opinion I am all for...allowing opinions that are anti American I am not for!!! Simple as that!

When republicans in the House vote NOT to send aid to the victims of a massive hurricane in a region that has not had hurricanes of this magnitude; where homes were destroyed; and which was followed by a snowstorm - then yes. Selfish is the right word. When they vote like this to hurt ordinary Americans and still insist of providing billions in corporate welfare for those one percenters who fill their Super PAC coffers, then yes, selfish and greedy are dead on correct.

That aide package that was turned down was AGAIN.....because it was loaded with PORK....crap that had NOTHING to do with helping hurricane victims...NOTHING...BILLIONS of dollars for OTHER things UNRELATED to the hurricane! Wasteful spending you understand what wasteful spending is!? The people who set this package up should have known better than to throw a bunch of extra PORK into this bill KNOWING what the package was for!! THAT is why it was refused! Or maybe you would have preferred that they waste more money on other things at the same time ESPECIALLY when our country is drowning in debt!?!?

When republicans applaud Paul Ryan's budget, which has been called "The Granny Starver Budget," then yes - selfish and greedy hit their mark. When republicans gerrmander entire voting districts so they can win (even though they aren't winning), then yes. They are selfish, rapacious, and greedy.

Well I can see you are not for cutting wasted spending!!! And I am sure the name you came up with came out of a liberal rag mag too! They didn't gerimander total voting districts either..the PEOPLE in those districts were tired of the liberal you think they went and forced a gun to peoples heads to make them vote Republican!? And they did win Angie contrary to the voting fraud Obama had in BOTH elections and is the reason he won!! The selfish, rapacious and greedy fits the liberals to a T!!

Patrice M (84)
Sunday April 7, 2013, 9:32 am
There is plenty of wasted spending that can and should be cut - on this point you and I agree. I think the billions of our tax dollars that are given away to multi-national corporations (jobs outsourcers) should be stopped completely. Money should only be given to corporations that manufacture in America and hire American workers. This would help lower the unemployment rate greatly, too.I think we can cut the military industrial complex's budget as well. We could save billions there. And we also need to demand greater accountability from MIC manufacturers and require prices that are not through the roof on basics. Those are two places we could start. Another place I would like to see cuts in is us paying for the health care of Congressmen. Forget that. They make a ton of money. They can pay for their own. We can also get rid of the Senate Gymnasium and the bars in the House and Senate. I also would like to see laws created that require that campaign money that is left over in Super PACS be given to the government to help pay off the deficit. They way things are now, there is little to no oversight of Super PACS or what happens to the money after the election. Congressmen are becoming millionaires by keeping the money for their own personal use. I don't think that should be allowed. I don't think one should take office with the idea of using the job to make a personal fortune. What happens to the people's interests when that is allowed? I think they become secondary.

But basically, by ending corporate welfare and decreasing the military industrial complex budgets we could save billions - a significant number of billions. And the elderly and the sick wouldn't have to suffer at all.

My mom died recently. She was 90. I don't know where she would have been without Social Security and Medicare. I hate to think of other elderly people without enough of those services to really help; them get through the last part of their lives. I would have had to put my mom in a nursing home without those services - and where I live, there isn't a nursing home you can trust. People who have worked hard all their lives, been patriotic Americans, loved their country, fought to defend it with military service, and tried to do their best all their lives - that's the majority of elderly Americans, Carol. I like to think that this country is not going to hang them out to dry while our congressmen can give themselves a raise and keep Super PAC funds anytime they feel like doing so.

Nancy M (197)
Sunday April 7, 2013, 1:53 pm
I do agree that corporate welfare should end. If the CEOs can't pay people well enough, pay for benefits, and pay taxes without loopholes, they haven't EARNED their salaray. They should be fired.

I hear you on medicare and SS, too.

Carol D (346)
Sunday April 7, 2013, 2:19 pm
My mom died recently. She was 90. I don't know where she would have been without Social Security and Medicare. I hate to think of other elderly people without enough of those services to really help; them get through the last part of their lives. I would have had to put my mom in a nursing home without those services - and where I live, there isn't a nursing home you can trust. People who have worked hard all their lives, been patriotic Americans, loved their country, fought to defend it with military service, and tried to do their best all their lives - that's the majority of elderly Americans, Carol. I like to think that this country is not going to hang them out to dry while our congressmen can give themselves a raise and keep Super PAC funds anytime they feel like doing so.

I agree with you on this Angie...that is what I depend on today and seeing as how I no longer work without the SS it would be very bleak! Medicare also. And I agree that the elderly have worked hard all of their lives and deserve this..I am one of them..I do not have a problem with that nor do I have a problem with Congressmen paying their own way..besides the fact I think they make too much for what they do and the amount of days they actually work!!

I also agree there are many cuts that need to would be getting rid of ALL of Obama's Czars!! And then many of the double triple programs that overlap each other which he apparently refuses to get rid of. There are many things we agree on that are basic common sense values!

Patrice M (84)
Monday April 8, 2013, 2:31 pm
What about corporate welfare? Do you realize how much money we could save if we did not simply give it away to thriving corporations that don't hire Americans and don't need the money?

Carol D (346)
Monday April 8, 2013, 2:52 pm
I has to go and this lady here is one I WILL listen to because she knows what she is talking about!!

Crony Capitalism on Steroids from GE to Solyndra (UPDATED)
by Sarah Palin (Notes) on Wednesday, September 14, 2011 at 7:25pm
UPDATE: Yet another shoe drops in the ongoing crony capitalism problems now engulfing the Obama administration. Yesterday, we learned that the Obama White House allegedly pressured a four-star Air Force general to change his testimony about a company linked to a major Democrat donor.

In my recent speech in Iowa, some eyebrows were raised when I took on our government’s enormous economic problems caused by crony capitalism. As if on cue, just days later President Obama selected someone who exemplifies a major crony capitalism problem to sit next to the First Lady when he delivered his “jobs plan” speech before Congress. He selected General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt as his honored guest.

Having grown up with great respect for GE thanks to stories my grandfather shared with us about his days working for the company and even meeting GE spokesman-at-the-time Ronald Reagan during a company event, I am saddened at GE’s leadership evolution. This corporation is now the poster child of corporate welfare and crony capitalism.

This icon of American industry is a company full of good employees who make some good products (and is the parent company of a huge media outlet), but GE is also a large American corporation that pays virtually no corporate income taxes despite earning worldwide profits of $14.2 billion last year, $5.1 billion of it in the United States. In fact, they claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion, meaning they received more of our hard earned tax dollars than they contributed. How is that possible? It’s because not only do they shelter their money from taxes, but they also get many tax credits, loans, government grants, and other benefits from the federal government that our smaller businesses couldn’t even imagine being able to profit from.

Joining GE in the pantheon of crony capitalism is another Obama favorite that has been in the news of late: Solyndra. The President hailed this “green energy” company in a speech last May as “the true engine of economic growth.” When he announced the $535 million guarantee to Solyndra, Vice President Biden said that investments like this are “exactly what the Recovery Act is all about.” (Dear God…If the failed Solyndra venture has been what it’s “all about,” then that explains a lot.) As I pointed out in my speech at the Reagan Ranch Center last February: “History has proven again and again, when government picks the winners and losers, we’re stuck with the losers, and we the taxpayers subsidize failure!” And that’s what we’re seeing now, as the FBI raids the solar energy company’s headquarters to glean more information after the company was handed half a billion dollars in “green energy” Stimulus funds from the American taxpayer only to later declare bankruptcy. More than one thousand Solyndra workers lost their jobs. Now as the truth comes out, we discover that the White House was heavily involved in the Department of Energy’s rushed decision to give the Stimulus funds to Solyndra, and they tried to move the money through so quickly they seem to have ignored concerns that the company was not viable. Why would they do this? Perhaps it’s because a large investor in the company (about 35%) is Obama campaign bundler George Kaiser. And with the way the deal is structured, Kaiser will get his debts paid before we the taxpayers see any relief. That is sickening. And that’s how it works: workers lose their jobs, wealthy political cronies stand a good chance of getting their money back, and the U.S. taxpayer gets the shaft. Again.

President Obama has his sights set on raising $1 billion for his reelection campaign. Raising that money won’t be easy. But if you can hand out other people’s money to friends, it must get a whole lot easier. This crony capitalism and government waste is at the heart of our economic problems. It will destroy us if we don’t root it out. It’s not just a Democrat problem or a Republican problem. It’s a problem of our permanent political class. This won’t stop until “we the people” say enough is enough, and we retire the permanent political class that votes for this.

- Sarah Palin

Carol D (346)
Monday April 8, 2013, 2:59 pm
The latest one...

Sarah Palin · 3,527,033 like this
Friday at 11:46am ·
Once again, the American public lost when the Obama administration attempted to pick “winners and losers” in the free market. Today the electric car company Fisker Automotive, which received nearly $200 million in taxpayer money, is laying off three-fourths of its U.S. workers.

The Anaheim, CA-based start up has failed at pretty much every level – especially when it comes to the company’s ultra expensive luxury electric hybrid, the Karma (what a name!), which is assembled in Finland and received a green-energy loan to transition the assembly to the U.S., something that never happened.

This losing tax-subsidized venture joins other past losers like the Obama-subsidized Volt that gets 40 miles per battery charge, or like the Obama-subsidized Tesla that turns into a “brick” when the battery completely discharges and then costs $40,000 to repair.

This is really just the latest manifestation of the administration’s crony capitalism as their green energy buddies benefit from this atrocious waste of taxpayer money. Americans really need to get outraged by these wasteful ventures. As we’ve seen time and time again, We the People are always stuck subsidizing the left’s “losers.”

So what’s the solution and where do Americans go with our outrage? Stand up against the crony capitalism and elect only those who understand and will let America’s marketplace dictate economic successes, instead of letting politicians (some who have never run any business nor even worked in the private sector) choose free enterprises’ winners and losers. Take a stand, friends. Nothing will change unless you do.

- Sarah Palin

Patrice M (84)
Tuesday April 9, 2013, 2:29 pm
Carol, you live in one of the most pristine places on earth. Don't you want to help preserve that beauty? I think supporting alternative sources of fuel is exactly what the president needs to do. We have to think of the future and what this planet will be like if we allow corporate dumping and drilling everywhere. I think that bucking the oil companies the way the president is doing is going against crony capitalism. I applaud him for it.

I don't see Palin quite the way that you do. I consider her motives suspicious, but I know that you think very highly of her.

Carol D (346)
Wednesday April 10, 2013, 2:18 am
Angie what I have seen of his manner in which to support alternative energy to say the least I am not impressed. And on a larger scale yes solar and wind work..this guy don't know squat though about how to implement it or what it takes to implement it. For one thing we also need oil!! We can not and will not go completely without oil that's a given! So why not tap our own resources instead of buying oil from terrorist supporting nations!? Do you not find that sickening that we pay millions and billions of dollars to terrorist supporting nations for oil to use here!? Common sense is what it is.

Sarah Palin's motives are only for the betterment of America and it's people...nothing more..but I suspect you will never see that!
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.