A few days ago I received a call from a man I recently met named George. He was a bit flustered, and soon informed me that his young son was sick with a chest condition. He pleaded with me to send him $1,000 to cover the medical bills. Since George was at the hospital I asked him to let me speak to a nurse, and she confirmed that George's son was indeed ill. So I agreed to send George the money through Western Union. He was profusely grateful. But before I hung up I asked George, "Why are you coming to me?" He said, "I have no one else to ask." Then he said something that astounded me, "Dinesh, you are like a brother to me."
Actually, George has a real life brother who just happens to be the president of the United States. (George Obama is the youngest of eight children sired by Barack Obama Sr.) George's brother is a multimillionaire and the most powerful man in the world. Moreover, George's brother has framed his re-election campaign around the "fair share" theme that we owe obligations to those who are less fortunate.
One of Obama's favorite phrases comes right out of the Bible: "We are our brother's keeper." Yet he has not contributed a penny to help his own brother. And evidently George does not believe, even in times of emergency, that he can turn to his brother in the White House for help.
So much for spreading the wealth around. Read the rest of the story of how Barack ignores the plight of his own family members.
Y'all are probably aware by now that I am not overly fond of the current resident of the White House. That said, President Obama did not refuse to help -- he was not informed about the problem. And to be fair, what did his father's family do for Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. when he and his mother were poor and struggling? Certainly the only thing his father did was once spend a few days with the lad when he happened to be in town -- he and they otherwise contributed neither time, aid, nor money toward the welfare of the child Papa Obama abandoned, not even so much as the occasional birthday card, by all accounts. He owes them nothing. And while it would be kind of the president to take care of his brother's problems, what demands would then be made by the rest of the large, extended family littered by his father's and grandfather's multiple acknowledged wives, backed by the threat of going to the world press if not satisfied?
TW, you and I agree on a great many things. It's good to know the whole story, so thank you for that.
However, I should think a caring, religious man would care more for his brother than what people might say.
After all, did the second-worst President shun his brother Billy? Did Hillary disown her brother, Hugh?
Episodes such as these led Hillary Clinton's White House staff to refer to Hugh and Tony as "the Brothers Rodham", extending the American tradition of troublesome presidential siblings to the brother-in-law category; one senior White House official would be quoted as saying, "You never wanted to hear their name come up in any context other than playing golf."
I just use the standards they set. In this case the story of Romney and Bain Capital, trying to stick someone's death years later and many action separated with the event. The clear implication of that piece of work is that Romney should have known even if he didn't. Therefore, he's despicable.
This is the standard and tone they set. Of course it's the SOP of 'one set of rules for me and another set of rules for thee'. It's well past the time of playing by anything but the standards they set. Use their play book. Shove it back into their faces. Make them whine.
When the man preaches class warfare, shove this back in his face while he has fund raising dinners with the 1 Percenters.
Well worth the time to read this article. The following makes one think a bit. BTW, George Obama is apparently a conservative.
FTA: A couple of years ago, George teamed up with a British journalist Damien Lewis and the two of them published George's story in a book called "Homeland." Yet according to Lewis, shortly before the book's publication in America, the publisher Simon & Schuster decided to shred the entire print run, more than 20,000 copies. Lewis tried unsuccessfully to get an explanation from Simon & Schuster but to no avail. He now suspects that the White House convinced Simon & Schuster that George's story might prove embarrassing to the president.
August 17, 1998: On this day, during the grand jury hearings that sought to clarify President Bill Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky, Clinton engaged in some semantic fine-tuning by stating: "It depends on what your meaning of 'is' is. If 'is' means 'is and never has been' that's one thing - if it means 'there is none,' that was a completely true statement."
Clinton also parsed the meanings of "alone," "sexual relations" and "sex." His testimony was later televised to the nation on September 21.
As the C-n-C of the U.S. mil it would have been appropo for him to lead by example, i.e. he should have stepped down out of shame (if he had any) or removed from his position of power. This would have been no different than what happens to the military members under his charge when they violate the UCMJ for committing the same (adultery) or lesser infractions (inappropriate relationship). He abused his position of power by seeking a self-gratifying sexual relationship w/a subordinate, and then lied about it. It was never about the sex, it was about the trust and confidence and the fact that this asshole treated the White House like a Motel-6. That a good number of Americans still don't get this issue is very disconcerting to me.
Just as aside. I was listening to a guy on talk radio while going to the doctors office yesterday. The guy was saying that political campaigns were always dirty and underhanded. Early in our history, one campaign had a candidate referring to his opponent as: "The hermaphrodite half bred son of a squaw." What would be the response to such as assertion today?
He is going to release 2 years as is Ryan the last I read. This is just noise and flak from the Dems. Personally, I don't care about 5 years worth of tax records. They must be voluminous because he has actually done something in this world. I still want to see Obama's records. He is far too secretive about where he has been and what he has done. No one seems to know this guy. Already we know more about Romney and Ryan than we yet know about Obama.
What lies, since as we all know, Joe has no mind for things to go on in. The reason he speaks as he does is all the sounds he hears bounce around in that vast nothingness and when some rub up against the few nerves in his head, he blurts them out just like you jerk when someone sticks you with a pin. This is why what he says makes absolutely no sense.
He's pretty much just an echo chamber with randomizer voice circuits.
If he was English, NHS would stick him on the "Liverpool Protocol" or whatever their path to death by dehydration is now called.