Archive for May, 2013

In preparation for her 2016 Presidential bid, Hillary Clinton is purportedly coming out of the closet to admit she is bi-sexual—and has been for decades. By doing this, the Left will champion her for being so brave, castigating criticism as being cruel, ignorant, and homophobic. I can already see it coming. Others will say, “Who cares?” or, “What difference does it make?”

These are some good questions, but I also have some of my own:

  1. For decades, she has presented herself to be one person, while actually being someone completely different. Can someone like this be trusted?
  2. She stood in front of the cameras, while also buying air time on Pakistani TV at our expense, and said Benghazi was caused by a “reprehensible” video “we hand absolutely nothing” to do with. She lied to us. Everybody knows that now. Can we believe her about anything she says?
  3. If the citizens of Arkansas knew about Bill and Hillary’s special arrangement decades ago, do you think they would have elected Bill to be their governor? Their deceit, which spans decades, indicates just how devious and deceptive they are.
  4. If Americans knew about this arrangement in 1992, do you think we would have elected Bill Clinton President?
  5. When the Lewinsky Scandal nearly resulted in Bill being forced from office, why didn’t she come forward then? Wouldn’t that have been far more honorable? Wouldn’t telling the truth back then have made it easier for us to accept her husband’s little problem? But she didn’t come forward, did she? Instead, she played the wounded martyr instead. Could you ever respect someone like that?
  6. Now, when she sees a political advantage to being forthright, she comes out of the closet. I don’t see anything honorable or noble in any of this. Do you?
  7. We will be told it is un-Christian to judge her, which is nonsense. She has deceived and manipulated the American people throughout her career, and anyone with a brain will be able to discern the truth about what’s happening here. Can you believe anything she says?
  8. Finally, I wouldn’t put it past her to use this as a way to avoid taking responsibility for what really happened in Benghazi. Have you considered that?

Haven’t we suffered enough? Isn’t it about time we has leadership that was fundamentally honest? Aren’t you tired of being called names, simply because you have common sense?

Finally, isn’t it time for America to wake up and put an end to being ruled by deviants?

Jack Watts

Read Full Post »

I’ve been thinking about this all day. President Obama maintains that he supports Israel and is the best President the Israelis have ever had. If this is true, why were groups that supported Israel targeted by the IRS, along with Tea Party and Christian groups? That doesn’t make sense. His rhetoric doesn’t match the actions of his administration, does it?

Also, while lying about the cause of the Benghazi attack at the UN, saying it resulted from the “reprehensible” video clip, he used the occasion to support one of the central tenets of Islam—not criticizing Mohammed. Why would “Israel’s best friend” do such a thing? Perhaps instead of supporting Israel, he was more candid about his purpose than he intended.

Sadly, there are millions of Christians and Jews in America who refuse to see this man for who he is. Are you one of them?

If so, it’s time to rethink your position.

Read Full Post »

Americans by the millions are outraged by the abuses of the IRS. Using the machinery of the government to suppress political opposition is the definition of tyranny. Because conservatives have been the ones targeted, they are the ones most outraged, but many liberals share their misgivings, knowing they don’t want similar treatment the next time a conservative is in the White House.

As I’ve thought about exactly what has happened, some additional thoughts have come to mind. The three groups most frequently targeted were these:

  • Tea Party and patriotic activists,
  • Biblically-based Christian groups, and
  • Groups committed to Israel’s survival.

Not having thought through this thoroughly, most assume this is all there is to it, but that’s a mistake. Think about it. There has been no politically motivated targeting toward mainline Republicans or the right-of-center establishment—none whatsoever. Yet, those are the groups that have the most power to oppose President Obama. So, if that is true, why have they been spared in favor of  persecuting much less powerful groups?

I think I know the answer. It isn’t financial power that Obama fears, far from it. What he does fear is the power of people whose goals are not political. He fears those who desire righteousness. It’s as simple as that. The Children of Darkness always fear the Children of Light.

The Republican establishment, which embraces compromise above all else, is not a threat to the Obama agenda. Establishment Republicans are more conservative than establishment Democrats, but they are not more principled. They are two peas in the same pod.

However, that’s not true about the targeted groups. Tea Party activists, committed Christians, and friends of Israel are all deeply principled people—men and women who would rather die than abandon their faith and convictions. They are committed to the principles of our Founding fathers, which are viewed as non-negotiable. Regardless of how isolated these people become, they will stand, never bowing their collective knees to the Progressive agenda.

This should tell you something. Obama and his cronies have targeted groups that have the potential to derail their collectivist agenda.

So, instead of listening to the whining of the Republican establishment that says you need to move to the left to win elections, remain true to your principles instead. Doing the right thing for the right reason will prevail in time. Be strong and do not lose heart. If we weren’t a real and legitimate threat, we would have been left alone. That we have been attacked shows just how strong we really are.

Jack Watts

Read Full Post »

In the wake of the Associated Press wiretap scandal, which was carried out by the Obama administration illegally, numerous members of the main stream media have finally stopped looking at the President through rose-colored glasses. Like a disenchanted spouse after the honeymoon phase of marriage has passed, the press has begun to see the President’s flaws. More than any other criticism, they express bewilderment about why he refuses to take responsibility for his actions and those of his administration.

Harry Truman said, “The buck stops here.” In the Obama White House, the buck never stops at the desk of the President or any of his key appointees. Concerning the IRS scandal, Obama is perfectly willing to throw several low-level agents in Cincinnati to the wolves, while promoting Sarah Hall Ingram to head the IRS division of Obamacare. She was the person responsible for overseeing the harassment of Obama’s political and religious opponents. For being so successful, she was given a hefty bonus and a promotion. Being the head of Obamacare for the IRS makes her even scarier. Concerning Benghazi, to provide cover for his lies and those of Hillary Clinton, the producer of the “reprehensible” movie clip was thrown in jail, arrested by fifty stormtroopers. He remains incarcerated.

Concerning all three of these scandals, nobody at the top knows anything about anything. This stonewalling has infuriated the main stream press. Now, they are repeatedly asking why Obama, or none of his key surrogates like Holder, will take responsibility for anything.

The answer is easy. Narcissists never take responsibility for failure, nor for any action that negatively reflects upon them. It’s as simple as that. It isn’t in Obama’s psychological nature to take the blame, nor will he ever do so. He can’t. Even worse, his entire administration reflects his narcissism, producing a culture that avoids culpability like the plague.

Neither Obama or any of his key people will ever willingly cooperate to provide documentation about what they have been doing either. To get to the truth, sub-committees from the House of Representatives will have to force the administration to come clean. Nothing else will work. Even worse, Congressmen will be depicted as being evil for doing so. To Obama, for them to seek the truth is a witch hunt and a distraction from what is important—his agenda to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.” All the Congressional inquiries are is a politically motivated attempt to undermine his noble, praiseworthy goals.

It isn’t that he just says things like this; he actually believes them. In his eyes, nothing about the Congressional investigations are legitimate. By scrutinizing his behavior, these Congressman are the enemy, and he will never subordinate his grandiose purpose for anything. For a narcissist, there is no such thing as checks and balances. To question Obama is to question Providence.

Defrocking Obama will be much more difficult than defrocking Richard Nixon, but it can be done. The question I have is will the the American people have the will, the resolution, and the perseverance to finish the job?

Read Full Post »

It has become crystal clear President Obama meant what he said about “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” If nothing else, the recent disclosures about his administration prove that. To accomplish his task, he has been responsible for numerous things that are unethical and perhaps illegal. At this point, other than his diehard loyalists,  can anybody take what our President says at face value?

Based on what we now know about the Benghazi coverup, the IRS targeting conservatives, and the wiretapping of the AP, I certainly can’t. Can you?

If not, then where do we go from here. My suggestion is that we go back and question everything, knowing fraud and corruption have been running rampant throughout his tenure as President. Beginning with his first Executive Order, which sealed everything there is to know about the man, we now require full disclosure. Since he has proven himself to be deceitful, can we trust anything he says without verifying it? Obviously not.

Let Congress do its job, perhaps by appointing a Special Prosecutor. Leave no stone unturned. Find out about Fast & Furious, as well as Benghazi, the IRS, the AP wiretapping, and anything else that doesn’t pass the smell test. The House of representatives is eager to discover the truth. The Senate, controlled by Obama’s party, isn’t; but there are twenty Democratic seats up for reelection in 2014. The ones that are from red states, like LA, AK, AR, NC, and WV will have Democratic candidates unwilling to stand by Obama—not and get elected. They will run from him and the taint of anything scandalous. Who can blame them?

Now, more than any other time, the pressure needs to be increased on the President. Remember, as further truth is discovered, the floodgates may open. If that happens, and it should, we will know “the rest of the story.”

—Jack Watts   We Believe

Read Full Post »

What forced Richard Nixon to resign was the Watergate tapes, or more accurately, the eighteen minutes that were missing from a conversation the President had with Bob Haldeman, his Chief-of-Staff, three days after the botched burglary.

Here is where the comparison to Obama’s coverup of Benghazi becomes relevant. In the fifty emails released by the administration to Congress, none of them were from the first two days after the attack. What these missing emails contain is so damming it will bring down Obama’s Presidency, just as the missing minutes from Nixon’s tapes brought him down forty years ago. To hide what the missing emails contain, Obama and his surrogates have purposefully leaked information about the abuses of the IRS toward the Tea Party, Christian groups, friends of Israel, and conservative Hispanic groups. Obama did this, knowing his administration would take a terrible hit for doing so.

Why would he do that, knowing it would wound him? Why would he create a huge scandal for himself—one that would substantially undermine his credibility? It’s because what these emails contain would mortally wound his ability to lead. The IRS scandal is bad, but it is a diversion from a worse one.

The House Government Oversight Committee needs to subpoena these missing emails, as well as everyone on the email chain. If they do, we will finally get to the truth about Benghazi. If Obama refuses to release them, which he will, the House should draw up Articles of Impeachment immediately.

Right now, there are not enough votes in the Senate to convict Obama, but that could change, especially with vulnerable seats in VA, AR, AK, CO, LA, IA, MN, MI, WV, MT, NC, and SD up for grabs in 2014. If you were a Democratic candidate in these mostly red states, would you stand behind the Benghazi coverup? Not if you wanted to be reelected, you wouldn’t.

If we can obtain the missing emails, our nation will be saved and order restored.

Jack Watts   My Prayer for America

Read Full Post »

I voted for Richard M. Nixon. There, I’ve admitted it. Other than Aaron Burr, Nixon has been the worst criminal in American politics, until now.

In 1972, most people voted for Nixon. He won in a landslide, a genuine one. Nixon seemed like a much better candidate than George McGovern, who even lost his home state of Minnesota. Massachusetts was the only state McGovern carried. As I saw things, as a very young man, things were looking up. The Vietnam War was winding down, and the nation appeared to be getting back on track.

There was that pesky Watergate distraction, disrupting my tranquility, but that was nothing more than a trivial story. I was certain of it. Then, it began to gain traction, increased momentum, and finally a life of its own.

In its beginning stages, I tried not to pay much attention. The story was so negative, and I wanted to dwell on the positive—Nixon’s overwhelming mandate from the people. Because he won so handily, it seemed far-fetched for him—or for any of his surrogates—to engage in something as ridiculous as a bungled burglary at the Democratic headquarters at the Watergate. Everybody knew Nixon was going to win, which made it seem preposterous for his people to do something that foolish or risky. Besides, it was illegal, and the President would never be involved in anything that was criminal. What President would?

That was exactly the way I thought—just like millions of others. When the cover-up was exposed and Nixon was forced to resign in disgrace, I had to face reality, which was very difficult. I realized I had been on the wrong side. I had been for Executive Privilege and not for full disclosure. I had been for keeping things quiet, covering them up, and moving forward. Others called for the light to shine in the darkness, but not me. I was wrong—dead wrong.

It was a difficult time for me, requiring extensive, gut-wrenching introspection. From that experience, however, I became a different person. I promised myself to never champion the darkness again, regardless of what it might cost.

I also concluded several things about Nixon. I realized his narcissism wouldn’t allow him to just win. He needed to do more than that. He needed to subjugate and destroy his political opposition; just beating them wasn’t enough. Knowing what his opponents were doing became an obsession with Nixon—just like it has with our current President.

Now, forty years later, we have the same situation with President Barack Hussein Obama—the exact same situation. Like Nixon, Obama has a “we-they” mentality. Those who are not with him are his enemies, and destroying one’s enemies is what narcissists like Nixon and Obama do.

The concept of “loyal opposition” doesn’t exist for a narcissist. Opposition, by nature, means disloyalty. Because their way is the right way, lying to achieve victory is normal and praiseworthy. Neither would consider there was anything wrong with such an outlook. It’s why both of them seem so believable, even though Nixon wasn’t at the time and Obama isn’t now.

Being mistrustful, both were afraid power would be taken from them. In Obama’s case, he feared that if the truth came out about the Benghazi attack, he would lose the election. That’s why he engaged in a massive cover-up that has been ongoing. Just as Nixon did in Watergate, Obama has consistently stonewalled, refusing to disclose anything voluntarily. He never will. It’s not in his nature to do so.

Being somewhat paranoid, narcissists never reveal who they really are. To them, being candid and forthright would put them at a disadvantage to their opponents, and that’s something no narcissist would ever do voluntarily.

When you think of events from the perspective of a narcissist, their behavior makes sense. For Nixon, the Watergate break-in and cover-up was necessary. In the same way, for Obama, the bugging of the Associated Press’s lines, the complicity of the IRS to destroy his Tea Party opposition, and the Benghazi cover-up to ensure his reelection were all reasonable things to do. All of it makes sense from a narcissistic worldview. If you are not one, however, as most people aren’t, it doesn’t seem logical. Finally, because maintaining power is a consuming passion, Obama will hold on to power until the bitter end, just like Nixon did.

As Obama’s house of cards continues to collapse, millions of his followers will become disillusioned—just as I was when Nixon resigned in disgrace. Helping these unfortunates through the process of disenchantment to emotional health is something good men and women need to do. Ridiculing them for having been fooled is something that will not be helpful. They will just become embittered like I was forty years ago.

Jack Watts

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »