There’s not much to add to this just-released Congressional report from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The summary can be read on the Media Splatters web site.

The full report can be read by right-clicking here. Or you can get it from Media Splatters, or by Googling it. Seems the news just hit the Web. But let’s see if the state-run media (I love Rush’s term for it!) picks up on it.

Also, let’s see what spin Barry or his cronies (in or out of ACORN) put on it.

My prediction is Barry will be impeached before the first year of his term is over. It’ll be because he’s not an American citizen, he’s neck-deep in corruption/organized crime, or he loses his mind as all megalomaniacs do when told No.

Read the report. Send links to friends and family. Hell, send a copy of the report to Barry and his cronies. Let ‘em know you know what’s going on. Tell ‘em the jig is up.

Or, to put it in mathematical terms: A ≠ non-A.

What that means is something cannot both be and not be at the same time.

My mind was blown. My life was changed. From that point forward, I saw things more clearly than ever before. Why? Because I realized absolute truth exists. More over, it exists whether or not I decide that it does.

Example: Either 2 + 2 = 4 or (by some mathematical gymnastics) 2 + 2 = 7. But the equation cannot equal four and seven at the same time.

Example: A human being cannot be a human and a tree at the same time. (Or ever, for that matter — although decomposition may make that a moot point.)

Either something is, or it is not.

Either/or.

Lately, I’ve stumbled on another logical equation gaining popularity: A =/≠ non-A.

To put it another way, people today see nothing wrong with entertaining two opposing thoughts in their mind at the same time. They are able to declare A equals both A and non-A.

Mark R. Levin’s brilliant book Liberty and Tyranny is a terrific case in point.

I gave copies of Mark’s book to friends and family. A few of them responded by shelving it and declaring they don’t believe all of its contents. They offered no reason why. They just don’t believe some of it.

Yet, Mark’s book is not open to interpretation. It draws a line in the sand. It states propositional truth; that is, this is right. That is wrong.

The same people who chose not to believe Mark’s book are against the Obama administration’s attack on Talk Radio (via the so-called “Fairness Doctrine”) because they philosophically like Talk Radio. They are against the Obama administration’s attack on gun ownership because they are philosophically in favor of owning guns and, in fact, own guns. They are against Obama’s radical views in favor of abortion because they are philosophically pro-life.

They are against government corruption, waste, fraud, and lies. Yet, they refuse to see that Obama’s administration is rife with all four. One of these people calls Rush Limbaugh a “hypocrite,” yet fails to acknowledge that Barack Obama lives by a different set of standards than what he sets forth for the American people, which is the very definition of hypocrisy.

They are for the issue of global warming, for “stimulus” packages, and for socialized (government-run) health care. They think Obama is a swell guy doing a swell job.

How can that be? How can people only see (and be against) certain parts of a person’s character but not see the whole of his character from which the parts spring? How can some see Barack Obama as the most dangerous President this country has ever seen and others see Obama as America’s savior?

Where I learned the formula that changed my way of thinking was in books written by the late Francis A. Schaeffer, one of the most brilliant Christian thinkers I’ve ever encountered. His book A Christian Manifesto opens with a paragraph I’ve never forgotten, even though I first read it over 20 years ago:

The basic problem of the Christians in this country in the last eighty years or so, in regard to society and in regard to government, is that they have seen things in bits and pieces instead of totals. They have very gradually become disturbed over permissiveness, pornography, the public schools, the breakdown of the family, and finally abortion. But they have not seen this as a totality — each thing being a part, a symptom, of a much larger problem.

The answer to my question, therefore, is that people today pick and choose what is true or not based on their own personal beliefs, not on what is or is not true. They do not see things as “a totality,” to use Schaeffer’s words. They see things in bits and pieces — and they only react if what they see personally offends them.

That concept has to sink in before you read on.

Truth no longer applies to something self-evidently true. It applies to that which people say is true at any given moment.

Such a thinking process alarms me. In fact, it scares me. It is not possible to reason with someone who decides truth is in the mind of the beholder.

Either/Or thinking is extremely rude. Either something is true or it is not. It demands a choice must be made.

But people don’t like rudeness. They don’t like inconvenience. They don’t like to choose. So they don’t. They simply exist with their two opposing thoughts in their minds, believing such a condition is okay.

It’s not okay. It’s schizophrenic.

It’s no wonder people no longer understand the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident…”

Self-evident? In a world that no longer believes absolute truth exists, how can people see anything as self-evident? What was self-evident to the men who drafted the Declaration of Independence is not self-evident to people of the 21s century.

How can people regain their sanity and learn to think logically?

It stars with a simple formula: A is not non-A.

I wouldn’t say Brown is a tremendously clever writer. Frankly, I think he’s little more than a competent storyteller. But what he does better than most is combine historical and scientific fact with contemporary fiction to create a compelling story that draws readers in, hooking them from the opening chapter and not letting up until the story’s climax.

This paragraph from Chapter 21 of Angels & Demons intrigued me:

“A fact of nature. Everything has an opposite. Protons have electrons. Up-quarks have down-quarks. There is a cosmic symmetry at the sub-atomic level. Antimatter is yin to matter’s yang. It balances the physical equation.”

With Brown’s explanation of the existence of antimatter dancing in my head, the following AP story caught my eye this morning:

While Ron Paul and other Independent/Conservatives argue that the Fed is destroying America’s economy and should be abolished (“End the Fed!” was a popular sign at the Tea Parties), Obama wants to give the Fed even greater powers.

Wow.

Make that Double Wow.

The AP story comes at a time when Ron Paul’s bill (H.R. 1207) has gained tremendous support in Congress. Paul’s bill — if passed into law — would penetrate the Fed’s shroud of secrecy and enable Congress — for the first time since the Fed’s inception in 1913! — to audit the Fed’s books. In effect, we’d lessen the Fed’s power to manipulate the economies of the world because we’d have intimate knowledge of what the Fed is up to, and who’s pulling the Fed’s strings.

In other words, at the precise moment in history when Ron Paul’s bill has gained unprecedented momentum, in fact it now has the support of nearly 150 co-sponsors, Obama comes out in favor of the idea that the Fed should be even more powerful, and have even greater control over America’s economy.

Coincidence?

I doubt it.

So let’s make that Triple Wow just for effect.

Here’s an excerpt from the AP story:

AP sources: Obama wants Fed to be finance supercop
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer Anne Flaherty, Associated Press Writer Sat May 9, 7:29 am ET

WASHINGTON – The Federal Reserve could become the supercop for “too big to fail” companies capable of causing another financial meltdown under a proposal being seriously considered by the White House.

The Obama administration told industry officials on Friday that it was leaning toward making such a recommendation, according to officials who attended a private one-hour meeting between President Barack Obama’s economic advisers and representatives from about a dozen banks, hedge funds and other financial groups.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and other officials made it clear they were not inclined to divide the job among various regulators as has been suggested by industry and some federal regulators. Geithner told the group that one organization needs to be held responsible for monitoring systemwide risk.

“Committees don’t make decisions,” said Geithner, according to one participant.

Officials from the Treasury Department and National Economic Council, which hosted the meeting, told participants that the Fed was considered the most likely candidate for the job, according to several officials who attended or were briefed on the discussions.

The administration officials said a legislative proposal would likely be sent to Capitol Hill in June with the expectation the House Financial Services Committee, led by Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., would consider the measure before the Independence Day recess.

Guess where Ron Paul’s bill currently resides. Yup. In Barney Frank’s committee, the very place discussions will take place to expand the Fed’s power.

That’s when I realized something:

Obama is the antimatter man.

When I reflect on everything Barack Insane Obama (the biggest nutbag in Washington) has done in his first 100 days in office, and I combine it with what I’ve read in Dan Brown’s book, the thought occurred to me that everything Obama does is the exact opposite of what’s good, right, noble, just, sound, beneficial, and logical. Every move Obama has made in his first 100 days has been to tear down everything that has gone before, to — in his own words — “remake” America.

The antimatter man.

There’s no other phrase to describe Obama. He is the exact opposite of everything American has stood for, especially the Constitution. In that matter, he is the yin to the Constitution’s yang.

It’s no wonder Obama is the most polarizing President this nation has seen in over 40 years. He has split America like a particle accelerator smashes atoms. (I’m still in Dan Brown mode.)

If you’re not familiar with the Fed, I suggest you read the book The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve by G. Edward Griffin.

Or Ron Paul’s book The Revolution: A Manifesto.

While you’re at it, here are a few web sites that ought to scare the bejeezus out of you while you’re pondering Obama giving the Fed even more power:

End The Fed

The Daily Paul

The Campaign For Liberty

The Reality Zone

The Ludwig von Mises Institute

Next time Obama opens his mouth and speaks the words his TelePrompter tells him to, remember this:

He’s the antimatter man.

Whatever he says is exactly the opposite of what’s good for you, for American, and for the world.

Knowing that, you won’t be shocked by what happens next.

I find it fascinating that the top two books on Amazon today are:

1. A pro-America book called Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto, by Mark R. Levin, and
2. An anti-America book called Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent, by Eduardo Galeano

The Press is alternately downplaying and praising Obama for yukking it up with Hugo Chavez, the anti-America, Marxist dictator of Venezuela.

Much has been written and said about the virulently anti-American book (Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent) that Chavez gave Obama.

Obama himself says:

“It’s unlikely that as a consequence of me shaking hands or having a polite conversation with Mr. Chavez that we are endangering the strategic interests of the United States,” Obama told reporters at a news conference. “I don’t think anybody can find any evidence that that would do so. Even within this imaginative crowd, I think you would be hard-pressed to paint a scenario in which U.S. interests would be damaged as a consequence of us having a more constructive relationship with Venezuela.”

Really? I can see a scenario very clearly. It has to do with Obama’s ideology, which is shared by his friend Bill Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist who believed in bombs and anti-American, Marxist propaganda in the 1960s, and uses the classroom today to achieve the same ends.

In 2006, Ayers was invited — by Chavez — to speak at an education conference in Venezuela.

From Bill Ayers’ web site:

“I walked out of jail and into my first teaching position—and from that day until this I’ve thought of myself as a teacher, but I’ve also understood teaching as a project intimately connected with social justice. After all, the fundamental message of the teacher is this: you can change your life—whoever you are, wherever you’ve been, whatever you’ve done, another world is possible. As students and teachers begin to see themselves as linked to one another, as tied to history and capable of collective action, the fundamental message of teaching shifts slightly, and becomes broader, more generous: we must change ourselves as we come together to change the world. Teaching invites transformations, it urges revolutions small and large. La educacion es revolucion!

Totalitarianism demands obedience and conformity, hierarchy, command and control. Royalty requires allegiance. Capitalism promotes racism and militarism – turning people into consumers, not citizens. Participatory democracy, by contrast, requires free people coming together voluntarily as equals who are capable of both self-realization and, at the same time, full participation in a shared political and economic life.”

In other words, Ayers agrees with Chavez that America’s capitalism needs to be replaced by Marxist socialism, and the classroom is the catalyst.

But let’s connect the dots to see how Obama’s friendliness with Chavez could be viewed as a problem:

1. Obama is a long-time friend of Bill Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist who uses the classroom as a laboratory to turn students against capitalism and America
2. Obama appears to be chummy with Hugo Chavez, even accepting a leftist, anti-America book from Chavez
3. Obama is still on his “America is sorry for everything” tour of the world in which he apologizes for America’s actions and attitude
4. Obama’s on record as saying the Constitution is flawed in that it doesn’t “spread the wealth”
5. Obama’s economic and social philosophy (as evidenced in his bailouts, right-wing extremist Homeland Security report, disdain for capitalism, and “spread the wealth” comments) has echoed Karl Marx’s: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

So, it appears Chavez, Ayers, and Obama all have the same view of America, the same view of capitalism, and the same view of ones countrymen — namely, that they should be controlled and forced to be “citizens” of the government rather than free-thinking, free-market people enjoying “unalienable rights” endowed by their Creator. That’s the scenario that I find troublesome. Obama appears to be giving credence to every anti-American dictator in the world, including Hugo Chavez who shares a political philosophy with his friend Bill Ayers.

How will that sit with Americans here at home? Will it add to the divisions? Will it further separate people, especially veterans, who put their lives on the line to protect America? Will it create more “right-wing extremists” who take umbrage at Obama’s choice of friends?

I think this can be distilled down to two questions:

Why does Obama hobnob with brutal dictators, but voices nothing but disdain for “right-wing extremists” in America — salt-of-the-earth Americans who value the Constitution, own guns, are pro-life, and believe the Bible?

Why does it appear Obama would rather dialog with dictators than with FOX News, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and other conservative leaders?

I see lots of problems with Obama befriending America’s enemies. If he, at the same time, befriended those within America whom he considers enemies, it might not be a problem. But Obama is alienating decent, hard-working Americans while he’s embracing America’s enemies. That’s causing massive rifts within our country and will surely lead to political upheaval in the years ahead, as evidenced by the estimated one million people who participated in Tea Party celebrations on April 15th.

I find it hard to believe that while America is still clearly in the cross hairs of those in other nations who seek to do us harm, Obama’s administration plans to slash defense spending and has ceased using the terms “terrorist” and “global war on terror,” preferring instead the Orwellian “man-caused disaster” for an act of terrorism.

I’ve been around long enough to know that the events unfolding — from within Washington! — are among the scariest I’ve ever seen. Insanity reigns supreme and is blatantly touted as wisdom by the mainstream media.

God help us all.

So, the latest Pew Poll indicates Barack Hussein Obama is the most polarizing President in four decades.

What a surprise! Who’da thought a guy with such a radical-left view would polarize Americans who are still — by and large — conservative in their beliefs?

The results of the Pew Poll make for interesting reading. You can read the article under the headline Partisan Gap in Obama Job Approval Widest in Modern Era by clicking the poll graph below.

Aside from Representative Ron Paul, I can’t name a single member of our Congress with the cojones to speak such words. Also, I can’t name a single member of the American Press (aside from talk-radio hosts) with the guts to confront President Obama with such blunt truth.

Mark R. Levin’s latest book (released today, March 24) floored me from the first chapter. If I was the kind of person who liked to highlight or underline important, cool, or exceptionally well-worded passages, Liberty and Tyranny would look like a college textbook the night before an exam.

Simply put: This is the best book I have ever read on where our country came from, what our country is, and who we are as Americans. It’s not possible to praise this book highly enough. Liberty and Tyranny lives up to its subtitle: “A Conservative Manifesto.” But it’s not just for conservatives. This book is for anyone who wants to know what it means to be an American – and what we must do to save our country from those in Washington who seek to destroy it.

A few points to ponder:

1. Obama and his reckless administration (which includes House members Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi and others) knew about the AIG bonuses long before they expressed phony indignation over them. Chris Dodd recently admitted he was behind the bonus wording in the bailout bill (which, by the way, was rammed through the House by Speaker Pelosi before anyone had a chance to read it), allegedly at the behest of someone (as yet unnamed) in Obama’s administration who requested the wording in the bill.

2. Obama and his reckless administration seized the political opportunity to egg on the public, turning people against AIG executives — to the point where demonstrators showed up at the homes of these executives to harass them.

3. Now Obama wants to be the savior, stepping in to calm down the masses. Seems a little hypocritical to me.

4. Is it me, or is Obama depicted as The Madonna in that accompanying photo? I supposed he’d have to be anointed to put a halt to the anger and violence he and his team stirred up against AIG. But this picture seems a little over the top.

Head-scratcher question for the day: How many Constitution-busting behaviors will we allow this administration to get away with before we flood their offices with phone calls, faxes, and e-mails — or vote them out of office?

Bonus question: What good is our Constitution if nobody in Washington abides by it?

Quick Background On AIG Bonus Taxation Bill

Raw Story: Congressman Ron Paul says bill to tax AIG bonuses is unconstitutional

CNN, March 19

New York Times, March 20

Los Angeles Times

Boston Herald, March 20

Revisions to Wiki Article

As you can see from the screen captures above and below, the Wiki article on Bill of Attainder has been edited severely since since March 20. In fact, there were 21 edits to the Wiki entry on March 20, alone. That was the day the news hit regarding the House passage of the AIG bonus taxation bill.

In addition, there appears to be a lot of back-and-forth editing regarding the first paragraph of the Wiki entry.

Version 1:

Bill of attainder
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A bill of attainder (also known as an act or writ of attainder) is an act of the legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial.

Version 2:

Bill of attainder
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A bill of attainder (also known as an act or writ of attainder) is an act of the legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial. Bills of attainder are forbidden by Article I, section 9, clause 3 of the United States Constitution.

_______________

The last line alternately drops out and is replaced.

Granted, it is a “U.S.-centric” sentence (as one or two Wiki editors noted). However, the sentence stating the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition appears to be moving around a lot within the Wiki entry. It was dropped out of the lead paragraph and given a spot on its own high up on the page. Then that was deleted. Now the reference to the U.S. Constitution is buried in a paragraph 3/4 down on the page.

Breaking News! President Obama’s support for the House bill appears to be waning, according to an AP story published today. These two paragraphs from the AP story are telling:

Obama, a law professor-turned-chief executive, said during an interview broadcast Sunday that he does not like the idea of “passing laws that are just targeting a handful of individuals” or using the tax code to punish people.

“Let’s see if there are ways of doing this that are both legal, that are constitutional, that uphold our basic principles of fairness, but don’t hamper us from getting the banking system back on track,” Obama said on CBS’ “60 Minutes.”

_____________

Obviously, President Obama is feeling unsure of himself now that word has gotten out regarding the definition of Bill of Attainder.

It would behoove everyone to keep watch of the Wiki entry for Bill of Attainder. If nothing else, the fact that it has been edited severely since March 20 ought to tell people something is afoot.