Changing America

During his campaign to become the 44th President of the United States Barack Obama repeated claimed that he wanted to change America, a country that he found to be fundamentally flawed – though he professes to love it.  It seems that President Obama has concocted a methodology for doing this.

Hidden behind all the hoopla over President Obama and his democrats’ ill-considered Stimulus Bill is a quiet but significant attempt to consolidate power within the hands of White House personnel and change the very makeup of America and its representation in its government.

Rahm Emanuel - Son of a terrorist, democrats' partisan pitpull, White House Chief of StaffPresident Obama wants to place the U.S. Census Bureau under the direct control of the White House, specifically his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel. This would allow President Obama to control the very shape and formation of America, or at least how it is reported.

That would certainly allow President Obama to enact fundamental changes to our nation.

This is important and should not be ignored by the MSM or the American people. The US Census is critically important to the very fabric our how our nation operates.

With all of its political implications, hijacking the Census from the Commerce Dept. and letting it be run out of Rahm’s office is like putting PETA in charge of issuing hunting permits.

All DeLay did was rearrange the deck chairs. This would allow Rahm to redesign the whole ship affecting everything from congressional districts to who and where eligible S-CHIP children, adults and ‘poor’ rich people live.

— Anonymous Senior Republican Senate Aide
Interview with The Sleuth

With the 2010 census on the horizon, it’s highly probable that Obama and Emanuel will attempt to redraw congressional districts so that they are assured a Democrat majority in Congress for the foreseeable future. The census also determines how almost all federal and state programs are funded.

Also, given the fact that senior White House officials announced that the census director would report directly to the White House in response to Black and Hispanic leaders complaining about Commerce Secretary-nominee Judd Gregg, there may be additional darker motivations for placing the U.S. Census Bureau under the control of the White House instead of the Commerce Department.

Sadly but not surprisingly, the MSM media outlet to cover this “coup” was FOX News. The rest of them are apparently to interested in being President Obama’s propaganda corps to do their jobs as long ago those jobs were envisioned to be done.

Tags: | | | | | | |

10 Responses to “Changing America”

  1. Ted Says:

    Since Obama’s earnest drive to convince the nation to weaken its economic strength through redistribution as well as weaken its national defense, COUPLED WITH HIS UNPRECEDENTED WHITE HOUSE TAKEOVER OF DECENNIAL CENSUS TAKING FROM THE COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, has confirmed the very threats to our Republic’s survival that the Constitution was designed to avert, it no longer is sustainable for the United States Supreme Court and Military Joint Chiefs to refrain from exercising WHAT IS THEIR ABSOLUTE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO DEFEND THE NATION FROM UNLAWFUL USURPATION. The questions of Obama’s Kenyan birth and his father’s Kenyan/British citizenship (admitted on his own website) have been conflated by his sustained unwillingnes to supply his long form birth certificate now under seal, and compounded by his internet posting of a discredited ‘after-the-fact’ short form ‘certificate’. In the absence of these issues being acknowledged and addressed, IT IS MANIFEST THAT OBAMA REMAINS INELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Being a 14th Amendment ‘citizen’ is not sufficient. A ‘President’ MUST BE an Article 2 ‘natural born citizen’ AS DEFINED BY THE FRAMERS’ INTENT.

  2. Prudie Says:

    Our Lord and Master is masterminding the largest power grab in US history (perhaps in world history). I wish more people would notice.

  3. gnomestrath Says:

    Dear oh dear do you think for one minute the GOP organisation dind’t seriously investigate Obama’s eligibility to be President. The reason nothing came of it is because they could not substantiate any falsehoods in the claim of eligibility. Remember Bush and Cheney were in charge of the Executive at that point and had been for 8 years. Have you seen the documentary requirements and checks which are required to be accepted as eligible?

    That is not the issue here – the issue is that the behviour of the Bush/cheney administration has caused a massive reaction from those that actually subscribe to some element of reasonableness. Oh and by the way have you examine the current maps of congressional districts and how they are set up now? The reason Bush/Cheney never moved the Census bureau is because they controlled it from there.
    This is the reality you are seeking:



  4. Alfie Says:

    Census is constitutionally mandated to be done. O is overstepping his bounds here and it’s all about gerrymandering districts and paying back those that Obama serves.

  5. jonolan Says:

    That Obama is doing this primarily for the purpose of gerrymandering the districts would go without saying, Alfie, except that America needs to reminded of that vile word, gerrymandering.

    That Obama is paying back those who he serves is less conclusively proven by his actions though. Obama is very, very arrogant and has a massed horde of followers (as opposed to his supporters). I fully expect him to play his own game for his own purposes, with only titular concern for those who thought they were his handlers.

    Bush did much the same thing; he slipped most of of his handlers’ leashes. I don’t Obama is any less cunning or opportunistic than “W” was.

  6. gnomestrath Says:

    Obama will be more restricted because he has to clean up George W’s poop.

    This is an interesting debate as to whether Obama is as bad as Bush wrpt serving his self interests or whether he will turn out to be a true statesman.

  7. jonolan Says:


    You mistake my premise. President Bush didn’t serve his own interests; he served America in best capacity that he knew how to. He may not have taken the best steps to do that on all occasions, but he did very little at all that wasn’t designed to protect and strengthen America.

    By “slipping his handlers leashes” I meant that he took the opportunity not to be just a GOP mouthpiece furthering the aims of the Republicans in Congress.

    As for either Bush or Obama being considered a “statesman,” that will be determined by history, and history is a amn fickle bitch. 😉

  8. gnomestrath Says:

    I see so Bush protected and strengthened America – hmm – and its condition now is?

    Remember it was Bush and Cheney that failed to take note of the internal securiy brief that warned of the bin Laden attack prior to 9/11.

    The cost of the war in Iraq is a mutiple of the current stimulus packages and has achieved nothing concrete.

    The country was effectively broke when he left office.

  9. jonolan Says:


    The retraction of the US economy was set in motion far before Bush took office. It started under either Reagan or Clinton, depending on who you ask. If was further exacerbated by the actions of Congress over the last 8 eight years. Some of those action might have been balked by Bush, others were not subject to Presidential approval. Blaming Bush for the state of the economy is disingenuous, as would be blaming any President as the sole or prime culprit.

    That is and interesting pairing of comments about 9/11 and Iraq though. There is some evidence to support the theory that Bush had been given information that cited Osama Bin Laden as an active threat to the US, and that Bush didn’t act aggressively enough to counteract that threat. There’s also plenty of documentation that Bush later received similar but more substantial evidence that Saddam was an active threat to the US.

    Hmmmm…Could Iraq be at least partially a response by Bush to the results of not thinking in terms of the “worst case scenario” and not committing US resources to defend against a possible threat?

    As for the cost of Iraq being a multiple of the Stimulus / Spending / Pork bill, even inflated estimated that include guesses at long term costs and broad economic impacts only show it costing 1-2 Trillion over the next 3 decades. That’s a huge amount, but a very small multiple (a negative multiple or divisor if one includes TARP). If one takes only the actual spending into account, the number is closer to $400 – 500 Billion.

    Now, don’t get me wrong; I think going into Iraq was ill advised since the situation in Afghanistan was and is still fluid, and north Korea was and is still acting out.

  10. lorie Says:

    I just wanted to say that I love this site

Leave a Reply