Posted June 16, 200915 yr Here is a great article by Chuck Norris showing a letter Lou Pritchett sent to the New York Communist Times (and of course it wasn't printed). Free speech and internet access will be gone soon. Everything Mr. Pritchett states is accurate....the sheep will soon awaken but will it be too late? Why Obama scares me, too By: Chuck Norris -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: June 15, 2009 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 The New York Times missed the opportunity to publish a great op-ed letter to President Obama from Lou Pritchett, a former vice president of Procter & Gamble who worked for that company for 36 years until his retirement in 1989. So I thought I'd give his letter a little press through my syndicated column, and add a few more thoughts of my own. Mr. Pritchett confirmed via Snopes that he was the author of the "open letter to President Obama": "I did write the 'you scare me' letter. I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it." I think you'll readily see why any Left-leaning newspaper won't run it. Here's a copy: Dear President Obama: You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me. You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you. You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support. You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America, and culturally you are not an American. You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll. You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core. You scare me because you lack humility and "class," always blaming others. You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail. You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the "blame America" crowd and deliver this message abroad. You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector. You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one. You scare me because you prefer "wind mills" to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves. You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world. You scare me because you have begun to use "extortion" tactics against certain banks and corporations. You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals. You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people. You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient. You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do. You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Reillys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view. You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing. Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years. Lou Pritchett Thank you, Mr. Pritchett, for your love for America, honesty and willingness to risk your reputation by speaking up to this administration. (Column continues below) Now let me add a few of my own fears to yours. President Obama: You scare me because so many amazing corporate and American leaders like Lou Pritchett say things about you like: 'You scare me.'" You scare me because, after you initiate more government borrowing and bailouts than all presidents combined, you require Congress to follow a system that is "pay-as-you-go." You scare me because you really do believe that going into massive amounts of debt can remedy our economy in the long run. You scare me because you repeatedly still play the blame game with the Bush administration but never blame the Clinton administration, even though it was responsible for the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac subprime fiasco via the proliferation of loans to low income unqualified borrowers. You scare me because you buy and run banking, automobile and soon health industries with taxpayers' money but refuse to call it socialism. You scare me because your actions don't reflect the federal governmental constraints and fiscal prudent principles of our Founding Fathers and Constitution. You scare me because you promise to lead from the center but drive hard and fast to the Left. You scare me because you claim to be a fighter for minorities and constitutional promises of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, yet what greater minority can be defended than those in the womb, against whom you have already enacted more pro-abortion-related laws than anyone since Roe v. Wade? You promise to defend the U.S. against all potential enemies, yet you pacify those who harbor terrorists, fight for the rights of combative detainees, and enable the enemies of Israel. You scare me because you deny America's Judeo-Christian heritage before other countries of the world, espousing "the promise of a secular nation" during an age in which religious revisionism is already on the rise. (Thank God for Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., and others, who are even now trying to preserve America's religious history by proposing the passage of the Spiritual Heritage Bill 397 – call or write your representative today to support it). You scare me because your media team (including the mainstream media) will seek to label as radical, quarantine socially or in some way penalize any opposing conservative voices (like conservative talk-show hosts, news agencies, columnists or fellow actors like Jon Voight). You scare me because, as we've all watched over your first 100 days in office, you can get away with all these things mentioned above, and the mainstream media and most of the public will continue to hail you as king. You scare me because your media team will not address or diminish in any way your deification before the world, epitomized by the editor of Newsweek, who was on MSNBC's Chris Matthews' show and recently stated, "I mean, in a way Obama's standing above the country, above the world. He's sort of God." (How much scarier can it get than representative statements like that in a republic that once stood for equity among political powers and a government "by the people and for the people"?) America, it's time to awaken from your slumber and quit looking to the government for answers, and start looking to real reputable sources. I recommend starting with Lou Pritchett's 1995 business book, "Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat."
June 16, 200915 yr Author When do you think his approval rating with drop drastically? Before he takes over health care or the internet?
June 16, 200915 yr when celebrities give their opinions on politics they are usually dumb whether their liberal or conservative siigh celebrities
June 16, 200915 yr Author Nice analysis Zombrones. Lou Pritchett is NOT a celebrity. He is one of the best business men in the world. Here is a little exercise you should look at...maybe some people will begin to see this corrupt government. 1 George Washington (1789-97) 2 John Adams, 1797-1801 (Federalist) 3 Thomas Jefferson, 1801-9 (Democratic-Republican) 4 James Madison, 1809-17 (Democratic-Republican) 5 James Monroe, 1817-25 (Democratic-Republican) 6 John Quincy Adams, 1825-29 (Democratic-Republican) 7 Andrew Jackson, 1829-37 (Democrat) 8 Martin Van Buren, 1837-41 (Democrat) 9 William Henry Harrison, 1841 (Whig) 10 John Tyler, 1841-45 (Whig) 11 James Knox Polk, 1845-49 (Democrat) 12 Zachary Taylor, 1849-50 (Whig) 13 Millard Fillmore, 1850-53 (Whig) 14 Franklin Pierce, 1853-57 (Democrat) 15 James Buchanan, 1857-61 (Democrat) 16 Abraham Lincoln, 1861-65 (Republican) 17 Andrew Johnson, 1865-69 (Democrat/National Union) 18 Ulysses Simpson Grant, 1869-77 (Republican) 19 Rutherford Birchard Hayes, 1877-81 (Republican) 20 James Abram Garfield, 1881 (Republican) 21 Chester Alan Arthur, 1881-85 (Republican) 22 Grover Cleveland, 1885-89 (Democrat) 23 Benjamin Harrison, 1889-93 (Republican) 24 Grover Cleveland, 1893-97 (Democrat) 25 William McKinley, 1897-1901 (Republican) 26 Theodore Roosevelt, 1901-9 (Republican) 27 William Howard Taft, 1909-13 (Republican) 28 Woodrow Wilson, 1913-21 (Democrat) 29 Warren Gamaliel Harding, 1921-23 (Republican) 30 Calvin Coolidge, 1923-29 (Republican) 31 Herbert Clark Hoover, 1929-33 (Republican) 32 Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933-45 (Democrat) 33 Harry S Truman, 1945-53 (Democrat) 34 Dwight David Eisenhower, 1953-61 (Republican) 35 John Fitzgerald Kennedy, 1961-63 (Democrat) 36 Lyndon Baines Johnson, 1963-69 (Democrat) 37 Richard Milhous Nixon, 1969-74 (Republican) 38 Gerald Rudolph Ford Jr , 1974-77 (Republican) 39 James Earl Carter, 1977-81 (Democrat) 40 Ronald Wilson Reagan, 1981-89 (Republican) 41 George Herbert Walker Bush, 1989-1993 (Republican) 42 William Jefferson Clinton, 1993- 2001(Democrat) 43 George W. Bush, 2001- 2009 (Republican) VS. BARACK OBAMA Well that's 220 years of Presidents vs. Obama's 5 months and OBAMA has OUT-SPENT EVERYONE-COMBINED!!! DURING A RECESSION!!!!!!! IT DOESN'T TAKE A ROCKET SCIENTIST TO SEE THE CORRUPTION BEFORE YOUR EYES. You people just keep listening to the media and American Idol.....they will steer you in the right direction!
June 23, 200915 yr Just curious... is that figure adjusted for inflation? Hell, I outspend Thomas Jefferson when I buy a pack of smokes if you don't adjust it for inflation.
June 29, 200915 yr Author Just curious... is that figure adjusted for inflation? Hell, I outspend Thomas Jefferson when I buy a pack of smokes if you don't adjust it for inflation. Yes, that figure is adjusted for inflation. Obama spends over $50,000 per 30 seconds- fact. It's ridiculous. Keep printing!
June 29, 200915 yr Just curious... is that figure adjusted for inflation? Hell, I outspend Thomas Jefferson when I buy a pack of smokes if you don't adjust it for inflation. Yes, that figure is adjusted for inflation. Obama spends over $50,000 per 30 seconds- fact. It's ridiculous. Keep printing! Just saying "fact" after you say something doesn't make it so. You have to actually cite it. There's just no f***ing way you have a master's degree...
June 29, 200915 yr When do you think his approval rating with drop drastically? Before he takes over health care or the internet? oh, I see, so lets just let the private Heathcare campanies get their way, then no one can afford heathcare, so people without heath insurance go to the hospital and the cost gets passed onto the person who wants to pay for heath insurance, it becomes so out of reach that we have a situation where at some time most will not have heath insurance, and I bet you dont care untill your in a situation where you need it, you have no idea. Im for the public heathcare option, if private care is so good, then the private comapnies dont have anything to worry about. There is no reason why the Gov cant provide Cheap insurance, I live in Britain at the moment where it is Free, I needed some treatment that would have cost me about 5,000 USD, I was in and out the door in no time, the Hospitals are clean and New, and I pay just the same amount of taxes, so there is no excuse why the AMERICAN Gov cant do the same. Source- Born in America, living in UK, Iv seen both sides.
June 29, 200915 yr Author When do you think his approval rating with drop drastically? Before he takes over health care or the internet? oh, I see, so lets just let the private Heathcare campanies get their way, then no one can afford heathcare, so people without heath insurance go to the hospital and the cost gets passed onto the person who wants to pay for heath insurance, it becomes so out of reach that we have a situation where at some time most will not have heath insurance, and I bet you dont care untill your in a situation where you need it, you have no idea. Im for the public heathcare option, if private care is so good, then the private comapnies dont have anything to worry about. There is no reason why the Gov cant provide Cheap insurance, I live in Britain at the moment where it is Free, I needed some treatment that would have cost me about 5,000 USD, I was in and out the door in no time, the Hospitals are clean and New, and I pay just the same amount of taxes, so there is no excuse why the AMERICAN Gov cant do the same. Source- Born in America, living in UK, Iv seen both sides. 100% disagree with larger government as did our founders. And you're wrong about the longer lines (source LA Times): 1. British Long-waiting times * Presently as many as three quarters of a million Britons are waiting to be treated in Britain's hospitals. Cancer patients will wait as long as eight months for treatment. During that waiting period 20% of colon cancer patients who were initially considered "treatable" when first diagnosed will become "incurable." Even more alarming is the fact that as many as 40% of cancer patients are never even seen by an oncology specialist. * In 2008 Britain's goal was for a wait time of no more than eighteen weeks; the study showed that only 30-50% of patients actually received treatment within the eighteen week time frame. What's worse is that only 20% of orthopedic and trauma patients received care from a specialist within the eighteen week target window. And as for most Britons, you are in the minority: Studies conducted on the British public indicated that 63% felt the need for healthcare reform is "urgent," and another 24% believe that it is at least "desirable." Even more telling however is that 60% of Britons believe that making it easier for patients to spend their own money on health care would "improve quality." Faced with long waiting lists and lotteries for treatment, patients increasingly pay extra to upgrade the treatment they receive, said Doctors for Reform, which represents 1,000 British physicians. (source United Press International)
June 29, 200915 yr When do you think his approval rating with drop drastically? Before he takes over health care or the internet? oh, I see, so lets just let the private Heathcare campanies get their way, then no one can afford heathcare, so people without heath insurance go to the hospital and the cost gets passed onto the person who wants to pay for heath insurance, it becomes so out of reach that we have a situation where at some time most will not have heath insurance, and I bet you dont care untill your in a situation where you need it, you have no idea. Im for the public heathcare option, if private care is so good, then the private comapnies dont have anything to worry about. There is no reason why the Gov cant provide Cheap insurance, I live in Britain at the moment where it is Free, I needed some treatment that would have cost me about 5,000 USD, I was in and out the door in no time, the Hospitals are clean and New, and I pay just the same amount of taxes, so there is no excuse why the AMERICAN Gov cant do the same. Source- Born in America, living in UK, Iv seen both sides. 100% disagree with larger government as did our founders. And you're wrong about the longer lines (source LA Times): 1. British Long-waiting times * Presently as many as three quarters of a million Britons are waiting to be treated in Britain's hospitals. Cancer patients will wait as long as eight months for treatment. During that waiting period 20% of colon cancer patients who were initially considered "treatable" when first diagnosed will become "incurable." Even more alarming is the fact that as many as 40% of cancer patients are never even seen by an oncology specialist. * In 2008 Britain's goal was for a wait time of no more than eighteen weeks; the study showed that only 30-50% of patients actually received treatment within the eighteen week time frame. What's worse is that only 20% of orthopedic and trauma patients received care from a specialist within the eighteen week target window. And as for most Britons, you are in the minority: Studies conducted on the British public indicated that 63% felt the need for healthcare reform is "urgent," and another 24% believe that it is at least "desirable." Even more telling however is that 60% of Britons believe that making it easier for patients to spend their own money on health care would "improve quality." Faced with long waiting lists and lotteries for treatment, patients increasingly pay extra to upgrade the treatment they receive, said Doctors for Reform, which represents 1,000 British physicians. (source United Press International) well I know other people in The UK who have had Very Good results, you have to understand that brits will complain about everything and anything, they are very spoiled here. I knew a few brits in florida who had to move back to the UK b/c they could not afford treatment in the U.S. and then got it in UK, its not perfect of course. Also, Here in the UK you can Buy heath insurance, you have that choice if you wish. All im saying is that im here, and iv had fantastic Results. But your stuck in front of fox news all day being fed the Lies and Rubish about obama and his plans.
June 29, 200915 yr I'm not saying I agree or disagree with public healthcare, but nobody who's against it has proposed a better idea.
June 29, 200915 yr That whole article coming from the guy that said he wasn't voting for McCain because he was "too old".
June 29, 200915 yr I'm not saying I agree or disagree with public healthcare, but nobody who's against it has proposed a better idea. I'm opposed to it. Nine out of 10 US born persons currently have it so seems to me that it's readily available to almost everyone that wants it and has put forth an honest effort to get it so I would like to know what were the circumstances that led the one out of 10 that don't have it to not have it and then go from there. I don't want taxpayers paying for the insurance of some dude who decided to smoke weed everyday from age 13 to 27 and now can't get a job because he has no skills. I don't think that's fair.
June 30, 200915 yr I'm not saying I agree or disagree with public healthcare, but nobody who's against it has proposed a better idea. I'm opposed to it. Nine out of 10 US born persons currently have it so seems to me that it's readily available to almost everyone that wants it and has put forth an honest effort to get it so I would like to know what were the circumstances that led the one out of 10 that don't have it to not have it and then go from there. I don't want taxpayers paying for the insurance of some dude who decided to smoke weed everyday from age 13 to 27 and now can't get a job because he has no skills. I don't think that's fair. But your paying taxes for Jails and their healthcare, your paying taxes for some guy who just murdered his whole family. Your paying for the police to pull over some guy smoking weed in his car. At least with Good Public healthcare your paying something for your own Good. By the way, their are 50 million people without healthcare in America, and I would say right now more then that, and the number will rise, and the cost will get passed onto you and everyone down the road, and it might get so costly you wont be able to afford it at all, there is no guarantee that our economy wont tank again in the future, it wont take much.
June 30, 200915 yr As long as one child is turned away from a hospital for not having insurance, the system is broken. If that happens one time, the system needs to be fixed. I understand all of the reasons why it doesn't make sense fiscally, and I appreciate them, but for me this is a pretty simple issue. No child in America should not have access to health care, regardless of whatever decisions their parents might have made. Whether that right should be afforded to all is another matter entirely, but at the very least everyone under the age of 18 should be given free health care.
June 30, 200915 yr Author Exactly El Penguino...but the government is NOT reducing it's role in anything. They are expanding very fast.
July 9, 200915 yr Author Bearers of bad news are often erroneously identified with the bad news itself, although most of the time they are merely attempting to protect others from the dangers that approach. This is simply the burden one has to bear for sounding the alarm. And, unfortunately, as July 4 nears, I am constrained to say that all is not well in America. In fact, the 'perfect storm' is approaching that will dwarf all of our national crises in the past. I am all for celebrating our independence, liberty, and national identity. But this year a very dark cloud hangs over these celebrations. The very liberty we celebrate is under attack as never before not only from outside forces but from our own government and its co-conspirators in the mega-corporations, the Unions, and subversive groups such as ACORN. The Party of Reagan dropped the ball under George W. Bush and began to act like Democrats. Government spending skyrocketed. The size of government increased. The Reagan ideals of smaller government and spending cuts were set aside. While Bush and the GOP can be congratulated for tax cuts and the stunning victory in Iraq, almost everything else had the smell of all we conservatives detest in progressives. Voters, thus, turned against the GOP. Democrats sensed the discontent and moved to take advantage of it. But what they gave us was nothing even closely akin to what the majority of voters truly wanted in their heart of hearts. The rhetoric used by Obama and the Democrats sounded entirely reasonable. They ran as centrists who supported tax cuts for 95% of Americans. Yet they have governed as extremist radicals who have been thoroughly indoctrinated by the likes of 60s subversives such as Saul Alinksy, William Ayers, and others. These subversives openly advocated the complete destruction of American society and capitalism in order to build a new order based upon Marxism. Examples of the fact that Obama was a 'wolf in sheep's clothes' abound. Obama promised no tax increases for anyone making under $250,000 per year or $200,000 per year (he kept waffling on the figure). He has already broken that promise even without the ominous cap and trade bill that looms over the nation. Policies have already been implemented that raise consumption taxes for millions. And if cap and trade is approved by the Senate, every citizen in America will get a massive tax increase simply because they use electricity. In addition, the voters did not expect Obama to be such a cheerleader for extremist Islam. His reluctance to say anything to encourage Iranian dissidents has sat on the stomachs of millions of Americans, even many Obama supporters, like plaster-of-Paris. And then his refusal to embrace Hondurans who enforced the terms of their Constitution by ousting a Marxist suggests that our President himself has the same point of view toward our own Constitution. And that is only the tip of the iceberg. Obama meddles in Honduras and Israel but says it is wrong for us to meddle in the actions of terrorist Islamic governments such as Iran. He wanted to build a coalition of support among our allies for our war on terror in Afghanistan but has consistently offended our allies in France, Germany, and Great Britain. Is it any wonder that despite his 'silvery-tongued rhetoric and engaging smile' he has gotten absolutely no support from our allies for his Afghan initiative? But the most immediate crisis of all lies in Obama's economic policies. By collaborating with mega-corporations such as Citigroup, GM, Chrysler, and dozens of others, he has implemented the very fiscal policies that characterized Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy in the 1930s. His insistence that Unions receive huge financial rewards for their contribution to the demise of many industries is, to put it bluntly, nauseating. And he continues his assault on American free markets by creating a conglomerate made up of SEIU, ACORN, and now, unfortunately, Walmart, which has jumped on the bandwagon in support of Obama's nightmarish government-run healthcare system. Since taking office, Obama has doubled the budget deficit and tripled the national debt. Within 9 years this financial trainwreck will become such a heavy burden for America that we will never survive it. China already owns most of our debt, along with other foreign nations. What if they suddenly insist on cashing in? Where will the money come from? Obama has already admitted we are out of money. In short, the U.S.A. is flat broke. Yet Obama wishes to add cap and trade and a healthcare plan, the cost of which would make the heads spin of even the most rabid 'progressive' economists. If the U.S.government approves these terribly horrifying burdens on top of an already failing economy, the result will be a total and complete financial collapse. It is becoming all-too-clear that this is precisely what Obama and his team want. As I keep repeating, if you have any doubt about the end-game of the Obama Administration, just consult Obama's mentor--Saul Alinsky.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.