Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

AIM Video Study: Barack Obama vs. American Values

May 11, 2012 by  

Bob Livingston

is an ultra-conservative American and author of The Bob Livingston Letter™, founded in 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “AIM Video Study: Barack Obama vs. American Values”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • Vigilant

    “Judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint? How dare Obama imply that the Conservative justices on the court are guilty of judicial activism when it’s clearly been the liberal justices who have pursued that unconstitutional stance!

    “An unelected group of people” on the Supreme Court? Another ridiculous (and dangerous) implication that the checks and balances afforded by the Constitution should be swept away in favor of “democratizing” (read: “socializing”) the political process. Compare with the unelected czars and bureaucrats in regulatory agencies that have no Constitutional basis for writing laws.

    “George Washington wasn’t even born in the US?” Mr. Olbermann, go back to your history books.

    • Tom W.

      SIC EM’ Vig!!! I gleened this from a book written in 1993 in which famed 20th century philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper is quoted as saying; “Democracies have serious drawbacks. They certainly are not better than they ought to be. But corruption can occur under any kind of government. And I think that every serious student of history will agree, upon consideration, that our Western democracies are not only the most prosperous societies in history – That is important, but not so very important – but the freest, the most tolerant, and the least repressive large societies of which we have historical knowledge… One must fight those who make so many young people unhappy by telling them we live in a terrible world, in a capitalist hell. The truth is we live in a wonderful world, in a beautiful world, and in an astonishingly free and open society. Of course it is fashionable, it is expected, and it is almost demanded from a Western intellectual to say the opposite.” I have no idea of exactly when the quote was made, Karl passed in “94″, but would imagine it wasn’t too far ahead of the book.
      It just goes to show how far we’ve EVOLVED! The CRAP is not only SPEWING out of the professors of the lunatic-left social policies that have been underminding our form of government since the days that O Sr. got to come to this country to study. (Via a special scholarship awarded by OUR government to the most gifted Kenyan students to help shore up thier government which was still reelin’ from the recent transition from British colonial rule.) It NOW SPEWS forth from our TV sets via our MSM and cable news outlets!!! Poisoning the minds of all with totally biased left-wing rhetorical propaganda!

  • Doc Sarvis

    What does “it” mean. This heavily edited set of snippetts provides NO context upon which to base any valid argument. Any thinking person would see this as garbage.

    • Vigilant

      Typical “out of context” comment that comes up every time the sycophant can’t defend the dear leader’s comments. It’s the usual propaganda, “I know what you thought you saw or heard, but it’s not that.” The weakest of all arguments.

      No, Sarvis, the thinking person, not the blind partisan, KNOWS the context and fully understands the import. He said what he said, and his comments in particular about the Supreme Court were not only factually incorrect, they were dangerous remarks. The context? Obamacare.

      Your man can do no wrong, eh? Last time we had a man like that was ca. 2,000 years ago.

      • Doc Sarvis

        There are plenty of things I dissagree with President Obama on so forget your argument on that.
        The unprovided context for most of those clips reveal the complexities of running a country and establishing laws. An open mind immediately hears that while a closed one hears what limited message is tailored in partial sentences – as provided in the clips.

      • Vigilant

        OK, Sarvis, here’s your chance to shine. Let’s cut the cowardly abstractions and generalities and get down to cases.

        All you need to do is provide ONE instance from the video that is context-sensitive, i.e., in which the words spoken indicate something different than what was said, in which the context modified, contradicted, or otherwise altered the meaning of the snippets. Just one, mind you. I won’t tax your creative powers of euphemism and rationalization beyond that.

        Secondly, name just a few things with which you disagree with Obama, and instances where he is not far left enough don’t count. In my experience, you have only defended and supported him on this website.

        Do you have the mettle to accept the challenges? Or will you skulk off ther battlefield with your tail between your legs?

      • Doc Sarvis

        At about 1 minute; the members of the Supreme Court are unelected. At about 1:50 – not even a full sentence. At 2:00 he referrs to a document as “it”; what document?!? And that is less than halfway through the piece.
        My feeling is that he has overused drones in warfare and in hunting suspected terrorists. I think we should have combat troops out of Afghanistan much sooner than 2014. I believe these are positions supported by Ron Paul and his supporters. And there are many others.

      • Doc Sarvis

        Your cowardly abstractions and generalities are excused.

      • Michael J.

        Doc Saarvis,
        Your unaware participation and victimization are excused and explained here:
        “Does anyone know the origins of Political Correctness? Who originally developed it and what was its purpose?
        I looked it up. It was developed at the Institute for Social Researchin Frankfurt, Germany, which was founded in 1923 and came to be known as the “Frankfurt School.” It was a group of thinkers who pulled together to find a solution to the biggest problem facing the implementers of communism in Russia.

        The problem? Why wasn’t communism spreading?

        Their answer? Because Western Civilization was in its way.

        What was the problem with Western Civilization? Its belief in the individual, that an individual could develop valid ideas. At the root of communism was the theory that all valid ideas come from the effect of the social group of the masses. The individual is nothing.

        And they believed that the only way for communism to advance was to help (or force, if necessary) Western Civilization to destroy itself. How to do that? Undermine its foundations by chipping away at the rights of those annoying individuals.

        One way to do that? Change their speech and thought patterns by spreading the idea that vocalizing your beliefs is disrespectful to others and must be avoided to make up for past inequities and injustices.

        And call it something that sounds positive: “Political Correctness.”

        Inspired by the brand new communist technique, Mao, in the 1930s, wrote an article on the “correct” handling of contradictions among the people. “Sensitive training” – sound familiar? – and speech codes were born.

        In 1935, after Hitler came to power, the Frankfurt School moved to Colombia University in New York City, where they continued their work by translating Marxism from economic to cultural terms using Sigmund Freud’s psychological conditioning mechanisms to get Americans to buy into Political Correctness. In 1941, they moved to California to spread their wings.

        But Political Correctness remains just what it was intended to be:
        a sophisticated and dangerous form of censorship and oppression, imposed upon the citizenry with the ultimate goal of manipulating, brainwashing and destroying our society.”

      • Vigilant

        Sorry, Sarvis, you’re an intellectual lightweight and you’ve failed the test.

        You purported to provide three examples:

        (1) “At about 1 minute; the members of the Supreme Court are unelected.”

        Yeah, and…? What does that statement have to do with context? In fact, the context is more damning than the standalone statement you provided.

        (2) “At about 1:50 – not even a full sentence.”

        What part of the following is not a complete sentence? “The Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day…I think it is an imperfect document, and I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture…It also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”

        (3) “At 2:00 he referrs [sic] to a document as “it”; what document?!?”

        Duh, it’s called the Constitution. Are you that dense? Got any doubts, go to

        Bottom line: you have not provided ONE instance from the video in which the words spoken indicate something different than what was said, in which the context modified, contradicted, or otherwise altered the meaning of the snippets.

      • Vigilant

        BTW, true “out of context” statements, the meanings of which are altered by providing the context are VERY rare indeed. The claim is always made when the speaker/writer either screws up or comes under fire for making a controversial statement, but the content of the statements are almost always precisely what the speaker/writer meant to say.

        When challenged, they hide behind the “out of context” claim as if that settles the question. It doesn’t.

        You want a recent example of a true out of context statement? Just look at the doctoring of the George Zimmerman 911 call to give it overtly racist tones. THAT was a true alteration of words to to create a fabrication. The meanings of Obama’s comments in the above videos are NOT altered in any way by reference to the contexts in which they were made..

    • s c

      Kinda sounds like what does IS mean, doesn’t it, comrade? So how old do you think you’ll be when you finally admit that your W H ‘God’ is NOT even close to being normal – let alone a God? Amerika values – BLAH.

  • FreedomFighter

    High Level Insider: DHS Preparing to Start A Civil War

    Obama will not give up the presidency

    Laus Deo
    Semper Fi


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.