Lou Pritchett is one of corporate America 's true living legends -- an
acclaimed author, dynamic teacher and one of the world's highest
rated speakers. Successful corporate executives everywhere recognize him as the foremost leader in change management. Lou changed the way America does business by creating an audacious concept that came to be known as "partnering." He rose from soap salesman to
Vice President, Sales and Customer Development for Proctor and
Gamble and, over the course of 36 years, made corporate history.
The letter to follow was sent to the NY Times but they never acknowledged it. Big surprise. Since it hit the Internet, however, it has had over 500,000 hits. Keep it going. All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing. It's happening right now.
AN OPEN LETTER FROM LOU PRITCHETT, PROCTOR & GAMBLE EXECUTIVE, TO PRESIDENT OBAMA
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
Limbaugh's, 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Regarding Michigan State police saying that they only take info off cell phones with the permission of the driver. I warn you - when you willingly submit to such search and seizure, even because you are afraid to confront the police, that will be considered "consent".] Popular Mechanics gives this important warning: The Ohio Supreme Court held that a cellphone is analogous to a closed container and cannot be searched without a separate warrant—and that’s for a search where someone has actually been arrested for a crime, not mere snooping during a traffic stop.
Without an arrest, search requires probable cause—the officer must have some reasonable basis for believing that a crime has been committed, and that a particular search will turn up evidence relevant to that crime. It’s hard to see how cellphone data could be relevant to a traffic stop. Instead, searching cellphones looks more like a fishing expedition: Having gotten access to you with a traffic stop, officers are just looking around to see what they find. That’s explicitly forbidden by the Constitution, and with good reason. Letting government officials snoop on anyone they choose, for no particular reason, is a bad idea.
If you consent to a search, however, all bets are off. It’s hard to see why anyone would do so: If you’re a criminal, you’ve got something to hide; and if you’re not a criminal, why would you want to let the police paw through your email? And remember that when you consent to have your smartphone searched, you’re also giving up data on all your contacts, who haven’t consented. The legal ramifications to that have yet to be worked out. [Be bold! Refuse to do so, respectfully, without a warrant.]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Thinker writes: For over two years, I have been privy to private investigators' files, have seen private investigations of other private investigations, have done my own research -- and I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are two crucial problems with President Obama's life documents. First, the registration number on Obama's "Certification of Live Birth" (which, as Trump recently explained to an incredulous Meredith Vieira, is not a long form birth certificate) is out of sequence to other birth certificates issued on the very next day in Hawaii to a pair of twins named Nordyke (certifications of live birth and birth certificates carry the same registration number). [There is on the internet a photo of the "real" birth certificate - from Kenya - with the footprint and the raised seal. It looks legitimate. I have not written about all this before, but since
The Donald is bringing it up......]
The Donald is bringing it up......]
Second, according to a private investigator, Susan Daniels, whose work was validated by at least two other investigators I'm aware of, the Social Security number that Obama used for approximately 25 years was issued with a Connecticut-based number, though neither Obama nor anyone in his family lived in that state at any point during their lifetimes. Bill O'Reilly claimed on his April 14, 2011, show that Obama's father, Barack Obama Sr., lived in Connecticut "for several years", but when I called O'Reilly for verification of his source(s), I was put into a voicemail and received no return call. As of this writing, it appears that O'Reilly's Mailbag Segment on Obama's Social Security number has been scrubbed by Fox News from the podcast of the show, along with some viewer mail on the subject. [When O'Reilly said this, I noted that I had never heard it before, and I've done a lot of research on the subject. He also said that when Obama went to Pakistan when it was forbidden for Americans to do so, he did it from India, I believe. Now who can believe this when O'Reilly is now untrustworthy? We need to see the citizenship listed on that Passport which we are not allowed to see. I also believe O'Reilly is in Obama's camp, for he has consistently given him all the leeway he can manage to give. O'Reilly also said on his show (another lie) that George Bush never got the approval of Congress prior to going into Iraq. Take him with a grain of salt.)
So it appears Obama Sr. had nothing to do with the application for Obama's Social Security number, as Mr. O'Reilly suggested. But then again, this is the same O'Reilly who also announced on his April 14th show that, although Obama's birth certificate has not been made public, Hawaii officials have it on file. This about-face conflicts with his 2008 statement that he'd actually seen the birth certificate and that's how he knows Obama is legitimate. "We have a copy of it," he said at the time. (NB: such a possession would have been illegal.)
Because of the irregularities and unanswered questions outlined above, certainly the American people have a right to know whether the birth record that supposedly establishes the eligibility of their president is un-tampered with. And they also have a right to know whether the social security number that he has been using is genuinely his or stolen. Use of another person's social security number is a felony. Carol A. Taber is president of FamilySecurityMatters.org http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/trump_needs_to_shift_to_second.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without an arrest, search requires probable cause—the officer must have some reasonable basis for believing that a crime has been committed, and that a particular search will turn up evidence relevant to that crime. It’s hard to see how cellphone data could be relevant to a traffic stop. Instead, searching cellphones looks more like a fishing expedition: Having gotten access to you with a traffic stop, officers are just looking around to see what they find. That’s explicitly forbidden by the Constitution, and with good reason. Letting government officials snoop on anyone they choose, for no particular reason, is a bad idea.
If you consent to a search, however, all bets are off. It’s hard to see why anyone would do so: If you’re a criminal, you’ve got something to hide; and if you’re not a criminal, why would you want to let the police paw through your email? And remember that when you consent to have your smartphone searched, you’re also giving up data on all your contacts, who haven’t consented. The legal ramifications to that have yet to be worked out. [Be bold! Refuse to do so, respectfully, without a warrant.]
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment