Domestic policy: Pretty solid, I would say. People need to realize that it's going to take a long time to fix the many problems that the United States has.
He is not all that different from others he seems better off and much more progressive than others because he is targeted by half minded cons (who target him for wrong reasons to begin with) and people before him were not all good either their names are easy to tarnish (Bush is a worldscale mockery).
Anyway i do not thing a single person is all that effective to control what will happen. He is a public figure to dumb down politics to people and an actor to play his part. Nobel Prize for instance, why is it given to him?
In my opinion, he's a good president. Clearly not the best, but definitely not the worst. He'll probably be ranked top 35 presidents of all time after his term is over and some time is allowed to pass.
To say he's ruining the country is just ridiculous in my opinion. "Obama is ruining the country" is usually a simple euphemism for, "he's black".
Anyway, what do you guys think. Is he a good or bad president? Where do you think he'll rank when all is said and done.
No crazy radical theories that Obama is Lucifer reincarnated. Don't tell me he's part of the Illuminati. I want cold hard facts on why you think he's a good or bad president. Defend your points.
A proper analysis of Obama requires that we make one key realization about him:
He never had any intention of being the President of the United States.
That does not mean he didn't want the office of the President of the United States; he most certainly did. What it means is that none of what he has done has made sense so long as we look at Obama through the lens of him being a classic product of Chicago politics with an obscene bias in support of policies conducive to National Socialism.
At first - Obama does appear to be your classic weak-willed liberal who loves to talk about redistributing wealth and telling people they will get all kinds of free shit for voting for him. This is classic Democrat politics - simply insist that a law saying: "America will be productive" accomplishes the goal of making America productive (this is the "National" part of the socialist agenda). This has been the time-honored tradition of Democrats since FDR.
However, we then have to look at Obama's decision to bomb Libya. Not only was this done by executive order under an over-reach of the War Powers Act, it is also contrary to Obama's campaign statements and his policies in Iraq and Afghanistan - where he was cutting manpower and withdrawing the military. Frankly, this made absolutely no sense as it left his voter base rushing to defend him (some of whom weren't so happy about it) and left the critical populace pointing out that we had absolutely no decent intelligence on who or what we were supporting in their revolution (Hint: The Muslim Brotherhood).
You must be registered for see links
- This is an article from The Atlantic regarding our intervention in Libya.
"And it is telling that Michael Lewis, one of America's finest journalists, didn't even ask Obama about failing to put the decision about Libya before Congress. He didn't ask despite the plain language of the Constitution, Obama's prior statements indicating he fully understood his legal obligations, and the fact that various members of Congress complained about his unilateral action. The imperial presidency is so well entrenched that a journalist like Lewis needn't really question those things to feel as though he's including all the crucial parts of the story about going to war. "
If you read into what was going on - we supported the No-Fly Zone basically because it gave Obama an avenue to escalate to air strikes.
You must be registered for see links
"On Monday, Mr. Obama sent Congress a two-page letter saying that as commander in chief, he had constitutional authority to authorize the strikes, which were undertaken with French, British and other allies. He wrote that the strikes would be limited in scope and duration, and that preventing a humanitarian disaster in Libya was in the best interest of American foreign policy and national security goals."
These are the rebels who are effectively Al Qaeda or ISIS (our intel in the area has difficulty distinguishing likely for the same reason that the supporters of Al Qaeda and ISIS have difficulty distinguishing) and have currently evicted our Embassy.
You must be registered for see links
This pattern repeated all throughout the "Arab Spring" - Obama took a downright hostile stance to Egypt's secular government (
You must be registered for see links
), supported rebels in Yemen (
You must be registered for see links
), and we now know that he was providing arms to the Syrian rebels through the State Department and CIA.
You must be registered for see links
This is that whole "Benghazi" thing, and why it's important:
"They say that the State Department presence in Benghazi “provided diplomatic cover” for the previously hidden CIA mission. WND alleges that it was not a real consulate. And former CIA officer Philip Giraldiconfirms:
Benghazi has been described as a U.S. consulate, but it was not. It was an information office that had no diplomatic status. There was a small staff of actual State Department information officers plus local translators. The much larger CIA base was located in a separate building a mile away. It was protected by a not completely reliable local militia. Base management would have no say in the movement of the ambassador and would not be party to his plans, nor would it clear its own operations with the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli. In Benghazi, the CIA’s operating directive would have been focused on two objectives: monitoring the local al-Qaeda affiliate group, Ansar al-Sharia, and tracking down weapons liberated from Colonel Gaddafi’s arsenal. Staff consisted of CIA paramilitaries who were working in cooperation with the local militia. The ambassador would not be privy to operational details and would only know in general what the agency was up to. When the ambassador’s party was attacked, the paramilitaries at the CIA base came to the rescue before being driven back into their own compound, where two officers were subsequently killed in a mortar attack.
Reuters notes that the CIA mission involved finding and repurchasing heavy weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals.
Retired Lt. General William Boykin said in January that Stevens was in Benghazi as part of an effort to arm the Syrian opposition:
More supposition was that he was now funneling guns to the rebel forces in Syria, using essentially the Turks to facilitate that. Was that occurring, (a), and if so, was it a legal covert action?
Boykin said Stevens was “given a directive to support the Syrian rebels” and the State Department’s Special Mission Compound in Benghazi “would be the hub of that activity.” "
While both parties were in support of a regime change in Syria - Hillary's CIA was operating well outside of oversight and took deliberate means to hide her and her department's activities from oversight (hence that whole "server scandal" thing that all of us mean conservatives like to make a fuss about).
Worse - Obama has basically been a ***** for rebels:
You must be registered for see links
"When the rising tide of Arab Spring rebellions toppled the government of longtime Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh in 2012, his successor, Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, immediately received the support of the West. For years, Hadi’s government presented itself as a pro-Western force and cooperated closely with United States’ efforts to combat al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. This cooperative relationship led President Barack Obama to tout the success his counterterrorism strategy enjoyed in Yemen; a claim he personally made as recently as September, and which members of his administration still make today.
In order to preserve this dubious success story, this administration has given up on consistency. In January, as what appeared to be a Houthi-led coup toppled the Hadi government in Sanaa, the administration reportedly began to make overtures to the Houthis with the promise of facilitating the organization’s ascension to power.
...
Flash forward to March, and those American overtures have been soundly rejected by the “anti-American” Houthi militia.
“Now, U.S. officials acknowledge their efforts against Yemen’s dangerous al-Qaeda affiliate are seriously hampered, with the American embassy closed and the last U.S. troops evacuated from the country over the weekend,” the Associated Press reported on Wednesday in a dispatch that has since been scrubbed. “Although the Houthis have seized control of much of the country and are avowed enemies of al-Qaeda, they can’t project power against the militants the way the Hadi government could with American support, officials say. Deeply anti-American, the Houthis have rejected U.S. overtures, officials say.” "
While proxy wars are nothing new - this is, again, an odd set of choices for Obama.
Further, as we begin to adjust our lens, we have to take note of other issues:
The Fast and Furious scandal. This leads directly back to Obama and the Department of Justice under Holder. Frankly - it is very similar to how arms were supplied to Syrian rebels, except it was going to gangs and drug lords south of the border. Note that border patrol agents, civilians, and local police forces all throughout the southern states have been killed by the weapons used in the Fast and Furious operation (which was either a resounding success for the people aligned against our nation - or a resounding failure for our nation, depending upon how you look at it).
You must be registered for see links
"Clues as to why President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder kept the public documents secret for so long may be found in one 60-page release examined below. Nearly three years after-the-fact, its news value is diminished. If these documents had been turned over when Congress subpoenaed them or when they were first requested under FOI law, they would have revealed damaging information in the lead-up to President Obama’s re-election in 2012. By exerting executive privilege, the President and Holder kept them hidden until the court challenge forced their release.The reason for the 60-page grouping of materials isn’t apparent. Documents that long predate Fast and Furious are mixed in with relevant documents. Redactions aren’t justified or explained. Inexplicably, even Congressional testimony that had been publicly presented to Congress was included in documents withheld under President Obama’s sweeping executive privilege."
...
Gunwalking Tactics
While the Department of Justice was still insisting the gunwalking was a renegade operation conducted by rogue agents in Phoenix, the documents make clear ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. knew that weapons were being allowed to flow to Mexican drug cartels.
For example, Fast and Furious began in October 2009. Washington D.C. talking points recount (p. 17) that:
“From October 2009 through October 2010, this organization, through the use of numerous straw buyers, purchased approximately 1.25 million dollars in firearms from FFLs [Federal Firearms License's] in the Phoenix area and trafficked the firearms into Mexico and other locations within the United States.”
Another example is an October 12, 2010 funding request to ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. (p. 40) from Phoenix Special Agent in Charge Bill Newell. It stated, in present tense (making clear that ATF was aware, in real time, that the weapons were being transported by ATF suspects to cartels on a continuing basis):
“The firearms are then being trafficked into Mexico using non-factory compartments in various vehicles through various Ports of Entry (POE’s) in Arizona and Texas. Since the ATF case was initiated, agents have identified approximately twenty-seven straw purchasers who have purchased a large amount of AK-47 style rifles and pistols from various FFLs in the Phoenix Metropolitan area and Prescott, Arizona, since September 2009.” "
See - if you're a militant bent on destroying America - you get guns, missiles, and air strikes to support you from Obama.
If you're an average Joe who wants a firearm for sport, hunting, or because you're part of the tin-foil hat brigade who believes the government may one day try to kill him... then you should feel guilty for wanting a firearm and you certainly should not want to train to be safe and proficient with it.
You must be registered for see links
While we're on the border issues - it has been confirmed that his administration deliberately spread the false narrative in throughout Central and South America that we were having an "open border special" where juveniles could enter the country without needing to wait to process citizenship. Basically: "Send your kids to America and we'll adopt them."
You must be registered for see links
"“I don’t usually get into the political part of it,” explained Chris Cabrera, now a vice president in the National Border Patrol Council Local 3307, “but I find it odd that their whole thing is, ‘We are going to get amnesty when we get here. Where is my permiso? Where is my permission to go north so I can get my medical care and my schooling and all that? President Obama is going to take care of us and make sure we’re all OK.’
“Whether it’s the adults or the young kids, one thing we consistently hear is, ‘Obama will take care of us,’” Cabrera said.
He also suggested the tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors illegally entering the United States appear to have been coached on what to say when they cross the border.
“The ‘magic words’ are something along the lines of ‘asylum,’ or ‘political asylum’ or to say ‘fighting in my home country,’” Cabrera said. “They know these words … because we can’t send them home, because it’s too dangerous back there.” "
You must be registered for see links
"Newspapers in El Salvador and Honduras are promoting policies by the Obama administration that defer deportation to minors brought to the United States as children by their parents — known as "Dreamers" — and those that are housing illegal children at military bases in the South and West."
This all crops up after a trip made by the Obama administration to this part of the world a few months earlier:
You must be registered for see links
Note that the graphs of immigration begin their up-tick after this.
Of course - they aren't supposed to stay under the laws and the advertisements were false, but when half a million kids swarm the border, all of a sudden it becomes necessary to pass appropriation laws (that must be paid back by us citizens and theoretically our grandchildren) to pay people to shelter these kids - many of whom test positive for tuberculosis (and several cases have been noted throughout the nation), Enterovirus, Measles, and other diseases that have been thoroughly stamped out in our nation so effectively that we do not even vaccinate for them.
You must be registered for see links
Those of us who pay attention to the world and history drew the connection between Enterovirus (which is endemic through much of South and Central America) and the swarm of illegal immigrants (and the efforts to bus them all over the nation so that no one can find them when it's time to send them back...) months before the CDC did.
In fact - we warned about just such scenarios arising from those policies.
The busing campaign was orchestrated through a program started under Bush but reorganized under Obama to be "The Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships." Churches are offered massive sums of money if they agree to coordinate to house these children. No surprise that many of the Churches bought it hook line and sinker and have been preaching about adopting the illegal aliens (the people who adopt are paid a regular stipend of over a thousand dollars a month per adopted individual).
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
" ...
Between September 2010 and September 2013, the Catholic Charities of Dallas received $823,658 from the Department of Homeland Security for “Citizenship Education Training” for “refugee and entrant assistance.”
From Dec 2012 to January 2014, Baptist Child & Family Services received $62,111,126 in federal grants from Health & Human Services for “Unaccompanied Alien Children Program.” "
You must be registered for see links
"Well, if you need some extra cash, the government is currently offering up to $7,400 a month to foster illegal immigrants.
Yesterday Breitbart reported that some of these migrants the U.S. government is paying American families to foster are even adults:
The Texas-based nonprofit Catholic Charities is currently seeking out foster families for the migrants, most of whom come from Central America. Ruth Braiser, a spokeswoman for the organization, told Breitbart Texas that foster families can receive monthly payments for housing adult immigrants who are under 23-years-old.
“Most of our children are 15 to 17-years-old,” she said. “But some stay in our program until they are 22-years-old; if they’re still working on getting their high school diploma, they can stay until they’re that age.”
The revelation that some of the migrants receiving foster care are adults will likely come as a surprise to many; the mainstream media has largely portrayed the border crisis as involving only children and family units.
Braiser mentioned that foster families will be paid $40 per day for each migrant they take in from Catholic Charities. The payments are funded by the federal government, as Breitbart Texas previously reported.
[emphasis added]"
As we adjust our lens even more - we begin to look more closely at the actions taken in the light of our withdraw from Iraq and the rise of Isis.
This President - who did not hesitate to bomb Gaddafi - drug his heels on using force to stop an advancing ISIS amidst widespread defection within the Iraqi army and thousands of U.S. servicemen and contractors in the line of fire. So far, the air strikes are averaging around six sorties per day with an average of two light duty bombs per sortie (small little 200 pound bombs or anti-tank missiles intended for Combat Air Support operations - IE - supporting troops in contact).
You must be registered for see links
"The US must jettison the current economy-of-force approach in favor of a high-intensity strategy. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), other hawks, and retired US Air Force Lt Gens. David Deptula and Tom McInerney have belittled the airstrikes. Deptula asserted that what is needed is a “thunderstorm,” not a “drizzle,” and McInerney decried the airstrikes as “half-hearted” and “pinpricks.” Operation Inherent Resolve, as of 10 February, averaged a mere 7 daily airstrikes in Iraq and Syria. In Syria, 70 perecent of air strikes targeted Kobane, with scant airstrikes elsewhere.This compares with 50 average daily airstrikes in the air campaign leading to the overthrow of Libya’s Gaddafi, 800 at the height of the “Shock and Awe campaign” at the beginning of the second Iraq war, 85 in Afghanistan after 9/11, and 1000 in Desert Storm. Whereas the U.S. is deploying a single aircraft carrier on a rotational basis in support of Inherent Resolve, Desert Storm required the deployment of 6 aircraft carriers to the Persian Gulf and Red Sea."
He has refused to supply any aid or official training the the Kurds (who are the ones who held Khobani... unless that's changed since the last time I reviewed the strategic picture of the Turkish border) outside of what has been practically forced by authorities outside of his administration's reach. Yet, he insists on continuing to supply groups of Anti-Assad rebels who are comprised of many individual cells that do double-duty for work against Assad and work for ISIS - which is how our weapons end up in the hands of ISIS.
You must be registered for see links
"President Barack Obama’s Administration has refused to bypass Baghdad for weapons deliveries to the Peshmerga, arguing it is prohibited by law from doing so. Last year, Secretary of State John Kerry called on Congress to “fix” the legality aspect of direct arming of the Kurds.”
“We have to send it to the government (in Baghdad) because that’s the U.S. law. If you want to change it, fix it,” said Kerry. "
(Because this Administration is, clearly, holding fast to integrity...)
You must be registered for see links
"Now Obama is not only reversing one of the few sensible things he did and championing a policy that he knows quite well is wrong, but is also attempting to make Congress complicit in his destructive folly.
Obama was willing to give F-16 jets to the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt. If he was holding off on heavy weapons transfers to the Jihadists in Syria, it was because he knew that there was a very high risk that those weapons would end up being used against Americans. And that he would pay a political price.
...
While the FSA isn’t ISIS, parts of it are aligned with ISIS and the other parts are jockeying for power.
Some Jihadist commanders with the FSA and other non-ISIS groups fight ISIS and its allies. Others are its allies. Telling them apart is hard even with a map and a room full of charts. Fighters drift back and forth. The “moderate” Syrian rebel that we arm and train today will be the “extreme” terrorist tomorrow and there is absolutely no way to tell where a weapon that we provide will end up.
Arming the Syrian opposition is the same thing as arming ISIS. The Syrian Jihadists fighting it don’t “reject its extreme ideology” as much as they’re angling for their piece of the Caliphate. The Al Nusra Front was fighting ISIS before it pledged allegiance to ISIS. The Sunni opposition consists of a lot of wannabe Caliphs trying to collect enough bakeries and oil wells to cash in for a Caliphate."
This is an issue his administration has been briefed on and which his administration has continually insisted that it is acting appropriately.
This harkens back to the issue of Guantanamo Bay.
Obama has routinely intervened to release high-risk individuals from Guantanamo Bay, many of whom have been confirmed to have returned to duty with Al Qaeda or ISIS. This was known -before- Obama intervened to release the equivalent of -FIVE- individuals, effectively classified as generals or lieutenants of such a stature, in exchange for one corporal whose case of disappearance was under investigation by the Army's internal affairs for desertion and following up on counts of TREASON. This was -BEFORE- the exchange was made.
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
(Obama: "ME!? Would I really do anything ILLEGAL!? I'm a Constitutional Scholar, don't ya know?")
Now - I'm linking to Infowars out of convenience - I've seen a similar path of research tracked down elsewhere that leads to the same conclusion:
You must be registered for see links
Basically - Obama wanted those five high ranking individuals from Guantanamo released and Bergdahl was the convenient excuse to do it (why all of a sudden, after years of captivity, did Bergdahl become a must-have-him-now issue? It is SERE basics that once you get through the first twenty four hours without being killed, your captors are less of a survival issue than things like food, water, and health).
Basically - they tried to fluff a deserter who committed treason up as being a hero for the public and media simply to give face to the real goal of returning a group of experienced militant commanders back to their Islamic abode - which is now, interestingly enough, in high demand for their services.
You must be registered for see links
"Reports indicate that Fazi, classified by a 2008 Pentagon dossier as being considered a high risk to the United States if released, appears to be heavily engaged in the systematic murder of Iraqs non-Sunni population. Internal Pentagon assessments say the strategy of wholesale slaughter carried out in ISIS occupied territories very well could have originated with Fazi. Many of the same techniques were utilized by the Taliban in Afghanistan to consolidate and strengthen their position under Mohammed Fazi’s direction.
News of Fazi’s involvement in the ISIS caliphate comes shortly on the heels of a finding by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office that President Obama broke the law when he exchanged five Taliban leaders for Sgt Bowe Bergdahl. The White House has “strongly disagreed” with the GAO’s conclusions. White House spokesman Eric Schultz has said that,”We reject the implication that the administration acted unlawfully.” "
Gee... what are the odds.
I don't even think it's appropriate to look at Obama and say: "Was he a good President?"
He is an absolutely terrible President. He hardly ever shows up for his briefings, he is always on the golf course with various donors, and he has blatantly initiated what has been called a "Constitutional Crisis" by constitutional scholars who have historically sided with liberal views of government.
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
But that isn't what he was trying to be.
He has been the most successful operative for the Muslim Brotherhood and has, essentially, initiated the countdown to the Battle of Armageddon.
In that regard - he is an astounding success and he has bent our population and Congress around because 'we' are too ignorant to realize he's not playing our game.
As such, the oath I took upon putting on the uniform would have me exterminate that man with extreme prejudice as one of the greatest domestic threats to America there has ever been (embodied into a single person).
Of course - I haven't because that would only martyr the man for the cause that is far deeper than himself and fail at properly routing the agents that have infiltrated our government and many political interest groups (to include the NRA).
But make no mistake - he belongs hanging from the gallows.
He's a terrible and a liar, much like his predecessor Bush.
It took him 3 years to finally get involved in the Syrian Civil War, and was only involved because Saudi Arabia had them involved. And his involvement is not showing any effectiveness. Isis is winning in Syria and Iraq, and he keeps on lying about the air-lead coalition is doing a major damage to Isis. Isis is now spread all over Iraq, Syria and now Egypt as well as Libya. Not to mention the continuous weaponry equipment supply to Isis, that is reportedly shown to be an American-made weapons.
He doesn't want to get involved in the Yemen conflict, despite 1). Yemen is a base for the Al-Qaeda. 2). Yemen is now a mixture of two terrorist groups: Houthi and Isis. He doesn't want to get involved in the conflict that he was in years ago. And right now, there are 1,000 American citizens in Yemen.
He is now negotiating with Iran and will let them continue with their nuclear programme, which is bad for the Middle Eastern countries, particularly Saudi Arabia and Israel. Iran is known to fund terrorist group like the Houthi in Yemen, and is supporting the Assad-regime in Syria.
He is a terrible president as far as foreign issues, but I don't blame him as George W. Bush had caused all of it and Obama is trying to clean it all up, but is unable to with Congress refusing to extend a military operation. He is also terrible in domestic issues, considering I heard the American healthcare system is now becoming terrible with Obama healthcare. Not to mention blacks being victimized by cops.
He's a bad president like his predecessors Bush and Clinton.
You should actually bother to reinforce your notions that the President is "just a puppet."
While it is certainly true that the Office of the President is not the most powerful (or, not supposed to be...) within the United States - it is also worth noting that the Presidency represents the most concentrated amount of power in one man's hands in all of known human history.
The main error in your assumption is that there is A "Shadow Government" at play.
There are several dozen all of whom have independent and often overlapping agendas.
There is the Government-Media complex. PBS, NPR, CNN, NBC, and to some extent even large sums of the AP are pretty much all a part of a Global Socialist agenda. They would agree to a one world currency and banking standard as well as "citizens of the world" concepts. Generally, they support "free healthcare" and all variety of other "free" things without actually understanding the material and manpower cost of things deemed to come at government expense (governments are deities and they can simply produce by decree, you know).
Then you have your Government-Industrial complex - this is basically the back-room dealings that go on with regulatory commissions that have been given the authority to arbitrarily require millions of dollars of investment from businesses to continue operation or to just decide to shut some businesses down. Large businesses try to manipulate this power to make it difficult for smaller businesses to contest their market share or to start up in the first place (by making the legal start-up fees/procedures/equipment so obscenely expensive as to make it cost more than six lifetimes spent in luxury on a golf course to start up more than a restaurant). Small businesses generally try to protest - but will also try to sway the power in their favor when the wind blows the right direction.
You have the Government-Labor complex. This breaks down to labor laws and how they secure union price fixing of trade services. Why does the guy who sits and pushes a button all day need $25 an hour? Ask the union. Why doesn't the factory automate? Because the union will literally bomb the construction site. Why doesn't the law get involved? Because the politicians tell them to stay the hell out of it. Why? Because the unions take the mandatory union dues they collect from all people (union members or not) in an industry and contribute it to various campaign funds and political party conventions.
That's why.
That's also why the unions are fighting -very- hard against "right to work" laws.
You have the Military-Industrial Complex, as well. This is the classic example of "government control over the market" - but this basically breaks down to companies that come up with reasons for politicians to pay them obscene amounts for goods and services 'in support of the military' while the company uses the excesses to conduct research and development projects that politicians do not want to have to explain to the general public.
Most of the major defense contractors can be seen as a government-enabled front for "black ops" programs that are not under direct control by military or political chains. They do not exist as funding objects within government documents and would require very deep and detailed audits of entire production lines to uncover (assuming you were having to reconstruct data that would most certainly be destroyed upon a court's subpoena).
Then you have more focused agendas. The Muslim Brotherhood wants a Caliphate - Obama is delivering.
The Muslim Brotherhood also wants a virtual Palestine in America. Again, Obama is delivering in the form of the Department of Justice attempting to federalize the police force. It won't be much longer until the New Black Panthers are requested as "liaisons" and "mediators" between "Communities and local law enforcement."
You must be registered for see links
In 2009, a man by the name of Malik Shabazz visited the White House for President Obama.
That'd be the leader of the New Black Panther Party.
"The idea that an individual named Malik Shabazz had a private meeting in the White House residence in July 2009 is highly relevant because throughout July, Congressmen Frank Wolf (R-VA) and Lamar Smith (R-TX) were beginning to ask questions about to the dropped charges against the NBPP. So was the United States Commission on Civil Rights. Here is a timeline, according to Adams:
* July 8, Representative Frank Wolf sent a letter to Judiciary Chairman John Conyers and Ranking Member Lamar Smith demanding hearings before the House Judiciary Committee.
* July 9, Ten members of the House sent a letter demanding the DOJ Inspector General open an investigation.
* July 13, The Dept. of Justice replied but their letter contained factual inaccuracies about the case
* July 17 Smith and Wolf send a swift and pointed rebuttal
* July 20, Low-level DOJ staffers were sent to the Hill to brief Wolf on the Panther story, but Wolf threw them out of his office claiming they weren’t being truthful to him.
* July 22, Wolf sent another letter to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding answers.
* July 24, Portia Robinson, intergovernmental liaison at DOJ, sent a letter to the Civil Rights Commission trying to deflect attention.
* July 25, a man named Malik Shabazz visited the exclusive, private residence in the White House.
* July 30, the Washington Times broke the news that top political appointee, Tom Perrelli (the #3 official at Justice) was involved in the dismissal of the case. Perrelli was also a top campaign bundler for Obama."
Notice the prevalence of Arabic names?
You must be registered for see links
"During Johnson’s Saturday press briefing to announce the new curfew in Ferguson, Malik Zulu Shabazz, who introduced himself as the head of the lawyers’ group, touted his groups’ “rapport” with locals and influence over the situation. “As you well know, on Thursday night, my group — and thanks to you — my organizers, along with the New Black Panther Party and the Nation of Islam, we are the ones who put those men in the streets and we controlled the flow of traffic,” he said."
There is a plan.
There is an agenda.
If you think Obama is "just a puppet" - then nothing that we are on the precipice of will make sense to you.
Obama is not acting alone - but little of this would be possible without a President acting as Obama has, as most Presidents would have acted with a greater vested interest in, at the very least, American Nationalism - which would run contrary to much of what is in play. Rather than a President using the power and authority to act as an adversary to several of these agendas - we have a President who enables them to the extent of blatantly violating constitutional law as ruled by his own court appointees.
Of course he should be impeached... but if we do that - we're all racist.
Which is exactly why Obama is the perfect storm for this agenda and it is precisely why we have seen the rise of ISIS, race riots, and a continued economic depression (well - part of that is just inherent to the federal reserve - but even a free economy on a doomed currency will rebound until the currency explodes - then it will shift to whatever facilitates commerce and keep on chugging).
Many people - conservatives included - write him off as a naive fool.
This is perhaps what has enabled him to be the most sinister and dangerous man on the planet. Perhaps the most dangerous man to have lived in over 4,000 years.
Then you have more focused agendas. The Muslim Brotherhood wants a Caliphate - Obama is delivering.
The Muslim Brotherhood also wants a virtual Palestine in America. Again, Obama is delivering in the form of the Department of Justice attempting to federalize the police force. It won't be much longer until the New Black Panthers are requested as "liaisons" and "mediators" between "Communities and local law enforcement."
You must be registered for see links
In 2009, a man by the name of Malik Shabazz visited the White House for President Obama.
That'd be the leader of the New Black Panther Party.
"The idea that an individual named Malik Shabazz had a private meeting in the White House residence in July 2009 is highly relevant because throughout July, Congressmen Frank Wolf (R-VA) and Lamar Smith (R-TX) were beginning to ask questions about to the dropped charges against the NBPP. So was the United States Commission on Civil Rights. Here is a timeline, according to Adams:
* July 8, Representative Frank Wolf sent a letter to Judiciary Chairman John Conyers and Ranking Member Lamar Smith demanding hearings before the House Judiciary Committee.
* July 9, Ten members of the House sent a letter demanding the DOJ Inspector General open an investigation.
* July 13, The Dept. of Justice replied but their letter contained factual inaccuracies about the case
* July 17 Smith and Wolf send a swift and pointed rebuttal
* July 20, Low-level DOJ staffers were sent to the Hill to brief Wolf on the Panther story, but Wolf threw them out of his office claiming they weren’t being truthful to him.
* July 22, Wolf sent another letter to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding answers.
* July 24, Portia Robinson, intergovernmental liaison at DOJ, sent a letter to the Civil Rights Commission trying to deflect attention.
* July 25, a man named Malik Shabazz visited the exclusive, private residence in the White House.
* July 30, the Washington Times broke the news that top political appointee, Tom Perrelli (the #3 official at Justice) was involved in the dismissal of the case. Perrelli was also a top campaign bundler for Obama."
Notice the prevalence of Arabic names?
You must be registered for see links
"During Johnson’s Saturday press briefing to announce the new curfew in Ferguson, Malik Zulu Shabazz, who introduced himself as the head of the lawyers’ group, touted his groups’ “rapport” with locals and influence over the situation. “As you well know, on Thursday night, my group — and thanks to you — my organizers, along with the New Black Panther Party and the Nation of Islam, we are the ones who put those men in the streets and we controlled the flow of traffic,” he said."
There is a plan.
There is an agenda.
If you think Obama is "just a puppet" - then nothing that we are on the precipice of will make sense to you.
Obama is not acting alone - but little of this would be possible without a President acting as Obama has, as most Presidents would have acted with a greater vested interest in, at the very least, American Nationalism - which would run contrary to much of what is in play. Rather than a President using the power and authority to act as an adversary to several of these agendas - we have a President who enables them to the extent of blatantly violating constitutional law as ruled by his own court appointees.
Of course he should be impeached... but if we do that - we're all racist.
Which is exactly why Obama is the perfect storm for this agenda and it is precisely why we have seen the rise of ISIS, race riots, and a continued economic depression (well - part of that is just inherent to the federal reserve - but even a free economy on a doomed currency will rebound until the currency explodes - then it will shift to whatever facilitates commerce and keep on chugging).
Many people - conservatives included - write him off as a naive fool.
This is perhaps what has enabled him to be the most sinister and dangerous man on the planet. Perhaps the most dangerous man to have lived in over 4,000 years.
The conjecture in this theory is wild. You sound like a 9/11 theorist. "Jet fuel can't melt steel beams", "Thermite was found!".
What does Obama have to do with the Muslim brotherhood? Lol. Don't tell me you are one of those people who thinks he's Osama Bin Laden in disguise. "His middle name is Hussein!". Lmao...
Anyway, you say he's trying to set up a Caliphate, or a government whose leader is said to be the successor of Muhammad. However, where's your proof of this? First off you don't even have proof Obama is a Muslim.
Second how do you assume he does this with 83% of the US citizens identify as Christians? You think people will sit down and allow this? You think everyone in the military will be like, "Well he is the commander in chief, I do have to subdue millions of Americans because he said so...".
Finally, where does he have the time to do this? Obama is out of office within the next year. He simply does not have enough time to accomplish something of this scale.
All I can do is show you what is painted right on the wall.
You must understand that there are such things as agendas in this world, and that they will kill thousands to get their point.
The Germans were complicit in the murder of Jews in the name of nationalism. The Russians were complicit in their murder of thousands of their own countrymen in the name of nationalism (and communism). The Chinese were complicit in the murder of millions of their own and the brainwashing of even more in the name of communism (just look up Mao).
There are very strong and very deadly agendas in circulation within our societies at any given time. You'd do well to remember this.
What does Obama have to do with the Muslim brotherhood? Lol. Don't tell me you are one of those people who thinks he's Osama Bin Laden in disguise. "His middle name is Hussein!". Lmao...
The Muslim Brotherhood has been infiltrating the U.S. government since the 1980s and quite possibly even longer.
You must be registered for see links
"As we can see, as early as the George W. Bush administration period, the Muslim Brotherhood already had achieved an information dominance that, in coming years, would only intensify. Not only did figures associated and identified with the Muslim Brotherhood achieve broad penetration at senior levels of U.S. policymaking, but voices that warned of their true agenda (such as Stephen Coughlin's) were actively excluded. That information dominance has contributed to startling consequences, most evident in the U.S. policy towards the al-Qa'eda and Muslim Brotherhood-dominated revolutions that many call the "Arab Spring," but which in fact are more accurately termed an "Islamic Awakening." Under the Muslim Brotherhood-influenced Obama administration, U.S. policy has undergone such a drastic shift in the direction of outright support for these jihadist movements — from al-Qa'eda militias in Libya, to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and both al-Qa'eda and Muslim Brotherhood-linked rebels in Syria — that it is scarcely recognizable as American any more. The infiltration of individuals such as Magid, Hussain, and Abedin, to name just a few, with such close Muslim Brotherhood identifications, to positions of influence at the highest levels of U.S. policymaking must be considered, at a minimum, a contributing factor.
In June 2012, five courageous U.S. Congressional representatives (Michele Bachmann, Trent Franks, Louie Gohmert, Tom Rooney, and Lynn Westmoreland) sent letters to the Inspectors General of the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, and State as well as the Office of the Director of National Security, requesting an investigation of Muslim Brotherhood influence within those agencies. That their patriotic initiative in defense of the security of U.S. policymaking should have been met only with an overwhelming barrage of criticism is tragic testament to the extent of success the Muslim Brotherhood has achieved in suppressing even the duty to counterintelligence awareness that is the first defense of a free people.[94] Given the long history of Muslim Brotherhood activity in this country, its declared objective to "destroy the Western civilization from within," and the extensive evidence of successful influence operations at the highest levels of the U.S. government, it is urgent that we recognize this clear and present danger that threatens not only our Republic but the values of Western civilization."
There are two sides to this:
You must be registered for see links
"As part of President Obama’s “Spiritual Cabinet”, it does seem that Dahlia Mogahed and Rashad Hussain did play a role in the Administration’s outreach to the Muslim world and to development of its counter-terrorism policy as did Department of Homeland Security (DHS) advisor Mohamed Elibiary who along with Ms. Mogahed was a member of the DHS Countering Violent Extremism Working Group. However, far more important was Dr. Quintan Wiktorowicz, originally an obscure academic best known for his unproven theory that increased religiosity actually deters terrorism. As the GMBDW reported in May 2013, Dr. Wiktorowicz was originally posted to the US embassy in London where he initiated a pilot program to partner with unidentified local Muslim communities in an attempt at countering “violent extremism” that was later expanded to other countries. It was during this time that an official of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), part of the US Muslim Brotherhood, was invited to the UK to meet with young British Muslims. Dr. Wiktorowicz was later promoted to the US National Security Council as Senior Director for Global Engagement and later as Senior Director for Community Partnerships. As a White House official, Dr. Wiktorowicz helped to devise the Administration’s strategy for countering radicalization titled “Empowering Local Partners To Prevent Violent Extremism In The United States” and revealed in August 2011. As we noted, Dr. Wiktorowicz’s theories, history, and statements suggest his strong support for having included the US Muslim Brotherhood as part of the new strategy.
Despite our reporting on Dr. Wiktorowicz and his key role in US counter-terrorism policy, he is never mentioned by the infiltration theorists who seem remarkably uninterested in how US policy was actually made nor the historical context in which it is embedded. As former Wall Street Journal journalist Ian Johnson has observed:"
The connections are absolute fact.
It is the nature of those connections that is left to the imagination.
Anyway, you say he's trying to set up a Caliphate, or a government whose leader is said to be the successor of Muhammad. However, where's your proof of this? First off you don't even have proof Obama is a Muslim.
The way he lives? No. Not in the slightest. That isn't Taqiyya when he smokes and indulges himself at the expense of others.
But he is sympathetic to the Muslim world-view that it has always been a victim of the world and that the people are unable to freely practice Islam under the various royal families that were set up to turn the old Ottoman empire into a bunch of individual magistrates specifically to squelch an attempt to create an Islamic State in the future (the brits used to know what they were doing).
"But he's a christian and attends church"
- you mean like all the pregnant teens of the world who blast facebook with "I love Jesus?"
Obama is, at his very core, a narcissist. He doesn't follow any god but himself.
However, what he does want is to comply with the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood who he is sympathetic to (perhaps not the "global islamic state" idea - but insofar as the middle east is concerned).
In this regard - I believe both "perspectives" on the Muslim Brotherhood penetration of the U.S. are fundamentally correct. If we had a "normal" President, then we would find that our policies would have been influenced but ultimately defaulted back to American standards. For example, under Bush, we had the "troop surge" and the complete reversal of the withdraw from Iraq based on militant activity.
This is not the case under Obama - and I would argue that Clinton would have gone a very similar route to Bush.
Obama is sympathetic to the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood and has, therefor, played quarterback for their operatives and allowed them to coordinate in ways that were simply not possible under a 'classic' President.
Second how do you assume he does this with 83% of the US citizens identify as Christians? You think people will sit down and allow this? You think everyone in the military will be like, "Well he is the commander in chief, I do have to subdue millions of Americans because he said so...".
He currently gets away with blatant treason and promises to go around Congress in ways that he doesn't have the authority to do. He's blatantly treating the office as if it is a dictatorship.
He gets away with it, currently, because Americans are so used to people who 'bend the rules in good faith' as opposed to someone who simply flips them the bird and does whatever he wants. While there exist tools in the hands of politicians (and citizens) to address the problem, no one has truthfully used them in so long that no one really is sure it's proper to. They simply look to the next election because that is what we've always done when we don't like what is happening.
Now - as for whether or not Obama wishes to try and turn the United States muslim...
I think it would be fair to say that Obama views Islam as superior to Christianity since it is more directly aligned with his views of socialism.
Obama does not intend to try and make the west Islamic, but he will do what he can to keep America from interfering in what he's accomplished in the Middle East once he leaves office.
To do this, he is doing what every community organizer is good at doing - and that is dividing the population ("organizing" them into different identities) and trying to stir up conflict. This is why Obama has partnered with individuals like Sharpton and Jackson in order to instigate race-based unrest and distrust. He also has substantive ties back to the New Black Panthers (who are, interestingly enough, led by a Muslim Brotherhood operative) and will ultimately try to leverage the Black Panthers against the police.
What Obama hopes to do is trigger a civil war in America.
This will, effectively, remove us from the global picture for a few years - which will be enough time for the Muslim Brotherhood to finish setting up the Islamic State in the middle east.
Does he believe that history will repeat itself and that Islam will run slavers up into the Balkans once again - pounding on Europe's doorstep?
Perhaps he figures it doesn't matter - or that it is "justified outrage." Perhaps he hasn't given it a thought.
Perhaps the Muslim Brotherhood leadership has assured him that they will "teach these kids right" once they have their state.
Since I'm not a fly on the wall at all of these meetings - it's hard to say exactly what Obama's opinion and view is. We can only gather from his actions that he is outright sympathetic to the proposals and agendas of the Muslim Brotherhood and even places their interests ahead of American interests.
Finally, where does he have the time to do this? Obama is out of office within the next year. He simply does not have enough time to accomplish something of this scale.
Unless the U.S. directly intervenes in the Middle East - the Islamic State will span Egypt to Turkey and Chechnya.
Europe is not in the picture - they won't act overtly against the Islamic State because their art galleries and buses will start exploding if they do. It will take a civil war in Europe (basically a cleansing of Islam) before Europe can do much to assist even the Balkans.
The only one who can really do much to get in the way of the Islamic State is Iran - and one could argue that such is the reason for Obama's desperate gambit to lift sanctions on Iran while letting them build nuclear weapons... but it isn't clear exactly how that will play out in the long run:
You must be registered for see links
"The Muslim Brotherhood has been the ideal Sunni partner for Islamic Iran's unity goals. After more than three decades following the revolution, Tehran continues to follow the same strategy. Even the Khomeinists' relations with the symbols of the Muslim Brotherhood date further back in time, as seen with their support of Hamas in Palestine, coordination with Rachid Ghannouchi in exile and boosting of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and even Syria.
It is no coincidence that the current Iranian leader, Ali Khamenei, was swift to call upon Egyptians to declare Egypt as the second Islamic republic in the region a few days following the eruption of the January 25 revolution.
For all these reasons, Iranian mullahs have been looking forward to having the Muslim Brotherhood as their partner in regional politics. In any case, the opportunity is now favorable for Iran to attempt to restore its ties with the Brotherhood. These relations seem to be more necessary now than ever for Tehran to confirm the unity of Muslims, while some speak of shifting the sectarian strife from Iraq to Iran, and of reigniting the fire with Israel, through Hamas, which would renew Iran's commitment to the Palestinian cause.
This is not to mention that Tehran is in need of an alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood to face Saudi Arabia, which stands out as the winner among Sunnis today, with its Wahhabi movement, which is seen as Iran's fierce opponent politically and dogmatically."
I suspect that the "negotiations" with Iran are mostly a pretext for coordinating a union between the Shiite agenda of Iran and the Sunni agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood.
We are all focused on the issue of nuclear weapons (which they already have in all probability) and they are discussing something else, entirely, while recycling old meeting minutes and papers.
But that is unbridled speculation on my part.
Perhaps, after a few months of observing Iran's actions, we can infer that the meetings were about something other than nuclear weapons... but I expect we'll be too consumed with other, more pressing issues to notice.
Although former CIA analyst, Clair Lopez, more or less predicted this:
You must be registered for see links
"Lopez doesn’t just think Obama wants to withdraw entirely from the Mideast.
She believes he wants to turn most of it over to Iran.
“I am convinced that this administration intends Iran to become the nuclear power hegemon of the entire Persian Gulf region – and that includes especially the oil-rich areas. This includes the east coast of Saudi Arabia as well as southern Iraq and Iran itself.”
Lopez said the key to understand the president’s behavior is in a book written by a fellow former-CIA operative, “The Devil We Know,” by Robert Baer.
“I now believe this book is the blueprint for the Obama administration’s Middle East plan,” she explained.
She strongly disagrees with the book’s premise that the U.S. should empower and partner with Iran, and says it is mistaken on a number of points, but it is still important because the recommendations it made to the then-incoming administration in 2009 seem to have been adopted by Obama."
This was back in August of 2014.
"“I think it already is a nuclear power,” Lopez said. “I think they have functioning warheads. They obviously have functioning missiles, including ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles). The Pentagon has published openly its estimate by next year, 2015, Iranian ICBMs will be capable of reaching the continental U.S. from Iran. This is open, unclassified, open-source publication.”
WND noted that made sense out of remarks Obama recently made that we were witnessing “a transition from an old order to a new order” in the Mideast, along with “the terrible violence that occurs as a result,” which seemed to indicate he believed the bloodshed was akin to birth pains.
Lopez said Americans have no clue what he is talking about, which is dividing the Middle East between two sets of jihadis, Sunni and Shiite.
Just in case it wasn’t already clear enough, she spelled out exactly what Obama’s plan would mean: A return to the barbaric past of the Dark Ages.
“So, the plan of this administration is to pull out of the Middle East, allow it to revert to Islamic control, as in the caliphates of old, or imamates, in the case of the Shiites. And to allow Islam to resurge, which is exactly what’s happening.” "
Make of that what you will, young grasshopper.
The fact of the matter is that I, and others who have made similar observations, have been making accurate predictions as to what the Administration would be doing in the future based upon our understanding of his disposition and objectives.
There are some varying opinions on exactly -why- he has adopted this disposition and to what specific ends, we can only and infer - but in the practical world, when you have a model that predicts behavior - you have the most accurate and useful description of an object that is regarded as the most factual representation.
You should actually bother to reinforce your notions that the President is "just a puppet."
While it is certainly true that the Office of the President is not the most powerful (or, not supposed to be...) within the United States - it is also worth noting that the Presidency represents the most concentrated amount of power in one man's hands in all of known human history.
The main error in your assumption is that there is A "Shadow Government" at play.
There are several dozen all of whom have independent and often overlapping agendas.
There is the Government-Media complex. PBS, NPR, CNN, NBC, and to some extent even large sums of the AP are pretty much all a part of a Global Socialist agenda. They would agree to a one world currency and banking standard as well as "citizens of the world" concepts. Generally, they support "free healthcare" and all variety of other "free" things without actually understanding the material and manpower cost of things deemed to come at government expense (governments are deities and they can simply produce by decree, you know).
Then you have your Government-Industrial complex - this is basically the back-room dealings that go on with regulatory commissions that have been given the authority to arbitrarily require millions of dollars of investment from businesses to continue operation or to just decide to shut some businesses down. Large businesses try to manipulate this power to make it difficult for smaller businesses to contest their market share or to start up in the first place (by making the legal start-up fees/procedures/equipment so obscenely expensive as to make it cost more than six lifetimes spent in luxury on a golf course to start up more than a restaurant). Small businesses generally try to protest - but will also try to sway the power in their favor when the wind blows the right direction.
You have the Government-Labor complex. This breaks down to labor laws and how they secure union price fixing of trade services. Why does the guy who sits and pushes a button all day need $25 an hour? Ask the union. Why doesn't the factory automate? Because the union will literally bomb the construction site. Why doesn't the law get involved? Because the politicians tell them to stay the hell out of it. Why? Because the unions take the mandatory union dues they collect from all people (union members or not) in an industry and contribute it to various campaign funds and political party conventions.
That's why.
That's also why the unions are fighting -very- hard against "right to work" laws.
You have the Military-Industrial Complex, as well. This is the classic example of "government control over the market" - but this basically breaks down to companies that come up with reasons for politicians to pay them obscene amounts for goods and services 'in support of the military' while the company uses the excesses to conduct research and development projects that politicians do not want to have to explain to the general public.
Most of the major defense contractors can be seen as a government-enabled front for "black ops" programs that are not under direct control by military or political chains. They do not exist as funding objects within government documents and would require very deep and detailed audits of entire production lines to uncover (assuming you were having to reconstruct data that would most certainly be destroyed upon a court's subpoena).
Then you have more focused agendas. The Muslim Brotherhood wants a Caliphate - Obama is delivering.
The Muslim Brotherhood also wants a virtual Palestine in America. Again, Obama is delivering in the form of the Department of Justice attempting to federalize the police force. It won't be much longer until the New Black Panthers are requested as "liaisons" and "mediators" between "Communities and local law enforcement."
You must be registered for see links
In 2009, a man by the name of Malik Shabazz visited the White House for President Obama.
That'd be the leader of the New Black Panther Party.
"The idea that an individual named Malik Shabazz had a private meeting in the White House residence in July 2009 is highly relevant because throughout July, Congressmen Frank Wolf (R-VA) and Lamar Smith (R-TX) were beginning to ask questions about to the dropped charges against the NBPP. So was the United States Commission on Civil Rights. Here is a timeline, according to Adams:
* July 8, Representative Frank Wolf sent a letter to Judiciary Chairman John Conyers and Ranking Member Lamar Smith demanding hearings before the House Judiciary Committee.
* July 9, Ten members of the House sent a letter demanding the DOJ Inspector General open an investigation.
* July 13, The Dept. of Justice replied but their letter contained factual inaccuracies about the case
* July 17 Smith and Wolf send a swift and pointed rebuttal
* July 20, Low-level DOJ staffers were sent to the Hill to brief Wolf on the Panther story, but Wolf threw them out of his office claiming they weren’t being truthful to him.
* July 22, Wolf sent another letter to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding answers.
* July 24, Portia Robinson, intergovernmental liaison at DOJ, sent a letter to the Civil Rights Commission trying to deflect attention.
* July 25, a man named Malik Shabazz visited the exclusive, private residence in the White House.
* July 30, the Washington Times broke the news that top political appointee, Tom Perrelli (the #3 official at Justice) was involved in the dismissal of the case. Perrelli was also a top campaign bundler for Obama."
Notice the prevalence of Arabic names?
You must be registered for see links
"During Johnson’s Saturday press briefing to announce the new curfew in Ferguson, Malik Zulu Shabazz, who introduced himself as the head of the lawyers’ group, touted his groups’ “rapport” with locals and influence over the situation. “As you well know, on Thursday night, my group — and thanks to you — my organizers, along with the New Black Panther Party and the Nation of Islam, we are the ones who put those men in the streets and we controlled the flow of traffic,” he said."
There is a plan.
There is an agenda.
If you think Obama is "just a puppet" - then nothing that we are on the precipice of will make sense to you.
Obama is not acting alone - but little of this would be possible without a President acting as Obama has, as most Presidents would have acted with a greater vested interest in, at the very least, American Nationalism - which would run contrary to much of what is in play. Rather than a President using the power and authority to act as an adversary to several of these agendas - we have a President who enables them to the extent of blatantly violating constitutional law as ruled by his own court appointees.
Of course he should be impeached... but if we do that - we're all racist.
Which is exactly why Obama is the perfect storm for this agenda and it is precisely why we have seen the rise of ISIS, race riots, and a continued economic depression (well - part of that is just inherent to the federal reserve - but even a free economy on a doomed currency will rebound until the currency explodes - then it will shift to whatever facilitates commerce and keep on chugging).
Many people - conservatives included - write him off as a naive fool.
This is perhaps what has enabled him to be the most sinister and dangerous man on the planet. Perhaps the most dangerous man to have lived in over 4,000 years.
Postdialectic Situationisms: Subcultural rationalism and structural narrative
RUDOLF Z. U. CAMERON
DEPARTMENT OF LITERATURE, STANFORD UNIVERSITY
1. Gibson and textual materialism
The primary theme of la Fournier’s[1] analysis of textual situationism is the futility, and subsequent economy, of subcapitalist class. In a sense, several deconstructions concerning the role of the reader as poet may be found.
If one examines the textual paradigm of reality, one is faced with a choice: either accept structural narrative or conclude that reality is dead, but only if textual situationism is invalid; if that is not the case, we can assume that sexual identity, perhaps surprisingly, has objective value. The subject is contextualised into a structural narrative that includes art as a totality. It could be said that Marx uses the term ‘neocultural deconstructive theory’ to denote not, in fact, theory, but pretheory.
The main theme of the works of Gibson is the stasis, and some would say the absurdity, of postcapitalist society. Therefore, any number of discourses concerning textual situationism exist.
Baudrillard’s model of semioticist dematerialism states that narrativity serves to reinforce sexism. In a sense, in Virtual Light, Gibson examines structural narrative; in Count Zero he affirms Debordist situation.
An abundance of theories concerning the role of the participant as reader may be revealed. But the example of subcultural rationalism intrinsic to Gibson’s Virtual Light is also evident in Count Zero.
2. Contexts of dialectic
“Narrativity is part of the defining characteristic of sexuality,” says Marx; however, according to Sargeant[2] , it is not so much narrativity that is part of the defining characteristic of sexuality, but rather the stasis, and subsequent failure, of narrativity. Several deappropriations concerning patriarchialist theory exist. It could be said that structural narrative holds that context must come from communication.
Any number of sublimations concerning the common ground between class and sexuality may be discovered. But Foucault’s essay on textual situationism implies that society has intrinsic meaning, given that language is equal to culture.
In All Tomorrow’s Parties, Gibson deconstructs subcultural rationalism; in Virtual Light, although, he reiterates postdeconstructive deconstruction. In a sense, Baudrillard uses the term ‘textual situationism’ to denote the economy, and some would say the genre, of textual truth.
The primary theme of McElwaine’s[3] model of subcultural rationalism is the difference between society and culture. Therefore, if textual nationalism holds, the works of Gibson are reminiscent of Gaiman.
All I can do is show you what is painted right on the wall.
You must understand that there are such things as agendas in this world, and that they will kill thousands to get their point.
The Germans were complicit in the murder of Jews in the name of nationalism. The Russians were complicit in their murder of thousands of their own countrymen in the name of nationalism (and communism). The Chinese were complicit in the murder of millions of their own and the brainwashing of even more in the name of communism (just look up Mao).
There are very strong and very deadly agendas in circulation within our societies at any given time. You'd do well to remember this.
I can't believe I'm going to respond to this heaping mass of conjecture, speculation, and gut feeling.
You don't read very well.
The Muslim Brotherhood has been infiltrating the U.S. government since the 1980s and quite possibly even longer.
You must be registered for see links
"As we can see, as early as the George W. Bush administration period, the Muslim Brotherhood already had achieved an information dominance that, in coming years, would only intensify. Not only did figures associated and identified with the Muslim Brotherhood achieve broad penetration at senior levels of U.S. policymaking, but voices that warned of their true agenda (such as Stephen Coughlin's) were actively excluded. That information dominance has contributed to startling consequences, most evident in the U.S. policy towards the al-Qa'eda and Muslim Brotherhood-dominated revolutions that many call the "Arab Spring," but which in fact are more accurately termed an "Islamic Awakening." Under the Muslim Brotherhood-influenced Obama administration, U.S. policy has undergone such a drastic shift in the direction of outright support for these jihadist movements — from al-Qa'eda militias in Libya, to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and both al-Qa'eda and Muslim Brotherhood-linked rebels in Syria — that it is scarcely recognizable as American any more. The infiltration of individuals such as Magid, Hussain, and Abedin, to name just a few, with such close Muslim Brotherhood identifications, to positions of influence at the highest levels of U.S. policymaking must be considered, at a minimum, a contributing factor.
In June 2012, five courageous U.S. Congressional representatives (Michele Bachmann, Trent Franks, Louie Gohmert, Tom Rooney, and Lynn Westmoreland) sent letters to the Inspectors General of the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, and State as well as the Office of the Director of National Security, requesting an investigation of Muslim Brotherhood influence within those agencies. That their patriotic initiative in defense of the security of U.S. policymaking should have been met only with an overwhelming barrage of criticism is tragic testament to the extent of success the Muslim Brotherhood has achieved in suppressing even the duty to counterintelligence awareness that is the first defense of a free people.[94] Given the long history of Muslim Brotherhood activity in this country, its declared objective to "destroy the Western civilization from within," and the extensive evidence of successful influence operations at the highest levels of the U.S. government, it is urgent that we recognize this clear and present danger that threatens not only our Republic but the values of Western civilization."
There are two sides to this:
You must be registered for see links
"As part of President Obama’s “Spiritual Cabinet”, it does seem that Dahlia Mogahed and Rashad Hussain did play a role in the Administration’s outreach to the Muslim world and to development of its counter-terrorism policy as did Department of Homeland Security (DHS) advisor Mohamed Elibiary who along with Ms. Mogahed was a member of the DHS Countering Violent Extremism Working Group. However, far more important was Dr. Quintan Wiktorowicz, originally an obscure academic best known for his unproven theory that increased religiosity actually deters terrorism. As the GMBDW reported in May 2013, Dr. Wiktorowicz was originally posted to the US embassy in London where he initiated a pilot program to partner with unidentified local Muslim communities in an attempt at countering “violent extremism” that was later expanded to other countries. It was during this time that an official of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), part of the US Muslim Brotherhood, was invited to the UK to meet with young British Muslims. Dr. Wiktorowicz was later promoted to the US National Security Council as Senior Director for Global Engagement and later as Senior Director for Community Partnerships. As a White House official, Dr. Wiktorowicz helped to devise the Administration’s strategy for countering radicalization titled “Empowering Local Partners To Prevent Violent Extremism In The United States” and revealed in August 2011. As we noted, Dr. Wiktorowicz’s theories, history, and statements suggest his strong support for having included the US Muslim Brotherhood as part of the new strategy.
Despite our reporting on Dr. Wiktorowicz and his key role in US counter-terrorism policy, he is never mentioned by the infiltration theorists who seem remarkably uninterested in how US policy was actually made nor the historical context in which it is embedded. As former Wall Street Journal journalist Ian Johnson has observed:"
The connections are absolute fact.
It is the nature of those connections that is left to the imagination.
@Underlined simply demolishes your own argument. If this were absolute fact do you not think it would be mainstream news? "Obama trying to take over government from within, along with Muslim Brotherhood". With the amount of republicans and even democrats that hate Obama, don't you think they would make this a main part of their own agenda? To get Obama out of office with these obvious facts you've presented? Oh...
It's simple as to why they won't do it, and why it won't work. These are not facts. These are pieces that have been put together by the likes of Michele Bachmann.
The woman even stupefies the stupid Bill O'Reilly. You expect me to believe any argument based around her? I know you think I'm dumb, but do you think I'm that dumb? Lol.
Now - IS Obama a Muslim?
The way he lives? No. Not in the slightest. That isn't Taqiyya when he smokes and indulges himself at the expense of others.
But he is sympathetic to the Muslim world-view that it has always been a victim of the world and that the people are unable to freely practice Islam under the various royal families that were set up to turn the old Ottoman empire into a bunch of individual magistrates specifically to squelch an attempt to create an Islamic State in the future (the brits used to know what they were doing).
"But he's a christian and attends church"
- you mean like all the pregnant teens of the world who blast facebook with "I love Jesus?"
Obama is, at his very core, a narcissist. He doesn't follow any god but himself.
However, what he does want is to comply with the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood who he is sympathetic to (perhaps not the "global islamic state" idea - but insofar as the middle east is concerned).
In this regard - I believe both "perspectives" on the Muslim Brotherhood penetration of the U.S. are fundamentally correct. If we had a "normal" President, then we would find that our policies would have been influenced but ultimately defaulted back to American standards. For example, under Bush, we had the "troop surge" and the complete reversal of the withdraw from Iraq based on militant activity.
This is not the case under Obama - and I would argue that Clinton would have gone a very similar route to Bush.
Obama is sympathetic to the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood and has, therefor, played quarterback for their operatives and allowed them to coordinate in ways that were simply not possible under a 'classic' President.
@Bold; How do you know the man is a narcissist? How can you possibly know this at all? You're judging a man that says things that have been written, revised, written, revised, and written again to make sure that everything he says is perfect. How can you possibly come to this conclusion when you rarely hear the man talk candidly?
I understand you use interviews as evidence, however those are simple talking points. Things he has rehearsed over and over again. There is rarely a question that catches the man off guard simply because he has rehearsed.
As for the video, I hardly have to address that. You said it yourself, the man does not live like a Muslim so who am I to say he is one? The man lives like a Christian, so who am I to say he isn't? To say he is or isn't anything is merely speculation unless he says it himself. It would be equivalent to you telling me in real life I am a devout christian even though we have only talked on the computer, and never man to man; face to face.
You're trying to make connections that simply don't exist.
@Underlined; Again, how do you know this? You're simply speculating. You can say these are facts, yet again I assert they are not because they would be made mainstream by anyone with an agenda against him. That happens to be a ton of people!
He currently gets away with blatant treason and promises to go around Congress in ways that he doesn't have the authority to do. He's blatantly treating the office as if it is a dictatorship.
He gets away with it, currently, because Americans are so used to people who 'bend the rules in good faith' as opposed to someone who simply flips them the bird and does whatever he wants. While there exist tools in the hands of politicians (and citizens) to address the problem, no one has truthfully used them in so long that no one really is sure it's proper to. They simply look to the next election because that is what we've always done when we don't like what is happening.
Now - as for whether or not Obama wishes to try and turn the United States muslim...
I think it would be fair to say that Obama views Islam as superior to Christianity since it is more directly aligned with his views of socialism.
Obama does not intend to try and make the west Islamic, but he will do what he can to keep America from interfering in what he's accomplished in the Middle East once he leaves office.
To do this, he is doing what every community organizer is good at doing - and that is dividing the population ("organizing" them into different identities) and trying to stir up conflict. This is why Obama has partnered with individuals like Sharpton and Jackson in order to instigate race-based unrest and distrust. He also has substantive ties back to the New Black Panthers (who are, interestingly enough, led by a Muslim Brotherhood operative) and will ultimately try to leverage the Black Panthers against the police.
What Obama hopes to do is trigger a civil war in America.
This will, effectively, remove us from the global picture for a few years - which will be enough time for the Muslim Brotherhood to finish setting up the Islamic State in the middle east.
Does he believe that history will repeat itself and that Islam will run slavers up into the Balkans once again - pounding on Europe's doorstep?
Perhaps he figures it doesn't matter - or that it is "justified outrage." Perhaps he hasn't given it a thought.
Perhaps the Muslim Brotherhood leadership has assured him that they will "teach these kids right" once they have their state.
Since I'm not a fly on the wall at all of these meetings - it's hard to say exactly what Obama's opinion and view is.We can only gather from his actions that he is outright sympathetic to the proposals and agendas of the Muslim Brotherhood and even places their interests ahead of American interests.
@Second Bold; Who said socialism was wrong Lol. Also, how do you figure Obama thinks this? Where is your proof? Where are the facts. Again, you're basing your arguments on simple speculation that can't be confirmed.
@Second Underlined; How in the hell do you figure, again! Are you implying there was some huge government plot to kill Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, and Eric Garner? Al Sharpton, Obama, and Eric Holder were all behind it? When does the BS stop with you man?
@Final Lines of Bold; Complete speculation without a shred of proof or facts; as is your entire argument.
@Underlined Bold; This here confirms my point. You are simply speculating, and continue to do so in the next line.
He's already accomplished it.
Unless the U.S. directly intervenes in the Middle East - the Islamic State will span Egypt to Turkey and Chechnya.
Europe is not in the picture - they won't act overtly against the Islamic State because their art galleries and buses will start exploding if they do. It will take a civil war in Europe (basically a cleansing of Islam) before Europe can do much to assist even the Balkans.
The only one who can really do much to get in the way of the Islamic State is Iran - and one could argue that such is the reason for Obama's desperate gambit to lift sanctions on Iran while letting them build nuclear weapons... but it isn't clear exactly how that will play out in the long run:
You must be registered for see links
"The Muslim Brotherhood has been the ideal Sunni partner for Islamic Iran's unity goals. After more than three decades following the revolution, Tehran continues to follow the same strategy. Even the Khomeinists' relations with the symbols of the Muslim Brotherhood date further back in time, as seen with their support of Hamas in Palestine, coordination with Rachid Ghannouchi in exile and boosting of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and even Syria.
It is no coincidence that the current Iranian leader, Ali Khamenei, was swift to call upon Egyptians to declare Egypt as the second Islamic republic in the region a few days following the eruption of the January 25 revolution.
For all these reasons, Iranian mullahs have been looking forward to having the Muslim Brotherhood as their partner in regional politics. In any case, the opportunity is now favorable for Iran to attempt to restore its ties with the Brotherhood. These relations seem to be more necessary now than ever for Tehran to confirm the unity of Muslims, while some speak of shifting the sectarian strife from Iraq to Iran, and of reigniting the fire with Israel, through Hamas, which would renew Iran's commitment to the Palestinian cause.
This is not to mention that Tehran is in need of an alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood to face Saudi Arabia, which stands out as the winner among Sunnis today, with its Wahhabi movement, which is seen as Iran's fierce opponent politically and dogmatically."
I suspect that the "negotiations" with Iran are mostly a pretext for coordinating a union between the Shiite agenda of Iran and the Sunni agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood.
We are all focused on the issue of nuclear weapons (which they already have in all probability) and they are discussing something else, entirely, while recycling old meeting minutes and papers.
But that is unbridled speculation on my part.
Perhaps, after a few months of observing Iran's actions, we can infer that the meetings were about something other than nuclear weapons... but I expect we'll be too consumed with other, more pressing issues to notice.
Although former CIA analyst, Clair Lopez, more or less predicted this:
You must be registered for see links
"Lopez doesn’t just think Obama wants to withdraw entirely from the Mideast.
She believes he wants to turn most of it over to Iran.
“I am convinced that this administration intends Iran to become the nuclear power hegemon of the entire Persian Gulf region – and that includes especially the oil-rich areas. This includes the east coast of Saudi Arabia as well as southern Iraq and Iran itself.”
Lopez said the key to understand the president’s behavior is in a book written by a fellow former-CIA operative, “The Devil We Know,” by Robert Baer.
“I now believe this book is the blueprint for the Obama administration’s Middle East plan,” she explained.
She strongly disagrees with the book’s premise that the U.S. should empower and partner with Iran, and says it is mistaken on a number of points, but it is still important because the recommendations it made to the then-incoming administration in 2009 seem to have been adopted by Obama."
This was back in August of 2014.
"“I think it already is a nuclear power,” Lopez said. “I think they have functioning warheads. They obviously have functioning missiles, including ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles). The Pentagon has published openly its estimate by next year, 2015, Iranian ICBMs will be capable of reaching the continental U.S. from Iran. This is open, unclassified, open-source publication.”
WND noted that made sense out of remarks Obama recently made that we were witnessing “a transition from an old order to a new order” in the Mideast, along with “the terrible violence that occurs as a result,” which seemed to indicate he believed the bloodshed was akin to birth pains.
Lopez said Americans have no clue what he is talking about, which is dividing the Middle East between two sets of jihadis, Sunni and Shiite.
Just in case it wasn’t already clear enough, she spelled out exactly what Obama’s plan would mean: A return to the barbaric past of the Dark Ages.
“So, the plan of this administration is to pull out of the Middle East, allow it to revert to Islamic control, as in the caliphates of old, or imamates, in the case of the Shiites. And to allow Islam to resurge, which is exactly what’s happening.” "
Make of that what you will, young grasshopper.
The fact of the matter is that I, and others who have made similar observations, have been making accurate predictions as to what the Administration would be doing in the future based upon our understanding of his disposition and objectives.
There are some varying opinions on exactly -why- he has adopted this disposition and to what specific ends, we can only and infer - but in the practical world, when you have a model that predicts behavior - you have the most accurate and useful description of an object that is regarded as the most factual representation.
I'm going to call BS on the bold, and challenge that. I guarantee it hasn't happened once. Now if you're going to guess his move on situations based on the fact that he's a democrat then I would agree. It's obvious what stance the average democrat or average republican will take.
I think Obama is an okay president but I think a lot of people blame him for things he is trying to fix but is not allowed to due to congress and such. I'll be honest.... a huge reason I like Obama is because he is very humorous and he is role model to young black children that if you want to be president in Murica then you can
You mean the media that got thrills up its leg while Obama campaigned and gave Obama a nobel peace prize for what he had not yet done?
The media has a long history of getting off while being skull ****ed into asphyxiation-induced coma when it comes to Obama. Even Fox news gets in on the action.
You must be registered for see links
The media has tolerated absolutely abhorrent abuses by this administration and it has gotten so bad that even they are unable to avoid discussing how they are used and abused.
You must be registered for see links
"Obama trying to take over government from within, along with Muslim Brotherhood".
This is a very narrow view of the idea of "infiltrate" and I actually address Obama's domestic goals later on - which do not include control of the U.S. but an invalidation of its ability to project foreign influence via instigation of a civil war.
With the amount of republicans and even democrats that hate Obama, don't you think they would make this a main part of their own agenda? To get Obama out of office with these obvious facts you've presented? Oh...
And why would they do that when they can run their campaign on "I am not Obama?"
They have been playing this game for decades - swapping power back and forth. The Republicans will oppose the Democrats creating certain programs and expanding government spending on the microphone but when they have control of all three branches, they simply change, slightly, how the money is spent and argue that the Democrats were simply misguided in how to spend the money.
Likewise, many of these politicians don't see what is written plainly on the wall because they are viewing it from an internal perspective. Many of them have connections to these Muslim Brotherhood operatives, as well. That isn't to say they are "part of the agenda" - but that they have been led to believe these 'experts' and 'consultants' are giving sound advice. It's kind of like asking people who have lived in DC their entire life if they realized that the streets all arrange as a pentagram. Many won't put it together even when looking at a map of their city, looking for directions or what-not.
It's only when properly prompted and provided the perspective that they will piece the obvious together and realize that it is, indeed, shaped like a pentagram.
It's simple as to why they won't do it, and why it won't work. These are not facts. These are pieces that have been put together by the likes of Michele Bachmann.
What evidence do you have that Bachmann is involved in piecing anything together?
She's a politician. Someone brought it to her attention and she jumped aboard - perhaps fully realizing what she was getting onboard with, perhaps it was just a catchy name. These people often rely upon staffers to tell them what they are signing.
The woman even stupefies the stupid Bill O'Reilly. You expect me to believe any argument based around her? I know you think I'm dumb, but do you think I'm that dumb? Lol.
So you see one reference to Bachmann and suddenly believe it's all about her?
Here is the real question:
Would you have mentioned Bachmann at all had I not included that portion of the quote?
I considered it, because I knew exactly what you'd do with it. But, in the end, I decided to have faith in the ability of people to look beyond partisan politics and see the real issue beneath the names.
@Bold; How do you know the man is a narcissist? How can you possibly know this at all? You're judging a man that says things that have been written, revised, written, revised, and written again to make sure that everything he says is perfect. How can you possibly come to this conclusion when you rarely hear the man talk candidly?
You are telling a dragon that he does not recognize a narcissist?
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see links
"SCHULTZ: First of all you walk into the White House, in the West Wing, and there are picture all over, I mean everywhere! Of President Obama! I mean, of his life in the first year as president of the United States. Now I don't know if that's the way it is with every president, but it was almost a shrine. I mean, well, here's a picture of Obama the president with his kids over here. There he is getting on Air Force One. Here he is with some military people. Here he is on the line working the line at one of his campaign stops. I mean, just, it was just one picture after another! (laughs)
And so I got the message right away that there's nothing but Obama fans in the White House which I think is a good thing. 'Cause it's always good to have the team together, right? (laughs)"
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
There is a long, long history of Obama celebrating things with a picture of Barack Obama.
Martin Luther King Jr. Day?
You must be registered for see images
Barack Obama.
Superbowl Halftime?
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see images
Barack Obama.
Valentine's Day?
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see images
Barack Obama (Oh... and Michelle is kind of there, too... It's -ALMOST- like the two can stand to be in the same room together).
Constitution Day?
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see images
Barack Obama.
You must be registered for see links
It's amazing where all this man inserts himself.
"But, Aim, that's not all him - it's also his staff that manage those pages."
And he allows them to do it.
He wants to be worshiped. That's all there is to it.
I understand you use interviews as evidence, however those are simple talking points. Things he has rehearsed over and over again. There is rarely a question that catches the man off guard simply because he has rehearsed.
And yet he still can't wash his own love for himself out of his demeanor.
As for the video, I hardly have to address that. You said it yourself, the man does not live like a Muslim so who am I to say he is one? The man lives like a Christian, so who am I to say he isn't? To say he is or isn't anything is merely speculation unless he says it himself. It would be equivalent to you telling me in real life I am a devout christian even though we have only talked on the computer, and never man to man; face to face.
You need to watch the video, consisting of quotes of Barack Obama, and then realize the error in opening your mouth as quickly as you did.
You state he lives like a Christian?
How?
Reinforce that claim.
The man, himself, praised his own Muslim upbringing and has recited Arabic calls to prayers.
You also need to read exactly what I said. I did not say he was a Muslim. He is a narcissist who follows the god of Himself. That said - he is sympathetic to the Muslim perspective and their agendas largely because of his upbringing.
You're trying to make connections that simply don't exist.
We were correct about Obama siding with Iran and signing a deal that allows them to continue enriching Uranium.
We were correct in our assessments that Obama would withdraw from Iraq, release Guantanamo detainees, and we were absolutely correct in what would happen in Iraq as a result. We were also correct in what Obama's response would be.
We have warned of the dangers of arming the Syrian rebels and that warning has played out in full.
You can insist that I am making connections that don't exist - but it's allowed us to predict Obama's entire second term in office.
@Underlined; Again, how do you know this? You're simply speculating. You can say these are facts, yet again I assert they are not because they would be made mainstream by anyone with an agenda against him. That happens to be a ton of people!
This is widely known by people who listen to the radio and who browse outside of CNN and NBC news sources. Even Fox has dared to include the assertions from time to time (although Fox will never seriously engage any political candidate - Fox exists merely to placate those with conservative leanings by actually allowing coverage of the claims against liberal candidates, but none of the institutions actually engage in a factual analysis; they will cover the argument, but not actually try to investigate who has credibility).
You have to understand that the media does not have time to get into an in-depth analysis of what is actually going on. They are there to catch your attention for fifteen to thirty seconds at a time when you sit down for your lunch break at work for fifteen minutes (the average cycle length of televised news). They are never going to give any kind of detailed analysis of much of anything.
Even three-hour talk radio programs have difficulty working the full depth of these connections into their framework. They have soft and hard breaks, the need to take callers, the limits of their own research into the issue, and the difference between the written and vocal mediums (vocal communication processes differently than written in the brain and it requires 'translation' to optimize between the two).
You must be registered for see images
As you can see - it's a fairly standard opinion and analysis of Obama.
But, like I said - the default American response has always been "wait for the next guy."
"ITEM: Executive Branch malfeasance and impeding the administration of justice by preventing the U.S. Department of Justice from investigating crimes committed for the direct benefit of the President by presidential associates including: voter intimidation at the hands of the New Black Panthers and ACORN election fraud, in violation of U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 3, and U.S. Criminal Code Section 135, (Comp. St. § 10305);
ITEM: Direct mobilizing and funding of mob violence, sedition and insurrection, as witnessed in Wisconsin, by the President’s own reelection campaign group Organizing for America, and including open statements of incitement to the insurrection by the President himself, in violation of U.S.Penal Code, Chapter 115, Section 2383;
ITEM: Executive Branch usurpation of lawmaking powers voiding duly enacted legislation of Congress by improperly preventing the U.S. Department of Justice from defending established Federal law – specifically the Defense of Marriage Act, in violation of U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 3;
ITEM: Adhering to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort, as witnessed by consorting with, supporting and installing to powerful Federal positions persons who in writing, word and deed have called for and promoted the overthrow of America’s constitutionally guaranteed Republican form of government, and the overthrow of the United States Constitution; including but not limited to William Ayers, Bernadette Dohrn, Cass Sunstein, John Holdren, Van Jones, Dalia Mogahed, Harold Koh, and Eric Holder, in violation of U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section IV and U.S. Penal Code, Section 2385. "
Would we have free will if socialism was the doctrine of the wise?
Also, how do you figure Obama thinks this? Where is your proof? Where are the facts. Again, you're basing your arguments on simple speculation that can't be confirmed.
Obama has continually acted exactly as if he does think precisely in this manner.
You and I both know that if it were so easy to prove a man's allegiances, then et tu Brutte would not be a famous quote.
@Second Underlined; How in the hell do you figure, again! Are you implying there was some huge government plot to kill Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, and Eric Garner? Al Sharpton, Obama, and Eric Holder were all behind it? When does the BS stop with you man?
The federalization of the police force by using discrimination lawsuits is a documented trend in American Law Enforcement:
You must be registered for see links
"However, other forms of federal litigation have also emerged. In 1994, Congress granted the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division the authority to bring civil lawsuits against police agencies that have demonstrated a “pattern or practice” that results in illegal or unconstitutional behavior. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have used this mechanism to force compliance with federal authority and Constitutional mandates.
Departments in Pittsburgh, Los Angeles, Cincinnati, Detroit, and Buffalo — to name a few — have all either entered into consent decrees or signed a memorandum of agreement to avoid litigation. These decrees have stipulated federal monitoring for varying periods (typically two to five years) that give the department time to comply.
...
The second mechanism of federal intervention is through the use of federal grant money, which in turn demands that receiving departments comply with federal standards of implementation and accountability.
During his campaign for the White House, then-Candidate Obama pledged, as part of his urban renewal efforts, to increase funding for local law enforcement agencies through the DoJ’s Community Oriented Policing (COPS) grant program. The purpose of the infusion of taxpayer dollars was to “combat crime” and “address police brutality and accountability.”
...
These conclusions suggest that federal dollars for local policing have more to do with control via “accountability” than crime reduction. The new Administration included one billion dollars in the stimulus package to hire 7,000 new officers in 2009 and 2010. In April 2009, the House pledged an additional $1.8 billion over the next five years to provide 50,000 federally paid local officers. In June 2010, the President warned federal lawmakers that without further stimulus funds, police layoffs would be inevitable. In other words, over time the federal government will be paying the cost of tens of thousands of police officers nationwide. These numbers reflect a growing dependency on federal dollars for local law enforcement needs, something that then Senator Biden wanted to make permanent."
There is no need to -create- a case like Brown.
In a nation with nearly one million sworn officers, one of them is bound to be white and is bound to shoot a black man, somewhere, in a case that is hazy and controversial.
This is why Sharpton, Jackson, and Holder are important. Sharpton keeps the racist drumline beating while Jackson cruises for individual cases to amp up and Holder threatens the law enforcement agencies with the hassle of meticulous federal investigations, the cease of federal funding, and the consequence of lawsuits.
Now - let's compile that with some interesting tidbits:
You must be registered for see links
"Among those appearing with Obama was Shabazz, the Panther leader who was one of the defendants in the voter intimidation case that Attorney General Eric Holder dismissed. Also present was the Panthers’ “Minister of War,” Najee Muhammed, who had called for murdering Dekalb County, Georgia, police officers with AK-47’s and then mocking their widows."
You must be registered for see images
"This is who President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are. Members of the New Black Panther Party are people they not only relate to, but stand by at all costs. This is exactly why they've turned Ferguson into a race case with zero evidence to prove their claims. This is why Ferguson is so important to them and despite what the majority in the media would have Americans believe, these associations greatly matter and provide the context for the actions of Obama and Holder moving forward. "
Again, there is more in these links - I do not quote them in their entirety because my posts are already obscenely long enough.
I leave the links so that people may get an idea of what is contained in them - I do not quote the entirety out of habit (I used to be part of forums that forbid longer than three paragraphs out of copyright/plagiarism concerns) and because it is often unnecessary for making my point.
You must be registered for see links
"Around 40 New Black Panther Party members took to the streets of Austin, Texas to condemn recent killings of black civilians. Armed with high caliber weapons, they said they aimed to patrol their own communities and encourage the taking up of arms.
The protest in the state capital of Texas on Monday coincided with the SXSW (South by Southwest) festival, which celebrates music and film. However the heavily-armed New Black Panther members, who were carrying Kalashnikov rifles and AR-15’s caught the attention of many, as they chanted songs in their display of force.
Showing off their weapons was not the main reason for them marching along the streets. The movement was protesting the deaths of a number of unarmed black people, such as teenager Michael Brown and Eric Garner, whom they believe were the results of police brutality."
A little bet between you and me:
I am willing to bet that Obama tips his hand in favor of these groups as "Community Partners" in "serving the community."
I imagine he will also attempt to use the DoJ to fund these groups as part of a "coherent strategy" to "combat domestic violence."
Thus - there will be a "police force representative of the community."
This may not be while Obama is President... it may be in his final year of Presidency... it may be within the next month.
What isn't important is that it actually -works-. What is important is that it triggers a rejection of the New Black Panthers as a valid authority. This will be used as the basis for prevalent racism and essentially create a virtual Palestinian Authority within America existing within predominantly black regions with higher poverty rates.
The goal is to trigger outrage that can easily be skewed as "white racism" that will cause blacks (particularly younger blacks) to self-isolate and entrench themselves in "black culture."
This will effectively create a set of circumstances nearly identical to Palestine in Israel and lead to a similar pattern of behavior.
Which is precisely the goal.
Again - I admit this is speculation on my part (which I can reinforce with some further evidence for how I have made these inferences); and in this case, the only thing we can do is wait to see who is correct.
@Final Lines of Bold; Complete speculation without a shred of proof or facts; as is your entire argument.
Son, it is inherent in the nature of inferring another one's intent that you are only able to speculate based on inference as the true thoughts and motives of another are always unknowable.
However, if you pay attention to how others act, what they say, and what they do - you can get a good idea of how they are most likely to think and what it is that they are likely to regard as valuable. Some are born with a natural gift for it - others are trained in the arts of analyzing the minds of people through their work.
You asked why some people think I'm one of the smartest people on The Base (I believe it was you - perhaps it was another).
You must be registered for see links
Before there was Kaguya - there was A Destiny Entwined that predicted her existence.
Before there was "The Last" - there was A Destiny Entwined that broke down Kishimoto's understanding of Naruto and Hinata's relationship and inferred that they were conceived as a destined pair.
Then Kishimoto, himself, confirmed it.
Now - by no means am I saying that since I made the correct inference once - that I will always make other correct inferences. My theories are highly accurate in some areas and fall short in others. Some make inferences that can, perhaps, never be confirmed and many guess at what Kishimoto would have done if he had more time to articulate the plot as opposed to try and meet a weekly publication deadline.
This is simply one of my hobbies - reading through what people have said, what they have written, how they have acted (and how their characters behave if they are an author) - and then make inferences regarding their way of thinking and how that perspective will influence their future decisions.
Should I be correct - those who dismiss my analysis will find themselves the fool for not allowing for a proper understanding of it. Should I be incorrect - I will find myself the fool for having spent as much time as I have on it.
I'm going to call BS on the bold, and challenge that. I guarantee it hasn't happened once. Now if you're going to guess his move on situations based on the fact that he's a democrat then I would agree. It's obvious what stance the average democrat or average republican will take.
"Now what? If Obama gets a second term, what might be the next pro-American regime to fall? In my view, Saudi Arabia. If Obama is re-elected he could demand that the Saudi royal family put itself on the ballot against the Muslim Brotherhood. That is an election the Saudi royals would most likely lose. If that happens then the three most important countries in the Middle East (Iran, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia) would all be in the grip of the radical Muslims.
We are seeing in the region a powerful bid for the restoration of Islam as a global power. One Muslim Brotherhood official put it bluntly. What the radical Muslims seek, he said, is "a country called the United States of Islam." Remarkably this radical Muslim dream going back to the 1920s is now being advanced by President Obama, who seems to think it is somehow consonant with the dream from his father."
You must be registered for see links
"“I think the biggest threats that they face may not be coming from Iran invading,” said Obama. “It’s going to be from dissatisfaction inside their own countries.”
...
Obama explained he thinks “that our friends in the region, our traditional Sunni states, have some very real external threats, but they also have some internal threats.”
He highlighted the “threat” of “populations that, in some cases, are alienated, youth that are underemployed, an ideology that is destructive and nihilistic, and in some cases, just a belief that there are no legitimate political outlets for grievances.”
“And so,” Obama said, “part of our job is to work with these states and say, ‘How can we build your defense capabilities against external threats, but also, how can we strengthen the body politic in these countries, so that Sunni youth feel that they’ve got something other than [ISIS] to choose from?’ "
Confirmation of that one just broke a few hours ago.
Of course - the prediction and evidence is even older:
You must be registered for see links
"Well, if we think back to Obama's now infamous 2002 Iraq War speech, the then-Illinois State Senator Obama clearly stated who the now-US President Obama believed were the real enemies of the United States that needed to be destroyed. In 2002, three years before Obama was even a US Senator Obama told the world what Obama really thought of Mubarak of Egypt, and the Kings of Saudi Arabia:
"You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells."
But, one doesn't need to go so far as the history books to read about Obama's obsessive animus to the current "Custodian of the Two Holy Places." One need only read Obama's ultimate Middle East Policy speech at the State Department on May 19, 2011:
"The story of this revolution, and the ones that followed, should not have come as a surprise. The nations of the Middle East and North Africa won their independence long ago, but in too many places their people did not. In too many countries, power has been concentrated in the hands of a few. In too many countries, a citizen like that young vendor had nowhere to turn -– no honest judiciary to hear his case; no independent media to give him voice; no credible political party to represent his views; no free and fair election where he could choose his leader.
...
"Prosperity also requires tearing down walls that stand in the way of progress -– the corruption of elites who steal from their people; the red tape that stops an idea from becoming a business; the patronage that distributes wealth based on tribe or sect." "
