- Joined
- Apr 15, 2012
- Messages
- 12,839
- Reaction score
- 1,034
Like I said - I can only show someone what is plainly written on the wall.
And you don't think I roll my eyes at certain narratives?
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
Please show me where I said this.
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.
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.
Now who is running off on a conspiracy theory?
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.
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.
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.
And yet he still can't wash his own love for himself out of his demeanor.
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.
*shrug*
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.
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."
The list is long, but distinguished:
You must be registered for see links
A little snippet:
"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. "
No attempt to impeach Obama has been made.
Would we have free will if socialism was the doctrine of the wise?
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.
Again, where am I saying this?
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.
You wanted to know why I believed Obama is the most horrible, dangerous, and destructive president in American history.
I provided the basis for my claims and the physical evidence to back them up based upon Obama's history and pattern of behavior.
You are free to disagree, but the future does not belong to the blind.
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.
*ahem*
You must be registered for see links
Note the date.
"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." "
I'm not going to respond to this because as much as I'd love for us to keep going back and forth, it has to stop somewhere. The speculation is simply too great for me and I just can't believe it.
What I did want to address was what you meant by this:
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.
What did you mean by the bold?
