Is the military threatening to kill President Obama?

[Dealey Joe]

Another thing since I am in an optimistic mood this morning.If O'Bama is sacrificed and I see a good possibility of it it will be for the military complex to completely "Take Over"it will be to accomplish the move to a complete police state.There would be race wars and a lot of us would be killed and or imprisoned.If they can kill a president and walk away laughing, what else can they do?

[Bob]

Count me in the camp that the CIA has controlled the White House since Ronald Reagan was almost assassinated. Poppy Bu$h basically ran the White House for 12 years and he gave us Mena, Iran/Contra, the Savings and Loan Scandal and the Gulf War. I think Slick Wille Clinton was a CIA asset as well, plus was connected at the hip to Poppy at Mena. Dumbya was like his daddy, in terms of being part of failed businesses that were really just fronts for the CIA. We know what Dumbya gave us. 9/11, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, massive war profiteering, massive energy and healthcare costs and the biggest economic disaster since the great depression. In terms of Barack Obama, Wayne Madsen for one feels that Obama was a CIA operative when he was at Columbia. His actions thus far have certainly helped the CIA. He refused to prosecute the CIA over torture tactics, plus has escalated things in Afghanistan, while Iraq is still a quagmire. He has also buddied up to Wall Street. This new healthcare bill is totally bogus. There is no single payer. No public option. Just more customers for private insurance to gauge. I'm an optimist, but recent events in the world have made me more of a realist. I don't like what I'm seeing either.

[Michael Dell]

ThomZajac wrote:Michael Dell wrote:ThomZajac wrote:I must say though, that I am far more cynical than you. It seems clear to me that Bill Clinton was CIA (and his dad was Winthrop Rockefeller), and I am fairly certain that Obama is CIA as well. Yeah, his mother working for the Ford Foundation is certainly a red flag...Hi Michael. I don't believe I suggested Obama's mother was CIA. On the bigger point; are you taking issue with my point that Obama is well-connected (ie. to the ruling cabal)?Thom, no, I was agreeing with you. Obama is VERY connected. Sorry if the comment read like sarcasm, but I was actually trying to support your point. The Ford Foundation is nothing but an elaborate CIA front...http://www.ratical.com/ratville/CAH/For ... tmlObama's mother worked with the organization for many years. And Lolo Soetero, Obama's step-father, worked for Mobile oil and has CIA fingerprints all over him. Why was a young Obama in Indonesia? Because Lolo was carrying out CIA tasks... http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2009/02/ ... tmlThere's no denying Obama is CIA up to his neck. You don't get to be President these days unless you are. And I agree with what Bob posted about Obama being CIA at Columbia. That's when Brzezinski got his hooks into him and officially started grooming him for power. They've been building Obama for a long time.In regards to Joe's comments, yes, I believe Obama is nothing more than the product of the global elite. Americans never have a choice. The entire two-party political system is a fraud. The Democrat-Republican thing is nothing but a puppet show to distract the masses. The only two parties are them and us. To once again paraphrase the great George Carlin, it's a big club, and you and I ain't in it. And like Joe said, the scariest thing to consider is that Obama was put in position to be sacrificed in order to set off race wars and to introduce a police state. That's why John Hankey's theory is so important. It at least awakens people to the possibility that something is afoot. Everyone needs to be vigilant. I guess my hope came from John's idea that if the CIA is having to threaten Obama to keep him in line, like with the two "party crashers" who were allowed to shake his hand, then that must mean Obama is trying to take a stand and go against the program. My hope would be that he would one day say enough is enough and seize the moment during a State of the Union address and just come clean. Spell it out for the American people in one brilliant, dazzling improvised speech straight from the heart. Granted, I have my doubts whether he can speak at all without teleprompters, but how glorious would that be? Then again, if Obama were to spill his guts in a live national speech, I bet the American people still wouldn't care. After all, American Idol is on, football season is always just around the corner, and there's enough bread and circuses to keep everyone happy...

[Kirk]

I agree with many of the basic premises on this thread, but having worked in Washington when I was a kid, what I learned most was how human everybody was. No superhumans could be found. There were good people, bad people, and just plain incompetent people up there. Kind of a reflection of all americans to a degree. I do believe there are dark powers that pull strings, when they want what they want. Whether President Obama knows he is being used at times or not, or worse does the bidding of these powers is at this time not completely clear. I say he does what he does at the moment to get what he thinks is best some reasonable chance at success. I trust him more then Clinton and certainly more then Bushco etc., but I never trust the Dark Powers, and their apparatus like the CIA to name one.

[ThomZajac]

Sorry Michael, my bad. And thanks for the info.

[ChristophMessner]

All this leads to the fact, that the constitution has to be corrected in a way, that accumulation of private money amounts to heights on which politicians can be bought off the rack have to be forbidden. We need worldwide minimum and maximum incomes and limitation of private possessions.

[Dealey Joe]

Chris have you ever studied The Constitution of the United States of America?Do you have even a basic understanding of it? need corrected?

[kenmurray]

The constitution doesn't mean a damn thing anymore to those idiots that are up in D.C.

[Dealey Joe]

has not for many years but it is our contract with our leadersmaybe one day we will enforce it.

[ChristophMessner]

Joe, your questions are justified, cause I have not studied the US-Constitution together with the Bill of Rights explicitly, but only the German Constitution and European Lisbon Treaty or the Magna Charta and it's history and philosophy for a long period of time. In the philosophy books about jurisdiction, freedom rights, property rights, general ideas of humanity, socialty, organization of state etc you find quotations from the Bill of Rights from time to time or comparisons or allusions. It may very well be that I did not grasp the general idea of the US-Constitution so far, but as far as I know it supports a strong protection for the private liberties, especially private property. If you compare this with Article 14 of the German Constitution for example you will see, that the idea of private-property-yes-but-only-in-the-frame-of-public-usefulness is pronounced. The more property you have the bigger your duties for welfare are. It's the idea of solidarity behind it and we should not change a social state with a socialistic state. A social state is careing for those in need, a socialistic state is the dictatorship of the proletariat. To me it appears that the US has developed into a plutocratic militaristic state not only because of an unlucky vote fraud of a Mr. Bush, but because there is a Constitutional error in the whole system and this is the missing of a linking between private property and public service. The leaders of a country have to SERVE the country and not so much themselves. So far the US-Constitution says: everybody can aquire as much private property as he/she can get and he/she can decide by himself/herself who much he/she gives back into public welfare. What's needed in my eyes is a MUST to give the more the more you have. It has to be duty. You may say that this would cut freedom rights, but as far as I see, the plutocratic "elite" in the US is cutting much more freedom than they would loose if their too-much-freedom would be cut by constitution. As you see, I'm no expert in this nor is it on me to teach you here, it's just that I would recommend the comparison of the constitution of different countries rather than taking the own constitution as sacrosanct per se. All constitutions in the world need corrections, not only amendments, cause so far there is too much robbery, fraud, distrust, idle righteousness and war-profiteering in this world. Cordially, Christoph