Replies

I think your post is an excellent companion to my response (see #80 - my apologies for not pinging you as I did forget).

I AM convinced that it WAS this issue that he was getting “too close” to. It’s the bedrock issue that WILL undermine all of Obama’s personal power, but I’m also considering that taking Obama out of the picture is NOT enough (as I’m sure you see too). We have to expose ALL of them, but this issue might just do it - or might at least give the US more time to expose the bigger plans. (I keep switching NOW between is it enough - or isn’t it? I have long spoken about and believed that this was an essential piece, but as I’m putting together more of the pieces, it is a “pawn” piece which tells you just how bad this *game* that they are playing really is.)

The thing is, where the media and publicity used to protect whistle-blowers or fellow journalists they are now in the business of protecting their chosen political agenda and truth be damned. One “downside” of the “new media” is the the “old media” COULD try to paint Brietbart as another one of many “bloggers”, but thank God he was at least too well-known for THAT ploy to work in regards to his legacy.

The second-most important reason for not just voting Obama out of office, but thoroughly discrediting him with the truth, is that he's looking at a very long post-presidency from which to become a global leader. He probably sees himself becoming a cross between Jimmy Carter and Kofi Annan.

All of that ought to go away if he's ultimately shown to be a fraud foisted on the American people by global interests that are opposite to American interests.

In the best of all possible worlds, Americans will then hold Democrats responsible for undermining the legitimacy of America's constitutional republic.

-PJ