Posted on 04/03/2015 5:57:19 AM PDT by concernedcitizen76
The reason I ask is because most, if not all, of this information and revelations have been around for years now. Why is this coming out again now when this fraudulent interloper only has a year and a half left in office? If this had been revealed during the vetting process before he was elected, we might not be in this mess we're in now.
Besides this guy being a fraud (and make no doubt about it--he is a fraud--otherwise why has someone spent almost $1.5 million to hide and/or destroy everything about his past, unless he has something to hide), a bigger problem appears to be that the media covered this all up. Did the heavy lifting for him. Carried his water. Unless the media does the job they're supposed to do, we're going to keep having this problem with these leftists, Marxists, communist, Muslims and America-haters infiltrating our government and getting elected to positions of great power, including the presidency, so that we'll never be able to extricate ourselves from this downward spiral we're seeing under Obama.
The democRATS and the progressive liberal left have sold their souls to the devil and have decided their power is much more important than the sanctity and sovereignty of the country and governing within the parameters set down by our Founding Fathers in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. You see it pervasive in any recent democRAT government, from Bill Clinton to Obama and coming up, Hillary. They all as criminally corrupt as the day is long and no one in the opposition party seems to either care or are unwilling to stand up to their tyranny to save our country. Sad days for America.
IMHO the CIA was culpable and instrumental in creating this monster. All these phony record manipulations smell of a government spy agency. Ian Fleming had twenty more J.Bond stories there alone.
Impeachment indeed would have the effects you cite here, concerned citizen76. Thus it certainly would obviate all the time, trouble, and expense of Congress and/or the courts painstakingly unwinding the damage this ersatz president — who is almost certainly a psychopath — has done to the American people, after he leaves office. But this assumes he actually does leave office at the end of his second term. Since we're dealing with a psychopath here, I wouldn't want to bet on that.
Impeachment would instantly erase all his actions in office of whatever kind. Everything would return to the status quo ante of the Bush Administration....
Of course, the damage he has done overseas will continue to haunt us and cost us, probably for decades to come.
So, where did Captain Zero come from? And what does he want from us? One has virtually zero clues from his personal history other than anecdotal ones (e.g., his early association with the Black communist poet, Frank Marshall Davis; his close associations with anarchist terrorists like Bill Ayers [who probably ghost-wrote both of 0bama's mythical books]; his penchant for "community organizing," according to the agenda of Cloward & Pivins, realized using the tactics of Saul Alinsky. Otherwise, he has ensured that his documentary past has been entirely erased from the public record, going back two generations no less. WHY do that, if one is on "the up and up?"
So, as to where 0bama "came from," I really have no idea; but I strongly doubt he was born in Hawaii: Too much tom-foolery about his birth records to believe that. As to "what he wants from us," my best guess is: the destruction of the American middle class; and with its demise, the United States of America — which is probably the real object here.
Indeed, I was very startled to hear Kelly Guilfoil say on Fox News' "The Five" (last Friday IIRC) WRT the Iran deal that 0bama was the "best double agent in the world." Sounds about right to me.
For under that presupposition, everything this man has done makes perfect sense. Without that presupposition, nothing this man has done makes any sense at all.
And that extends beyond foreign policy. 0bama is the master of Orwellian "double-speak." But double-speak is easy to understand, once you realize that what is said is the total opposite of what the speaker intends to do. Turn any 0bama speech "inside-out," and you'll understand what next move he's setting up.
The question arises: Why would 0bama want to destroy the American middle class? One guesses: because the American middle class is "Whitey," so needs to be punished for the past sins of the white race, such as cultural imperialism, colonialism, human chattel slavery, etc., etc. (He doesn't care that a whole lot of the middle class is composed of non-white races these days.)
It is all so weird: Here is a person of mixed race — "half white, half black" — touted as someone who, just on the basis of genealogy, had "credibility" to heal the racial divide in America. Or so he said, during his presidential campaign in 2008. Yet today, the record shows the racial divide in America has not been so stark and severe since the 1960s.... Indeed, it seems the entire 0bama Justice Department is devoted to the exacerbation of racial animosities that haven't been felt in decades.
I gather he takes after his father, Barack Obama, Sr. — a Muslim, radical Marxist anti-Colonialist from Kenya. Perhaps as reinforced by his Indonesian step-father, Lolo Soetoro — who was also a Muslim, radical Marxist anti-Colonialist.
Anyhoot, it appears that our ersatz president has zero sympathy for American principles, values, and traditions mainly because he has never been educated in them. Rather, he has been acculturated to believe that America has perpetrated great evils on the world, and must be "punished."
So much for my speculations. I'll just add one thing more: 0bama absolutely believes he is unimpeachable. Notwithstanding, on the record, he actually is; for he has breached his presidential Oath of Office repeatedly, from day one and every day after that. Just as a refresher, here's the presidential oath (Article II, Section 1):
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."0bama has done none of those things, indeed quite the reverse. Moreover, the systematic betrayal of his oath of office classifies as a "high crime and misdemeanor." Which is an impeachable offense right there.
But there's more, we'll just have to wait for it.
Though he thinks he's unimpeachable (largely because the very notion of "high crimes and misdemeanors" conveys very little meaning to most people nowadays, plus he's "black"), he may yet go too far.
Looking at my tea leaves: He has threatened to go around Congress altogether, to go straight to the U.N. for "legitimacy" regarding his "climate change" proposals. Nothing could be more blatantly unconstitutional than such a plan. It goes straight to the separation and balance of powers that is the very heart of the Constitution. Kill that, and there's no Constitution anymore.
And then, all we are entitled to say (having done nothing to stop this psychopath) is: Hail 0bama!!!
Thank you so very much for your excellent observations, concernedcitizen76!
bttt
Odds of the Obamanoid being impeached is pretty much Zero..
Assassinated maybe, Impeached NO....
I’m waiting for the democrats to MARTYR him... by some alleged irate republican..
You know.... Martin Luther King.. him..
THEN; the funeral can take a full year or many months..
with movie documentary’s and TV Specials..
IT WOULD BE OBSCENE... horrendous.. media terrorism..
** thats IF Obama doesn’t start nuking stuff in False Flag operations.. forcing Martial Law.. two options I see..
The GOOD NEWS is we might have Ted Cruz running for President but will lose because of massive voter fraud..
AND HELLARY becomes President..
Everything about him could have been known or looked into if we had a REAL press corp.
The GOOD NEWS is we might have Ted Cruz running for President but will lose because of massive voter fraud.... AND HELLARY becomes President..
I disagree with your take on both Cruz and Hellery (though I'd be extremely pleased to be proved wrong in the first instance). This is not to say that I doubt there is widespread voter fraud.
I am completely charmed by Cruz. His persona is graceful, engaging, charismatic. He is a man of soaring intellect, a man highly gifted in the rhetoric department (i.e., communication arts) — at least if we are to believe the public testimony of Cruz's former law professor, Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School. Dershowitz allowed that, even if he and Cruz did not agree on certain public policy issues, he recognized Cruz's mind as of the highest order of intelligence, able and agile; and he cited Cruz's eloquence in public debate — plus his masterful way of anticipating and countering attacks from his debate partner that had not yet occurred, but would and usually did.
Plus Cruz's personal character, and his beautiful family, are so alluring. I am strongly sympathetic with his views on culture, economics, and foreign policy. His devotion to the Constitution, and his way of relating its provisions to the people in ways they understand, are awesome to me and deeply inspiring.
In short, naturally, he has everything going for him. He might even win the Primary. But the question remains: Can he be elected president in the General?
I don't know the answer to that question, so will not hazard one. It's still so early in the electoral season. I find other candidates highly attractive as well. (I've ruled out a couple of them, though.)
I'm looking forward to the GOP debates, which I believe commence in September.
I'm keeping an open mind meanwhile. All the while remembering William F. Buckley's maxim: Vote for the most conservative candidate — who can win.
As for "Hellery": IMHO, that dame is totally unelectable. She is charmless, graceless, probably an habitual liar, who cannot utter a statement in English without repeatably punctuating it with "ums." That is to say, her oratorical skills are abysmal. (I'm beginning to suspect, so is her intellect.) Moreover, these days she looks like a moth-eaten, overstuffed antique sofa.
I also have worried about "false flag operations/martial law" scenarios. I imagine the two would have to be conjoined in order for either to be effective.
But I have no idea what will happen. I just suspect that God has nothing to do with it.
May He ever bless you, dear brother!
And the careful candidates who were supposed to be able to win in the general - Dole, McCain, Romney - that didn't work out so well.
We might ask the question. It's a fair question you ask. But the power brokers giving us an answer apparently don't have a clue who can or cannot win.
I guarantee you this, though, the candidate that the Christians have gotten behind have won:
1. Jimmy Carter, born again
2. Ronald Reagan, moral majority
3. George W. Bush, Christian Coalition.
If any candidate can get the Christians excited, then that candidate will have a better chance than any of the most carefully vetted, poll-tested, favorite sons of the establishment.
I certainly hope you are right about that, dear brother in Christ!
But let's face it — and prepare: Any candidate that has deep and widespread Christian support will face enormous political headwinds in this election cycle.
This will be a "do or die" effort on the part of the increasingly marginalized Democratic Party. They will do anything just to survive at this point. Not least of all because 0bama has thrown the non-progressives of his party under the bus....
Jeepers, 0bama is cutting his own Party — not to mention Congress — out of his planning and scheming.... Maybe they should be grateful.
"It is better to reign in Hell than to serve in Heaven." [Non serviam.]
The problem is, for all their happy progressive rhetoric, the Democrat Party does not advocate policies that actually work in the real world. And that fact is getting increasingly obvious.
It's great to see the names of folks elected president mainly by Christians. On the other hand, in what way are a Jimmy Carter and a Ronald Reagan similar? And how does a George W. Bush fit into that picture?
What I am suggesting is that Christian voters do not always seem to concur on what constitutes a foundational moral fact. (E.g., what did Carter and Reagan have in common in their reasoning?) Not only that, but they seem to have a propensity to stay away from the Polls if they don't like their choices.
Let's NOT do that again, next time. Please.
Wellesley College: Women coming together for over 200 years.
Sister in Christ, these are the similarities I see that caused a group of Christians to bounce between seemingly dissimilar candidates. First, they convinced Christians that the Christian world view was one they took seriously. Next, they convinced Christians that they shared that worldview: Jimmy Carter with his born again talk, Ronald Reagan by standing for life and values, and GW because he convinced us he was sincere about family and God. Third, they didn’t deviate. They fought to maintain their connection with Christians. I think we believed we were part of the discussion.
The last was not the case with Dole, McCain, or Romney. They didn’t fight. They sent mixed messages. They took our place settings from the table and sat us in the back yard. I don’t want to revisit those campaigns, but they were all weak, and they portrayed weakness and vacillation.
Will Cruz fight? I’ve no doubt. Will we share values? Absolutely, although I’d like to discuss one or two things with him.
Will the establishment get behind him? I’m not sure. We could see them switch or stay home the way evangelicals did when the shoe was on the other foot. I suspect he’d have to do what Reagan did and pick an establishment VP.
For the record, this the complete blurb from the 1991 promotional booklet produced in 1991 by Acton & Dystel, Barack Obama’s literary agency at that time. Business International Corporation is mentioned. That one deserves a much closer look.
All I know is that after the Obama years, reparations have been made. The first black President has pissed away every chance to be better than Carter. He’s the worst president ever!
It seems pretty clear that Valerie Jarrett is his "controller". But we really don't now who is controlling her.
Indeed.
So true and so late, he is the most powerful man in the world.
mark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.