Posted on 04/25/2017 8:28:13 AM PDT by davikkm
Elections are now too dangerous to be left to chance and to the whims of voters, the Left has decided. Any candidate they put forth could potentially lose, and it will be “factors” that lead to a loss. “Factors” could include: past voting records, past affiliations, the surfacing of compromising emails, photos, acquaintances, past political stance and any range of things that a politician may have done over the years. But what could they achieve if they had a candidate with zero “factors” and no history? They could make of him (or her) whatever they wished.
Within the Security Services, a “Clean Skin” is a manufactured identity. Teams of very smart and very thorough people work together on this identity to create a plausible and checkable history. They will make bank records, cell phone contracts, tax history, employment history, a back-dated Social Media presence, obscure 3rd party internet references (e.g. insert a picture and a note of thanks to Mr. X for his charitable contribution in 2003), credit card receipts, a family history, references, and much, much more. Then the identity is adopted.
(Excerpt) Read more at investmentwatchblog.com ...
Too late. 0bama was the guy of which you speak...
Rest:
On occasion, intelligence officers may have to use their Clean Skins for several years (almost like Sleeper Agents) to create trust, or a “known associates history”. There will often be “friends & family” put in place: people who when checked out (“tickled”) will say: “Yes, that’s my nephew, cousin, friend etc…”
But what happens when the Governments start concocting Clean Skins to enhance their electoral prospects? Would the public ever know? And more importantly, have they done this already?
Emmanuel Macron has just won 23% (possibly 24% by the time the last vote is counted) in the first round of the French Presidential election. Under the Ballotage system, he will advance to the second round where he’ll face the Front National leader, Marine Le Pen. But who is Macron? Why does his past seem benign and one dimensional? Stories relating to his parents are like carefully crafted anecdotes that focus on single event to create a timeline, with just enough minutia to seem plausible. He is a virtual unknown who has already met with the EU commissioners and leaders of European Nations leading up to the election. How does an unknown candidate get invites that are normally reserved for the outright winner?
The European Establishment (operating through the EU), in fear of a Populist rise, has placed Clean Skins in political parties throughout Europe. They have mid-level positions in government (unelected) and will make no waves. There will be instances where they receive credit for “noble things” but will not seek the limelight. Then when a danger arrives (a Le Pen victory for example), they will step from the shadows and “miraculously” become the frontrunner.
Be on the watch for these dangerous people who sigal the death knell of Democracy. They are a weapon against the population, and their agenda is neither in your best interest nor what you may think you are voting for.
The Democrats generally don’t have any good Christian, upstanding members of the community among their politicians.
They celebrate degeneracy and unless you’re a degenerate the Democrats will hate you.
That said I am no more worried about them finding a decent person among their members than I am worried about Satan finding an angel among his demons.
Ya, this article prompted me to think about Obama. He’s got a cloudy past. Obama took steps to seal college records and other information, precisely so that such things could never be part of opposition research, I’m sure.
4chan pol will find you.
I read the title and thought it was about cheap leftists reusing their condoms.
I thought the term was “legend.” Well, at least that’s the term LeCarre used.
Sounds like “Josh Freeh” from Transmetropolitan.
In the graphic novel series Transmetropolitan (takes place a few centuries in the future), a secretly-psychotic presidential candidate runs with a VP candidate who on the surface appears to be very wholesome and clean. The protagonist digs deeper and discovers that the VP candidate is actually a vat-grown human with implanted memories and a manufactured background, supplied to the campaign by a near-Hitlerian state level politician to provide an “in” with the new administration in exchange for the state’s delegates and campaign money.
The activities relating to “Clean Skins” leave a great electronic/paper trail.
Also voters can demand a candidate admit to hiring Clean Skip operators. And....check those bank records.
Villifying the despicable lying activities of Clean Skins-—making it an issue-—can tarnish the candidate even if he/she did not hire them.
Yep.
Before he was elected Obama was in a TV interview that I just happened to turn to. In it he was asked if people would be disappointed in him at some point and his answer gave away the brilliant strategy that lay behind his rise.
What he said Is that people would eventually be disappointed in him because the “Obama” that they voted for was one of their own creation and not who he actually was. He described this as a great strength of his candidacy because, being so little known, would be supporters were at liberty to fashion an Obama that they wanted to vote for and which they would vote for.
You may realize that his “Hope and Change” rhetoric was perfectly suited to this sort of a campaign, for it carried emotional weight without specifics, essentially permitting people to also vote for the Hope and Change they wanted, completely divorced from the reality of who Obama is, which is to say: another aspect of the fictional “Obama” they were voting for.
It is clear that Obama was advanced from his earliest days to be such a candidate, and that he is likely not responsible for the origin of the idea.
It, frankly, smacks of a nuanced take on Taqiyya which we should NOT be surprised at considering how he was advanced even in his college years. It may well be that Obama is ultimately the fruit of some Manchurian Candidate scenario, likely first framed by Communists (who have their own ideas like Taqiyya, bring liars) and picked up by others like the Muslim Brotherhood at some point.
ping
Absolutely!
Who is his real father?
Where is his birth certificate?
Where are his school records?
Was he a foreign student?
Why doesn't anyone at Columbia remember him?
Why did his early publications say he was born in Kenya?
Barack Hussein Obama is not a real person. He is an invention created by powerful people who wanted a puppet in the White House. They did this once, they will do it again.
And LOTS of scrubbed info, even from the ‘wayback machine’ .. o.O
1.Candidate with zero “factors” and no history
2.manufactured identity
3.Worked for Obama
Good post......
Been there, done that, survived him!
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.