It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

President Obama/Lincoln and the next False Flag?

page: 3
35
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   
There was a person on youtube that posted some videos of his abduction. Basically him talking about being taken by ets, to a ufo. And being shown some things, technology, implants, et humans...they also downloaded information into his brain and showed him the future...

his youtube:
www.youtube.com...

he said that he has seen every airplane crash in his head since the 90s or something. And other important events...

This is what he says about obama...from his myspace blog




Tuesday, November 04, 2008

Joe Biden our newest President!! My Prediction!!
Current mood: impressed
Category: News and Politics
I believe Barack Obama will win the presidency. I believe it will be our tuffest time in Amerikkka since Kennedy. I hate to say this but after Barack is assassinated Joseph Biden win take charge. This event will cause many peoblems. History will repeat itself. It is time for a change. I love Barack; but I just don't think Amerikkka is ready. It hasn't even been 50 years since Kennedy. They killed Kennedy just for liking African Americans. Then you see what happened to Martin Luther King. I will pray he survives if he is elected. I in no way hope this happens or want this to happen. It's just what I see. I hope to God I'm wrong. Long live everyone!!! ~Ricky




posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by wonderworld
 


Try adding up Mahmud Abbas aka Abu Mazen. Nostradamus predicted that the third antichrist would be named Mabus. So, it would be interesting to see how old Machmud measures up on the 666 scale.

It is also clear that Nastradamus predicted that the last antichrist would come from the Middle East and enter Europe. Keep your eye on Turkey entering the EU, it is possible that the antichrist will be an EU leader from Turkey, once they are admitted to the EU.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Barrack Obama is no Abraham Lincoln, for that matter Abraham Lincoln was no Abraham Lincoln. The distortions of history tend to be kinder to some than others!

Lincoln was a tyrant in his day and pushed through his agenda ruthlessly.

When the United States of America was founded it was founded ostensibly as an experiment in government. There was a time during Andrew Jackson’s Presidency that a number of states wanted to secede and leave the Union and Jackson talked them out of it.
The premise still prevailed though that the nation’s government was experimental, and that if any state took severe objection they were free to go their own way.

Lincoln changed all that and turned some things that had long been written in sand into written and stone and other things he wiped clean as if they had never been there. Like the original 13th Amendment for one. The current version was quietly slipped into the Constitution during reconstruction and sealed the Nation’s doom in the process.

Lincoln turned a nation that had long leaned towards being an agrarian one into an industrial one and ushered in the era of modern warfare along with it. Lincoln began mixing religion with government like it had never been before in a foolhardy desire to garner as much Northern support for the war as he could and the religious right and left have never stopped trying to make greater inroads since then all to the nation’s at large detriment. Lincoln even threatened to jail the entire Supreme Court over their objection to one unconstitutional act after another. Lincoln’s use of Green Back fiat instrument of debt currency attached to nothing opened the door to Federal Reserve and a world wide system of fiat instrument of debt currency that plagues us to this day.

Abraham Lincoln in short was a diabolical and cunning remorseless ruler who inherited a whole intact experiment in Democracy and left it a shattered and battered entity forced to conform to a Federal Government that would never ever stop expanding its powers and authority.

All I can say is if Barrack Obama really imagines himself to truly be another Abraham Lincoln, I hope he deviates enough to go to Ford’s Theatre early in his term instead of at the end of it!



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 



wow. Never heard that before. Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt it, I posted something earlier that said Lincolns freeing the slaves wasn't altruistic as much as it was a political move.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Obama is not really in charge of anything much like our last presidents were they are figureheads and all of this posturing from both right and left is really nothing but theater go to all the tea parties ya want this is being used as a way to trigger a second civil war the US tears it's self apart and the NWO and various others benefit.

[edit on 103030p://1826 by mike dangerously]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by littlebunny
 


Would you please give citations to the Obama quotes you posted? I don't think Obama ever said any of those things. I don't think he ever compared Gulf War vets to terrorists.

The comment about "Americans are cowards" was said by Attorney General Holder, in the context of our race relations.

Nowhere did Obama ever say that "all Americans will be forced to volunteer" - though that might not be a bad idea, requiring everyone to put in some time helping this country.

No, Obama isn't starting a civil war. if anything, the governor of Texas is making such noises, but even he has merely said he could understand Texans who might want to secede. Hardly the stuff of civil war.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by littlebunny
 

Interesting thoughts. I wonder. Obama made a big thing out of being Lincoln-like up until he was sworn in as POTUS. Then he adopted a sort of FDR personality. At least that is what it seems to me. Although he was also touted as being JFK-like. Then the situation with the Somali pirates and he was a JFK lite type of president. I'm not sure where this all leads.
It will be interesting to see what occurs. For me it's just like when I was deployed early one August morning to Saudi Arabia to respond to an attack on Kuwait by the Iraqi army. I was interested and enjoyed viewing what was going on and experiencing it first hand. To me, it's like being a reporter and in my next life I will report what I have seen, heard and experienced. What? Me worry? Hah!

It was interesting to be part of a tea party protest. When I was in college many of my friends were engaging in sit ins and protests against the Viet Nam debacle. I did not participate. I did agree with my friends, though. But I just wasn't stirred up enough to participate.

Now, I have watched for the last 8 years as stuff falls down around us, and I hoped for something better from Obama. I wasn't convinced of his sincerity and honesty, but I held out hope for something better. And I don't believe we are going to get it. I believe that soon we will be spending more money that we don't have, in Pakistan. I'm tired of it all. And so I voiced my opinion at a tea party. Now I'm a racist. lol.

So we see Obama go from Lincoln, to FDR heavy to JFK lite. What is next?



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Lincoln has been credited with holding the United States together.
What threatened the Union of American States?
The South did not appreciate laws the North were forcing through government.
Thus they seceded.

Are they implying that Obama will hold the USA together?
This would mean the union of states is once again threatened.
Are there laws being pushed through congress once again to anger states to secede? Are any states threatening this action?......

The way I now understand the Civil War, freeing slaves was secondary to establishing the Federal Government's superiority over State where previously, by provision of the Constitution, Federal Gov. was subordinate to state sovereignty.

So my conclusion is that the Obama administration (PTB) fully intends to pass reforms that knowingly and irreversibly invalidate state sovereignty.
And Obama is the Lincoln that will see it through.

[edit on 18-4-2009 by GuyverUnit I]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 



wow. Never heard that before. Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt it, I posted something earlier that said Lincolns freeing the slaves wasn't altruistic as much as it was a political move.



The Original Thirteenth Article of Amendment
To The Constitution For The United States

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them." [Journal of the Senate]


TONA Research Committee

Well, most people aren’t afforded the opportunity to learn real history, but rather just the version of history the conquerors would like you to know.

On March 12, 1819 the State of Virginia was the last to ratify the original 13th Amendment making it part of the Constitution.

In February of 1865 what is currently regarded to be the 13th Amendment was proposed and it was proclaimed adopted in December of 1865.

The original 13th Amendment was never repealed but rather was just quietly replaced in the tumultuous aftermath of the Civil War.

The original 13th Amendment virtually made it impossible for a Lawyer bearing the title of Esquire to hold political office in the Federal Government. When one considers ¾ of all congressmen and senators are lawyers whose first office is as an officer of the court and one considers how ludicrous it is to have lawyers in essence making the laws for themselves, one might get a better idea of how the Federal Government has gotten so unwieldy and out of control.

You were not to far off in your original statement, in reality what the illegally replaced and then enacted current 13th Amendment did was make it illegal for slaves to own slaves, we are all slaves alike now.


Preceding the arrest of the Maryland legislators, Lincoln’s most shocking, even treacherous act, swept under the rug by Lincoln’s loving biographers, grew out of ex parte Merryman. John Merryman was a known Southern sympathizer in Maryland. He was arrested by General Cadwallader and imprisoned in Fort McHenry in Baltimore. Merryman petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus, which was granted by Chief Justice Roger Taney, and the general was ordered to bring Merryman into court for adjudication. The general refused.

In response, the Court ordered federal marshal Bonifant to bring the general and Merryman to court. Taney could have organized an armed posse of deputy marshalls to arrest the general, but that might have resulted in bloodshed and was avoided.

As an alternative approach, Taney wrote a blistering opinion — today considered one of the greatest opinions of the Supreme Court — and had a copy delivered to President Lincoln. The opinion condemned the action of the president and reviewed the leading authorities on English as well as American constitutional law.

An undoubtedly enraged Lincoln took it upon himself to execute an order to arrest the chief justice for having the gall to give orders to the president and to condemn his acts against the Constitution. And remember: Taney was simply doing his duty, as under the Constitution the Supreme Court has the final say on Constitutional issues, not the president, not the Congress, not anyone else.



Lincoln Crossing the Rubicon

Many of the News Papers of the day including the Northern Papers likened Lincoln and some of his decrees and proclomations as being akin to Caesar.

The history of the Greenback Dollar is one that too plaques us to this day.


Money is not what you believe; although whatever one may think, the stuff we use works so well that life is miserable without it. Today’s money is not money at all. It is a payments transfer system, known as checking. The presumption is that money is in the bank and is transferred to someone by means of writing a check. That is where the greenback comes in, for it is presumed to be the money on is transferring. The greenback today is the Federal Reserve Note, the paper we carry in a wallet and call “cash”. Our story deals with the two kinds of money, the check that is not money and the greenback that is money. The Greenback got its name in President Lincoln’s administration. It is a pejorative term in that it was scorned by banks, which paid only part value for it when presented by clients. History has been unkind to the paper money put out by the Continental Congress during the Revolution against England. To downgrade something, one might say, “not worth a Continental.” The Continental Congress had no taxing authority; so, any paper money it issued could not command payment of a commodity without risk. History texts do not say that the true greenback was as good as gold, until banks persuaded the U.S. Senate to strip it of its legal tender feature. The Treasury authorized issue of $150 million of legal-tender notes on February 28, 1862 for payment of all debts public and private. The vote in Congress was 93 to 59. [Gertrude Coogan, “Money Creators”, 1934] These greenbacks never lost their value against gold coin.


The History of the Greenback Dollar

Yes my friend, let us hope Obama does not intend to finish what Lincoln started...though it is true all roads to lead to Rome.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by komp_uk
 
Perhaps finishing their work means finishing the pyramid. To finish it would mean capping it. Looking at the dollar seal, the last year before capping is 2012. The cap represents God. Therefore I would suggest that in 2012 they will reveal the truth about God and our origins. God will return.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 
It is for commentary as yours that I came to ATS.
I can't help but feel my contributions to this thread inane.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by GuyverUnit I
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 
It is for commentary as yours that I came to ATS.
I can't help but feel my contributions to this thread inane.



Thanks my friend, there sure are a lot of things to discover on ATS that is for sure!

2012 certainly is shaping up to be a heralded occasion but on the off chance nothing out of the normal happens that day one should perhaps bear in mind that if something extraordinary does happen that day, it might just because that day has been so widely promoted for auspices events, that someone with a diabolical plan of their own might seize on that day to unveil some cap or touchstone to those plans.

I have to a certain very real extent demonstrated how history not only 150 years old can be nearly totally obscured. Very important and relevant history at that, not the kind of thing you want as a society to go forgetting about or look back upon it inaccurately.

Now think that some of these things at play go back 2,000 years in some cases 3,000 years and in other cases 6,000 years. How much of what is being handed down to us at the incredibly lengthy chain could be absolutely pure and unembellished in its current form? I would say a number between 0 and 0!

Yet from the time of Caesar and before and beyond great leaders and conquerors would look for signs and portents and even legends and prophecies to act out their boldest plans on those days hoping in part to use people’s own superstitions and beliefs against them to help minimize or crush opposition to their plans.

Here in the United States of America some feel it’s important to remember two extremely important things about the United States:

1. The Treaty of Paris ending the Revolutionary War grants us the rights of a nation under the Holy Roman Empire. If you read it carefully and literally which treaties are in fact meant to be literal things it clearly denotes the Holy Roman Empire as being a very important part of our founding.

2. The United States of America set up its government to be nearly identical to the Roman Republic.

The number 13 has a very important relationship to our Nation and its symbols.

Thirteen just happened to be the number of Caesar’s Legion that helped him to conquer Rome and become the Roman Republic’s first Dictator and in the process morphed it into the Roman Empire.

Another Roman Emperor named Justinian a few hundred years later merged it with Christ. Yet it wasn’t until the late 800’s the King of the Franks named Charlemagne successfully morphed what was left of Rome into the Holy Roman Empire and became its first Emperor.

In fact it was one of his direct descendants sitting on the Throne of England as the King we won our independence from who took not his greatest pride from being the King of England, but in being a Prince of the Holy Roman Empire and an all powerful Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire, one who was empowered to appoint an Emperor or Prince of the Holy Roman Empire.

I doubt in this 2,000 year long saga we have yet to quite hear the truth of it all yet.

ATS is a great place to go looking for clues and answers!



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 01:08 AM
link   
Here are a couple of links for those who don’t believe President Obama’s Administration has said what I quoted when I first started this thread. The first is a video the second is a link you must read, follow all the other links mentioned in that post to get the full story.

Americans are Cowards


American Service Vets are Timothy McVeigh

Here is a Google search with beginner information on President Lincoln before, and during the civil war:

President Lincoln Google Search

Now, with this thread I did not mean to offend people from other countries, it never even occurred to me they would even think I was putting them down. I apologize to any who think I purposely wrote to offend.

To those who responded by attacking me while not offering their opinions as to why I am what they have said, or even suggest how what is written is wrong… This post was in part made for you. So we can see just how successful the Obama Administration is being with their beginning stages? Also, I am not sure if what I wrote is what he is doing, however I do believe it is worth discussing just in case.

To those who said this has not started with President Obama, I agree completely… Well, except the person who said its been going on for hundreds of years. Sorry I just don’t believe that. Have there been others with ideas of world wide conquest, of course… American conquest, yes again… Do I believe these people have joined forces? I am not sure… What I am sure of, is this Administration is saying things that has my radar way up there. Like I said earlier, at that level of government nothing is done by accident, trying to figure out exactly what they are doing… Well once again that is the main point of this thread…

To all who responded, you are doing a fantastic job, bringing up some outstanding points. I would hope we continue and post more of what is said by President Obama’s Administration in the future. Keep paying attention and keep searching for the truth of this administrations plans… Plus be sure to share this information with those who surround your life. If what we are discussing is in fact true, then we really need to keep this discussion going.

Lastly… Even though I do not agree that President Obama is the anti-Christ… I know others who believe that he is. And I have known those who believed that President, Bush Jr., Clinton, and Reagan was as well. So even though it is fun to read others re-state that old theme, let’s try and keep what could be happening on this planet within the realms of this planet and not some tired fight between God and Satan… I’m just sayin!

--Charles Marcello

[edit on 19-4-2009 by littlebunny]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 05:08 AM
link   
Great thread. I think many people dont really understand what the Civil War was really about. Lincoln did not decide to free the slaves as a gesture of peace and good will. The real heart of the Civil War was (morality of slavery aside) about State Rights vs. the Federal Government. Lincoln did not "preserve the union," instead he Napoleoned himself king and transferred all power of the states to the Federal government, thereby creating a single seat of sovereignty with the power to write and enforce Federal laws that over ruled State laws.

Lincoln practically paved the way to big government.

Ps. The 3/5's (not 1/2) compromise was not for taxation, but to measure the population size to determine the number of Representatives a state could have.

Personally I find it amusing that the Dem's always try to evoke a nostalgic image of an assassinated President. Clinton was compared to JFK (minus hot chicks, hot wife, and Camelot) and now Obama is Lincoln.

Pss. Isnt it sad that our education system has devolved into romantic fantasy because they cant spend the time to teach kids to think so they settle on the simplest answer to regurgitate? Whoops, thats for another thread.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by chiron613
reply to post by littlebunny
 


Would you please give citations to the Obama quotes you posted? I don't think Obama ever said any of those things. I don't think he ever compared Gulf War vets to terrorists.

The comment about "Americans are cowards" was said by Attorney General Holder, in the context of our race relations.

Nowhere did Obama ever say that "all Americans will be forced to volunteer" - though that might not be a bad idea, requiring everyone to put in some time helping this country.

No, Obama isn't starting a civil war. if anything, the governor of Texas is making such noises, but even he has merely said he could understand Texans who might want to secede. Hardly the stuff of civil war.


I've mentioned that he/she post sources as well a couple pages back but seems that LB isn't all that interested in getting the facts straight but more interested in inflaming the populous against obama for some reason.
Maybe a bitter republican???



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by wonderworld
reply to post by Sky watcher
 


He cant be the antichrist. Obama's name doesnt add up to 666. There are are few common factors, like possibly muslim.

He wont know who he is until he survives a fatal would to the head and survives.

None of the Greek, Hebrew or roman numbers come close, unless he has another name?
[edit on 18-4-2009 by wonderworld]


Actually, I think in Hebrew Gematria obama's full name (Barack Hussein Obama) adds up to 501, or "The work of our hands" or "Our Punishment". I think in English Gematria, his name does add up to 666.

Take my words with a grain of salt; im just remembering these things off the top of my head



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by littlebunny
Here are a couple of links for those who don’t believe President Obama’s Administration has said what I quoted when I first started this thread. The first is a video the second is a link you must read, follow all the other links mentioned in that post to get the full story.



Americans are Cowards

OK let's address these.
First, you are taking the speech out of context. Eric Holder did not just call Americans cowards like you're implying.
What he meant was that we AVOID the racial issue in America.
I got this from the video YOU posted.
From your video


Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot,
in things racial, we have always and we, I believe, continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards



we, average Americans, do not talk enough with each other about things racial


Although he chose his wording POORLY, regarding the coward statement, he isn't calling Americans cowards in a general sense as you've implied here.
You've misrepresented the speech.

and now to address this

“Conservative Americans and Gulf War Vet’s are terrorists”

Using your link,


a recently released intelligence assessment by the Department of Homeland Security that many conservative groups blasted as a political attack against them. And despite an apology issued to military veterans by its new secretary, Janet Napolitano, it remained unclear whether she had quelled a brewing political storm.

The April 7 assessment warned that the faltering economy and the election of the country’s first African-American president could fuel support for right-wing extremist organizations. And it said that proposals for new restrictions on firearms could lead some groups to begin stockpiling weapons and ammunition.

But the comments that stirred the most outrage referred to war veterans. The assessment cautioned that returning veterans who faced trouble reintegrating into their communities could “lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.”

Again you've made a general comment but when we understand the context we know that:
1.

“An apology is owed,” Ms. Napolitano said. “We greatly respect our veterans. We have a number of veterans in our department.”


Ms. Napolitano said that the assessment was not meant as a, “blanket accusation.”


2. Your quote indicated that Golf War Vet's are terrorists and that is not what this is saying. The article specifically spoke of vets who faced trouble reintegrating into their communities COULD lead to POTENTIAL extremists members......

Now lets look directly at what the report says

The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific
information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.


If you read the entire report you'll notice that it's not just about veterans but since you specifically brought that up, that's what I'll focus on here.


DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and
radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.

OK notice here how it says, A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF MILITARY PERSONNEL. Yet you make a blanket statement saying that
".....Gulf War Vet’s are terrorists”
Another misrepresentation.

Let's continue.
Now here are some reasons why the report mentions vet's.

— (U) After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military veterans—including Timothy McVeigh—joined or associated with rightwing extremist groups.
— (U) A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that “large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces.”
— (U//LES) The FBI noted in a 2008 report on the white supremacist movement that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups.


Notice the last part where it states the FBI noted in a 2008 report.....
2008...who was president then?
But you make is sound like this was the obama administrations idea


Has President Obama’s administration said anything within the first few months that some could reasonably see as fighting words?


when in fact, the bush administration had the same info for years.

Again you're misrepresented the facts.

And all this info came from YOUR links so you can't claim I'm finding biased info.



[edit on 19-4-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
I've mentioned that he/she post sources as well a couple pages back but seems that LB isn't all that interested in getting the facts straight but more interested in inflaming the populous against obama for some reason.
Maybe a bitter republican???


I'm sorry, I remember reading the quote you posted, and I think I remember reading your previous response, but I guess I thought people already knew this was a fact, and that you two were simply posturing. But seeing how you reposted those questions, I see I was wrong. So I did a quick Google search, and I came up with several links. Here is the one that was first on the list:

Obama Will Force Volunteerism

There are others sites, but seeing how I purposely went out of my way to find links the left will accept, (four posts up, where I posted links to other questions) I have decide to post a link that most on the right will accept. If you want to find more news sites talking about this then I suggest you do a search and find a news source you can agree with. The above link, and the question/statement you quoted, and your own question, has been on the MSM for several months now... I truly don't see how you have not heard this story. I also believe I have read posts about that very subject here on ATS. Either way, above is one news source, if you would like to read more you are but a Google search away.

Also... In response to the above quote...

On paper I would agree that forced volunteerism is not a bad idea, but on paper only. In reality however, in America at least, something that is forced onto Americans is usually seen as an affront to their God given right to be free and not FORCED to do anything by their government. Let alone the fact the Federal Government has ZERO right to force that kind of law onto anybody. If you believe that is a good idea that must come to pass, then please point out where in the Constitution the Federal Government has the right to force that onto its citizens? Let alone the right to force States to comply?

There are things this Administration has said, and there are things they are going to try and force onto this country. I don't understand what is going through this Administrations collective head, but they are making an extremely perilous situation worse. I have been thinking about this country everyday since President Bush first started causing problems with illegal aliens and trying to pass amnesty laws. And then within a few short months came the bailouts and then on top of that President Bush goes against 80% of Americans and gives money to the auto makers. And now, on top of all that anger, within every political group btw, President Obama and his Administration is causing even more anger/danger and has given even more money away, also against the will of the people. I don't care if you are left or right, believe in or disagree with what President Obama is doing we must always question. Do you mean to say you don't question what is going on and why certain things are being said? Not only by President Obama's Administration, but also from state lawmakers, and now a Governor, and how they are going (and are trying) to force the federal government to verbally dismiss the 10th Amendment to the Bill of Rights? This is a powder keg and the fuse keeps getting shorter. The question we all must answer is, is this being done on purpose by President Obama and his administration and those behind the curtain?

There is something going on, ignoring the news you don't like is not going to make it go away. All I am asking is for my fellow ATSers to think about, and then talk about what is happening, and try and figure out what we believe could be coming in the future.

Even so, I hope the above link answers your question, or at the very least helps you seek more information on your own.

--Charles Marcello

[edit on 19-4-2009 by littlebunny]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Thank you for your response and for reading the article. Even though you posted snippets from that site, did you read the link to the PDF file? Where it mentions veterans more then once?

I believe on the first page of this thread somebody posted a snippet of that as well.

I am searching for the person within Obama's Administration who said something even more sinister about our military personal, but I will continue to search for it before I post the exact quote.

--Charles Marcello


[edit on 19-4-2009 by littlebunny]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by littlebunny
reply to post by jfj123
 


Thank you for your response and for reading the article. Even though you posted snippets from that site, did you read the link to the PDF file? Where it mentions veterans more then once?

Yes, I actually posted parts of it.
It does mention veterans and others but there was nothing I saw about a blanket statement regarding vets.
Also, again, this information has been available for years. The bush administration had the same info but chose to keep it to themselves whereas the obama administration has put it out there. Are you saying you don't like the obama administration because it's more transparent then the bush administration?



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join