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.

 

Conspiracy against U.S. Presidency?

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Is there a conspiracy to weaken the U.S. Presidency?

The public mood since about 10 years has not been to respect and support the President to the best of ones ability but to "bring down", slander, attack vilify, bash the President, often based on questionable data.

It was done to Bush to the extent that everyone hated him, and the same is now being done to Obama.

Are anti-establishment writers actually unwitting parts of a conspiracy to weaken U.S. Presidency?

Is there a conspiracy to polarize the nation into left- and right-wing?

Is there a conspiracy to take away the virtues of respect, helpfulness and kindness away from people and replace it with hateful rhetoric, disinformation and polarization?

Why is it that even before a newly elected President takes office, already half the nation hate him, predict his downfall and point out all his mistakes (before he has even made those mistakes)?

Are people being forced to focus on the President as "evil" in order to deflect from more shadowy and hidden forces at work?

Who benefits from America being a divided and government-hating nation?




posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Are people being forced to focus on the President as "evil" in order to deflect from more shadowy and hidden forces at work?

Who benefits from America being a divided and government-hating nation?



You got it right there



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   
If the President would stand behind the People, be his own man, as someone suggested I insist that the American people would stand behind him!

If he showed one iota of being one of us, we would all drop our bias and hatred toward one another and stand united with him.

Call me crazy.

[edit on 4-8-2009 by Hazelnut]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Hazelnut
 


But thats the thing. Maybe the culprit is hidden and the President is being used to deflect from that.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   
After watching the kenyan bc thread explode, the copycat threads denouncing the first thread, the insults, the innuendo, the hatred, the total lack of personal regard for others, the .... well you get the idea. It occurred to me that we are all being used against each other. Brilliantly too. But who?



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Hazelnut
 


I dont know who. I only see the fruits of some Machiavellian scheme of divide and conquer and am waiting for the secret beneficiary of our political conflict to emerge from hiding.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Hazelnut
 




How can he, as you say, 'be his own man' ?

A president is part of a machine. Some would argue he has very little real power to effect change.

A president is not a dictator, is not all-powerful.

A president is subject to innumerable influences who can, if they wish, destroy him very effectively in the eyes of the voting public (witness the current debacle over Obama's birth certificate and the disgraceful poster campaign)

A president is only as strong as those who are loyal to him within the political sphere

A president who attempts to put his nation and people first often pays the ultimate price: witness JFK

Most people wouldn't last five minutes in the president's position and would run screaming for the woods

And a president with a family to consider is very vulnerable: JFK murdered, John Jnr. murdered, Robert murdered, the other one compromised and reduced to sodden frailty.

The Queen of England whispered to Burrows as he was about to take the stand, ' Be careful, there are powers at work about whom we know nothing' or words to that effect

The ultimate power-players are those who pull the strings of national leaders, who get those leaders to do their bidding and work against the interests of the people

We out here have a bit of a clue but we'd turn grey if we knew even half the real story



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hazelnut
If the President would stand behind the People, be his own man, as someone suggested I insist that the American people would stand behind him!

If he showed one iota of being one of us, we would all drop our bias and hatred toward one another and stand united with him.

Call me crazy.
[edit on 4-8-2009 by Hazelnut]


EXACTLY! No one is attempting to weaken the president's office, they are doing it on their own by NOT LEADING! The highest office in the land and possibly the world should be a shining beacon of morals, leadership, honesty, and intellect!!

Would any of you want your kids mimicking Clinton? Jr? Obama?

Chasing interns? Not knowing who he is speaking to around the world? Apologizing to the whole world for being American?

I would love for my kid to grow up like Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Washington, and even though I didn't like their politics, I could respect Lincoln, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., and others.

Nope, the office of president is weakened because we elected weak leaders! It is our fault by allowing MSM to sway our votes!



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 




Conspiracy against U.S. Presidency?


Personally, I see this as more a ground swelling of distrust in our government as a whole, than anything like hate of an individual president.

First of all, 'hate' is a much overused, if not totally abused word. Many of us will never know what true hatred is. The best way I know to define it is by saying that hate is the opposite of love and in life, experiencing true love is indeed quite rare.

As for the distrust, I think this had its roots in the assassination of JFK. Prior to that, We the People trusted and believed in our government. But after November 22, 1963, there has been a growing number of just everyday folks who have begun to suspect that our government is not worthy of the Constitution that it is supposed to be defending. As the years have gone by and more and more reasons to distrust have arisen, the numbers of people who, to one degree or the next, distrust their government, have grown exponentially.

To date... since the end of the Eisenhower Administration, there has been not a single president that has come across untainted. The closest any of them came to that was, perhaps, Ronald Reagan but unfortunately, he was hamstrung with a number of dubious staff members throughout both terms.

No, it's not a conspiracy against any one presidency. It is a growing distrust of our representation as a whole... and considering the current crop on Capitol Hill, the future looks bleak for reversing the trend.

...



[edit on 4-8-2009 by redoubt]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by St Vaast
reply to post by Hazelnut
 




How can he, as you say, 'be his own man' ?

A president is part of a machine. Some would argue he has very little real power to effect change.

A president is not a dictator, is not all-powerful.

A president is subject to innumerable influences who can, if they wish, destroy him very effectively in the eyes of the voting public (witness the current debacle over Obama's birth certificate and the disgraceful poster campaign)

A president is only as strong as those who are loyal to him within the political sphere

A president who attempts to put his nation and people first often pays the ultimate price: witness JFK

Most people wouldn't last five minutes in the president's position and would run screaming for the woods

And a president with a family to consider is very vulnerable: JFK murdered, John Jnr. murdered, Robert murdered, the other one compromised and reduced to sodden frailty.

The Queen of England whispered to Burrows as he was about to take the stand, ' Be careful, there are powers at work about whom we know nothing' or words to that effect

The ultimate power-players are those who pull the strings of national leaders, who get those leaders to do their bidding and work against the interests of the people

We out here have a bit of a clue but we'd turn grey if we knew even half the real story



I think the same way and believe that all of those dangers exist. That is where my doubts arise from. Why would anyone want that position? Remaining loyal to the people under such pressure, as you point out, would be next to impossible - improbable. Thus, the paradox.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by St Vaast
 


Vaast, you are correct and you infuriate me at the same time! LOL.

Yes, JFK is an example of what happens when you "be your own man." That is exactly the message that was sent, and that is why we haven't had a true president since then. Reagan may have been the closest thing, but he was still a figure head. His only real accomplishment was befriending Gorbachav, and as a team they were good leaders.

Presidents are not all-powerful, but LEADERS are!! The people want to follow someone. We want to undo the military-industrial complex. We want to take the power away from lobbyists and corporations. We want to undo the FED, the FDA, and the UN.

If a couple of true leaders stand up and "Be their own men" and they are cut down, but another one pops up to carry the torch, it may actually make a difference!!



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   
the presidency just deflects the attention from the real problems. tptb just place some talking monkey there, whether it be bush or obama, and have them put their foot in their mouths or make a##es of themselves to get the public's attention on them instead of the real issues being dealt with behind closed doors by the corporations and financiers who actually control the world.

[edit on 8/4/2009 by FtheNWO]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by redoubt
 




The scales fell from our eyes, I guess you mean

A lot of that is attributable, don't you feel, to increasingly monopolistic media ? When you look back, there were fearless editors and journalists who didn't back away from the truth and took it to their readers. Look at the situation now. And who was it who said that when you control information, you control the world ? Something like that.

Tv changed a lot too. Before tv, people obtained their information from newspapers, the radio and movie newsreels. Tv changed everything, particularly our attitudes to politicians.

So, perhaps ignorance was bliss in those pre-tv, pre-internet days ?

I have no illusions about any of the national leaders, including US presidents. For those with the stomach for it, the unpalatable truth re: many of those 'old time' presidents is out there. They were no better than today's, although the wholesale corruption within the political arena hadn't progressed to the extent we see today. And back then, there were 'gentlemen's agreements' between politicians and the media. Along with the advent of the 'media barons' and their monopolistic control of information, the gloves came off. If JFK were president today, the media would crucify him. His extramarital affairs for example, would be all over You Tube and msm ... and we wouldn't revere him as we're able to do simply because we were spared, then, the contempt which familiarity (via the media) brings.

We'd see right through Kruschov's little shoe-banging stunt and the mystique enjoyed by Castro and Guevara would have been denied them, if they'd spent their hey-days in the glare of trash media and You Tube.

Lincoln was far from Saint. Washington the same. All have had feet of clay. But at least back then, most Americans were able to enjoy the illusion of nationhood, were able to believe their vote made a difference and their opinions counted for something. They weren't sickeningly aware of the cynicism with which they were regarded by those whose wages they paid (meaning politicians) and were still able to believe in 'of the people, by the people, for the people'. When people say that today, it's with a bitter sneer. It's a shame.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 




[Nope, the office of president is weakened because we elected weak leaders! It is our fault by allowing MSM to sway our votes!


Yes!!! Yes!!! Yes!!!

Most of this faulderaul began when Americans seemingly decided that it was better, not to mention, easier to begin to let others do their thinking for them.

Americans have a legacy of thinking for ourselves, or we once did...now, seemingly, it's easier to stay home and watch the idiot box, instead of being involved in the world around us. Attending city council meetings to voice our concerns about the issues of the day. In about a week, I'm going to attend a meeting concerning the closure of a major institution in the region, the State Penetentiary. Lots of jobs, not just there, but in the area as a whole, are directly related to this closure. I will, by every legal means at my disposal, be heard.

How many of you are willing to be heard? Attending rallies, writing letters, protesting...hell, run for office. If we want our govt. to be more responsive to our needs, or to even pretend to listen to our concerns, we need first of all, to act like we give a rats ass.

***

Ooops, that darned soapbox just reared up again...



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 



Sorry to infuriate you again, but the leaders you speak of seem to do best in movies. In real life, they find themselves committing suicide via six shots to the back of their heads, using their left hands.

What is it about prophets never being appreciated in their own land ? What would happen if twenty born-leaders took over a tv-station to broadcast their plans for open revolt to the eagerly-awaiting public ? What would you or I do, if those born-leaders instructed all men and women of conviction to mass in X-location ?

Do you have children? If your children watched the leaders' on tv and said, 'Mum, Dad .. I'm going to X-location. I can't stand the state of this country any more. I'd rather die fighting than live as a slave to the military-industrial complex ! Come ! Join me! Together we can make a difference ! ' Then, he rushes to his room for his rifle and hand axe.

What would you do? What would I do ? I hate this, but I'd probably stand in front of the door and yell, 'Sit down! It's a trap ! You'll be cut down before you get a quarter of a mile. Don't you realise the black-helmeted military special-ops guys will be out there, shooting to kill ? Don't be a fool. Don't throw your life away. There are other ways to skin the cat. We'll fight subversively. We'll survive to fight another day. Living is the best offensive' .. or something like that.

Sure, we'd like to be like movie characters, but we fall short. Because .. . life is not a movie. There are no refunds on life. No guaranteed happy endings.

If I didn't have children, it might be different. I think about it. It would be good to just say To Hell With It .. Go on You Bastards .. Shoot me and be Done With it .. before I shoot you. But most of us turn to water. We're not raised to fight to the death these days, are we ? We're soft. Not like our ancestors.

As for the born-leaders, they'd be easy to deal with. In the olden days it was all on foot. Now there are jets and drones and missiles and phosphorous and bio-weapons and mind control drugs, etc. Not much of the old quick kill these days, unless you get lucky and get hit direct.

So the born-leaders would gather a few courageous or hot headed or particularly committed followers. And the rest of us would stay inside and watch it on tv. (and we'd become wannabe online warriors, like now



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   
lol to put it in plain english here. he is the president of the united states corporation. so has bush and on down probably since eisenhower. he is just the president so he has board members and money men to abide by to keep his standing in this corporation!


any more questions?



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by St Vaast
 




The scales fell from our eyes, I guess you mean A lot of that is attributable, don't you feel, to increasingly monopolistic media ? When you look back, there were fearless editors and journalists who didn't back away from the truth and took it to their readers. Look at the situation now. And who was it who said that when you control information, you control the world ? Something like that.


Yeah... that's pretty close and you're right about those former presidents in history being un-saint-like, lol!

Today's media is indeed a tool of both the bureaucracy and the corporate. It is all about control and it is we, the people, who are often seen as being too free to speak and think for their own good.

Perhaps it was just that... a decloaking. When JFK was shot down, we had the future ripped from us and so too, the comfort in the illusion.

It is a difficult thing to look at, square in the eyes. The notion of a nation of, for and by the people is one that has sustained us through so many terrible events throughout history. To have that idea removed can leave you feeling more than a little naked...

To better days


...



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hazelnut
If the President would stand behind the People


Bush did that, he sent the soldiers to Iraq & Afghistan to be in the front lines & stood thousands of miles behind them.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by acrux

Bush did that, he sent the soldiers to Iraq & Afghistan to be in the front lines & stood thousands of miles behind them.


...and who, praytell, allowed him to do that? It wasn't some nebulous otherworldly PTB who's omnipotence prevents us from doing anything about it...

Here's a hint...

Me. You. and lots of other Americans whos idea of involvement is blaming everyone but themselves for the problems of the day.

Good lord, people...our "leaders" don't operate in a vacuum, they do what they do, because we allow them to. If we don't give enough of a damn to get involved in the governing of our nation then really we've got nothing at all to complain about. ...all our problems come down to giving a damn, and then doing something about it.

In case it hasn't sunk in...

NOBODIES FAULT BUT OUR OWN, PLACE THE BLAME WHERE IT BELONGS...WITH US.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   
The presidents job is to sign off on legislation passed by the congress, to sign off on treaties, and to command the armed forces.

That is it.

The reason why the public is growing so outraged is that the president is not staying within the bounds of his constitutional duties, and instead, has usurped the power of the congress through executive fiat.

The president used to be able to walk around the streets and take public visitors on a regular basis. The reason why he can't do that today is that he has king like powers that violate the rights of a whole range of individuals.

When a person acquires that much power, they need to be protected from the people whose rights they are trampling on.

The constitution never intended for the president to be a king.



[edit on 4-8-2009 by mnemeth1]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join