I've spent quite a bit of time on this Insider stuff from the beginning before it became an issue here at ATS. I just finished downloading and
reformatting the articles. It's a real mess (physically, I mean) to get this straightened out and in order well enough to make sense of it. I'm
trying to study these articles with two things in mind.
First, who is the Insider? That is, is he a real person or did Ulsterman make him up? Second, what is the veracity of the Insider? Can anything he
says be verified? Are his predictions accurate? Does his story make any sort of internal and cohesive sense at all?
I agree completely with the OP that Ulsterman is a blogger of little consequence. That's the beauty of the Internet, isn't it? Even the OP or myself
can start a thread and discuss an issue. So to use Ulserman's inconsequence as a point against him is, in fact, a mistake. Indeed, at one point the
Insider makes clear that he has approached Ulsterman on purpose just because he is little known. On October 25th he said this:
(Laughs) Your readers! You are really getting into this thing now aren’t you!? Your readers…uh-huh. Don’t forget who gave you this
information. Don’t forget who can take it away, ok? And I will. You’re playing your part in this – and I am writing the script. Don’t you
-expletive- forget that.
There are several other comments by the Insider that suggest he deems himself in charge and that he is doing it this way for a reason. Now maybe
that's just Ulsterman with a pre-emptive strike, but in reading Ulsterman's other stuff it strikes me that he isn't positioned well enough to make
this stuff up on his own. He's not that good of a writer. Now that begs the question of whether he is being played. That could very well be true, but
I don't think it's fiction. At least Ulsterman does not think it is fiction.
In terms of the Insider's identity, we don't know much and these could be intentional crumbs. But here it is, which is not much. He quit the White
House in July or early August. He is a "contract" person, not an employee. He has been at the White House in this and other administrations. He
worked on Obama's campaign. He has decades of experience with the Democratic party. He describes himself as 'working the ground game.' He is now
working on a campaign that has received national attention. After reading through every word of these articles that's just about all we know. Someone
more familiar with the players and closer to them might be able to glean more clues, but that's all I could pull out of it.
So now we turn to what the Insider has said. Did he in fact 'get it right?' And, just as important, even if he DID get it right, are his predictions
so obvious that anyone even remotely aware of the issues could have easily made the same predictions? I think we have to be very careful to get the
context right here. It may be obvious to us all now on Election Day what is going down, but were we on September 7th when the first article appeared?
Here's what the Insider said on September 18th and 21st:
And the ones who did voice concerns…they are, or will be, among the first to go. And it’s coming sooner rather than later....All kinds of
news is going to be coming surrounding the Obama White House and the Democrat leadership. Watch for Pelosi in particular. That will be the key when
you know the door is getting kicked open and the truth of just how chaotic things have become gets out into the open (Sep 18)....WH divided as there
are a number of them from the Clinton adm[inistration]. Suspicions at all time high. -Name withheld- on way out. Should be announced soon. (Sep
A few hours after this was published senior White House economic advisor Larry Summers, a former member of the Clinton White House, (and ex President
of Harvard, an economist) announced his intention to leave the Obama White House. This was the head economics guy at the White House. Then on October
1st Rahm Emanuel, Obama's Chief of Staff, resigned. On October 8th General James Jones, National Secuity Advisor, resigned. I think you have to admit
that these resignations show the Insider was right on the money.
On September 21st the Insider reported that Nancy Pelosi was "DC Toast." Now today that doesn't seem so far fetched, but in September, unless you
frequent places like Hannity and Beck, the MSM was not saying that Pelosi herself was in trouble. If she actually does "retire" after today, we'd
have to give the Insider a point. If she "takes down the White House," we'd have to give him two. Who knows what that means, of course.
Interestingly, the Insider is not the only one reporting on this: Wayne Madsen
who claims to be an
insider himself, confirms Obama's depression, his smoking, and the general level of turmoil in the White House described by Ulsterman. Confirmation
by independent sources is part of the journalistic toolbox. And here we have it from an independent source.
Of course, the biggest thing is the so-called emerging scandal centering around Chicago. The Insider's prediction is that after the election this
will start to unravel. We'll have to wait and see, of course.
As you can readily see from the information above, the "Insider" has been correct in his predictions insofar as they have come to fruition. I don't
think calling Ulsterman a nobody, which is essentially an ad hominem attack, does anything at all to prove or disprove this information. If the
Chicago thing actually happens, I think that is all the confirmation you will need. If Hillary challenges Obama for the primary, she'll have to
resign pretty quickly here to pull it off. I'm guessing January. Those are the things to look for. And if they happen, all the "This is bunk!"
statements in the world are not going to make a darned bit of difference. They sound like whistling past the graveyard to me, but only time will tell.