Obama is actually a Rockefeller Republican

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by Misoir
 


I think you are on the right track in this, but I also think Obama is something quite new on the national political stage, born from something quite old.

For twenty years he sat in the pews of and supported fully the teachings of Reverend Wright and his ilk, including Louis Farrakhan, a welcome guest at that church. Knowing full well Obama is not dumb it stands to reason he is lying about him not being aware of Wrights beliefs.

I first discovered Wrights pseudo-Christian church a couple of years before I'd ever heard of Obama. I often chastise myself for not getting a screen shot of the letter that originally was the home page of their website. The letter laid out the qualifications for being a member of Reverend Wrights group. It included a statement that your first loyalty must be to Africa, not the United States. Since Farrakhan is and has been a welcome guest often, the implication was to be a member you must be anti-American. Oddly enough the letter had nothing to do with Christianity.

To me this starts to build a picture of a man who hates the country he leads. Who hates the Constitution for limiting his powers to do as he wishes and who hates the fact he cannot act as a Dictator because of the Separation of Powers.

One thing that is new about this new political species if you will is that Obama is the first to so openly defy the Constitution. His recent statement about how illiterate the voters are and the megalomaniacal claim we don't need to understand what is going on as they will do our thinking for us, should scream to us how his mind works.

So far we have -
His loyalty is not to the United States.
He thinks anyone who does not agree with him is to illiterate to know anything.
He does not care about, nor does he like the Constitution.

Add to that his mindset that history has no meaning in it's lessons, as he personally was not in charge so of course things went wrong (true Progressive mindset).

Then add that when his decisions don't work out, his mind does not say to him you messed up, it says to him it did not work because somebody else messed it up.

Then we find he is for a State controlled media and State censorship of our information sources. He has been for the most part covert in this, but it is clear his operatives are following his marching orders.

Ever noticed how he plays down his relationship with Bill Ayers out of shame for the association with him? Bill Ayers, a cancer on society from my day, hates the US and wants to topple the government and eliminate the Constitution. Ayers also infiltrated a group, the Peace Movement, by pretending to be a part when in fact he was no such thing. Obama's infiltration of the Democrats is very similar and I think for good reason.

If he was a student of Ayers and I think he was, his goal is to topple the US and rebuild it in a manner similar to that used by Hitler. Using Hitler in this context may seem wrong on the surface, but is it?

I think this man Obama thought he could go further than he was able to get away with right up front. As evidence I offer the network of Ayers clones who have populated the universities since my time. He was barely elected and they had our children chanting Obama in the classrooms. They started to jump the gun, showing us their hand in the process.

I also noted he was unable to pass even a budget, even though for two years he had complete control. Why is that? I think it is because many Democrats have recognized he is something new and dangerous which is a good thing for us. Had he had their support he could have gone a lot further than he already has gone.

Problem here is that since he is something new, or I should say something old and bad rearing it's head again, he is able to use the power of the Democratic Party and their Partisan blindness. The end goal of this bunch is complete control and not through a Democratic government. They envision a worldwide Nanny State where even the most routine of decisions is made for us by them. Now where have we heard this before in history?

You are right in pointing out that these Progressives are not in any way Liberals. They have taken over their Party however; that much is clear.



If I could flag this particular post I would. Excellent synopsis. Obama's history, his actions and his associations speak far louder than his words in most cases. One exception would be the words used in his book "Dreams...". The man is still struggling with issues related to his mixed race especially as it relates to his white mother and grandmother. The words bitter and vengeful often come to mind when I think of Obama.

The movement that Obama belongs to has been morphing itself for decades and has methodically infiltrated the most influential media outlets in our nation. We are now witnessing the culmination of these effforts as they play out right before our eyes.




posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by CREAM
I bet if Bush could of had third term, he would have done basically the same stuff as Obama.

Here is what Bush would do:
Continue war in Iraq
Continue war in Afghanistan
Continue bombing Pakistan
Reappoint Bernanke as chairman of the Fed Reserve (He was Bush's former economic adviser btw)
Keep guantanamo bay open
Extend the patriot act
He'd probably bail out the banks too

What Obama has done (in direct contradiction to many of his campaign promises)
Continue war in Iraq
Continue war in Afghanistan
Continue bombing Pakistan
Reappoint Bernanke as chairman of the Fed Reserve
Keep guantanamo bay open
Extend the patriot act
Bank bail out

Oh, and guess what? If you dont like those things, that's too bad, because you don't have a choice. You might think you do when your voting, but they all end up doing the same thing in the end. What a tragic comedy.
edit on 19-7-2011 by CREAM because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-7-2011 by CREAM because: (no reason given)

Good point, but Obama could not rightfully end all of these things immediately. Keep in mind that this is a representative democracy. One man cannot rule the roost. Obama is also attempting to reach to the other side to gain support - have you looked at his approval ratings though? Fact of the matter is, there's a lot of inertia in the system. An administration can't make a 180 turn.

I do think though that there're a number of factors working against Obama. I haven't met a republican that likes him. Strange thing is, a lot of democrats don't either. I'm not sure why.

Case in point:

Look at World of Warcraft. There're more casual gamers out there than hardcore gamers. By appealing to casuals, World of Warcraft rose to the top of the industry in subscriptions. Same thing is going on with consoles and PC games. There're more console players and by moving games to the consoles a lot more money is being earned by the game producers.

When you look at politics, there're more democrats than republicans by a sizeable amount. When you consider that a lot of minority populations don't end up voting but can have a large impact on the election and most of them will vote democrat, it's even more striking the grip democrats have on the nation. So you'd think that a smart democrat would appeal to the democrat-side of things just like WoW appealed to its casual audience. What I think is going on here is that people konw this subsconsciously, and that's why they don't trust Obama. Something about him is not right.

Here is a link to show the divide between republicans and democrats:
www-personal.umich.edu ...

According to that democrats have the advantage.

The link came from here:
www-personal.umich.edu ...

McCain, strangely enough, also was a man that reached to the other side. But he has a record of doing that while Obama doesn't, at least up until his presidency. But you might say that was a lot smarter than what Obama is doing. McCain may have realized the democrat population advantage. On the other hand, some reaching to the other side is good because by excluding 30 to 40% or more of your country, you will make things difficult at certain points. I guess looking at this from an economic perspective is probably not appropriate, but I thought I'd try it.
edit on 20-7-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)





new topics
 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join