It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Breitbart -- The Vetting, Part I: Barack's Love Song To Alinsky

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:42 PM
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

[rolls eyes]

That's massively reductive.

They're not called different things to hide something, but because they are different.

Social Democrats have been in power for decades and guess what, no communism.

Higher standard of living? Yes! Happier population? Yes!


[rolls eyes]

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:48 PM
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

You DO realise that in Italy the fascists defined themselves as on the right? And they saw themselves as nationalists, another right-wing belief system. And allowed corporations control their political system. Like Libertarians... Also right wing.

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 03:37 PM
reply to post by relocator

Um how about the NDAA act for one

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 03:51 PM
reply to post by RealSpoke

yesssssss... but that's not really an Obama thing... do you think Bush or McCain woulda stood up to it??

I can think of MAYBE 3-4 politicians that, if President, woulda actually tried to stop it..

So it's a bit of a stretch to say you need to fear Obama due to that...

On top of that, it's pretty obvious that even something as controversial as the 2012 NDAA isn't seen by everyone as ultimate doom:

I'm against it btw.

And if you LOOK at the actual voting what you'll see is that BY FAR Democrats were more opposed to it...

Pretty much a guarantee that anyone running from President in 2008 woulda signed it into law...

Disappointing, to be sure, but not really driven by Obama...

And that # should be repealed...

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:50 PM
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

It actually was driven by Obama, His admin requested the bill cover USA citizens, so it is an Obama thing

He signed the bill which makes it an Obama thing

edit on 6-3-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:18 PM
reply to post by RealSpoke

It actually was driven by Obama, His admin requested the bill cover USA citizens, so it is an Obama thing

He signed the bill which makes it an Obama thing

Good reminder.

Obama asked for the language and at the same time (as I remember) the WH was having doubts (publicly at least).

Then the NDAA passes and Obama decides he has "concerns" as he strokes his name on the law.

It's all very clever how they weasel these "secondary" policies into large, and virtually "lock to pass" legislations.

We need to wonder why these types of laws are not separate bills ?

I wonder if those specific policies would have passed on their own ?

posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 03:07 AM
reply to post by RealSpoke

I swear if YouTube was closed, the anti-Obama movement would die overnight. 

The ACTUAL truth is as follows:

Subtitle D of the NDAA

What is now known as Subtitle D of the NDAA—the section on detention—made its first appearance in March of this year.  Called the Detainee Security Act in the House, and the Military Detainee Procedures Improvement Act in the Senate, the bills, introduced by Representative Buck McKeon and Senator John McCain, respectively, were meant to shift counterterrorism responsibilities from law enforcement to the military. The clear goal of the two bills was to require that suspected terrorists either be tried before military commissions or be held in indefinite detention without charge.

By May, the House version of the bill had been added to the NDAA, a $662 billion spending bill that finances the military’s annual operations.  It passed by a vote of 322-96, even as President Obama issued a veto threat, complaining that the bill improperly limited the government’s ability to fight terrorism effectively.

The Senate version of the bill, which also became part of the NDAA, passed in November on an overwhelming 93-7 vote.  Prior to the Senate’s passage of the bill, nearly every government official with responsibility over counterterrorism, from FBI head Robert Mueller to CIA director David Petraeus, had voiced concerns that the bill would have a negative impact on US counterterrorism efforts.

President Obama again issued a veto threat after the Senate vote, but as soon as the bill was modified slightly during the process of reconciling its House and Senate versions, the threat was dropped.  The final version of the bill passed both houses of Congress last week with large majorities.

It should ALSO be noted that before the NDAA, Bush Jr held a US citizen indefinitely with no trial. Remember that? Apparently not. 

Obama screwed up by signing this, IMO, and I wish he'd closed GITMO (you can thank Bush for that I
O). But, that doesn't mean that the legislation, drafted by two Republicans, and driven by Republicans (100+ Dems voted No on it, less than 20 GOPers did) was an Obama initiative.

posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 03:19 AM
reply to post by jibeho

Until this stuff is reported by a non-biased source, I will treat it as either left/right bias and not suitable for discussion.

posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 12:21 PM
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

What makes you think I would forget Bush's crimes? I think he was evil as well. I don't play party politics, sorry.

Did you not read your own article you linked? Obama had the wording changed so that he would have MORE power. What don't you get about that?

The final version still seems to require the military custody of suspected Qaeda operatives—but now the executive can make exceptions to that requirement. (The previous versions only allowed a waiver when the secretary of defense, the attorney general and the head of national intelligence all agreed.) It’s not clear to me how effective this waiver would be in practice, and it seems positively dangerous to leave this decision up to whoever might sit in the White House in future years. Remember, we got into this mess because a president thought he had the power to ignore the constitution and international law.

And then he signed it, it is very much an Obama thing

posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 01:05 PM
reply to post by RealSpoke

Are you REALLY THAT in the dark about Obama being a long standing avowed Marxist?

His parents and grandparents were Marxists.

The MSM propaganda machine has been very effective, then.


posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 01:16 PM
reply to post by BO XIAN

My mom is christian, I'm not. What does his parents have to do with anything? Can you not think for yourself?

And I don't watch TV so MSM anything isn't getting through to me. And when I did watch TV, the news told me he was a socialist. I guess a lot of people forget that part of Obama when he was running for 2008.

Obama doesn't exhibit any Marxist behavior. He is a fascist. I'll believe it when he starts acting like one. Marxists wouldn't shell out millions to his already rich cronies. Do you even know what Marxism means?

The right wing propaganda machine has gotten to you


edit on 7-3-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-3-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 01:44 PM
reply to post by RealSpoke

Read that again. Obama used that power so that Presidents could make the law less onerous, which he did immediately after he signed it.

It's a wrong headed law, no doubt, but he threatened veto until it was a least partially watered down.

He shoulda vetoed it, absolutely, but thats a long way away from him being responsible for t hitting his desk.

On top of all of that, he's not even vaguely a fascist. That's just rhetoric. It's as absurd as calling him a marxist.

For instance, he doesn't believe in economic cartels, he isn't anti-collectivism, etc., etc. Fascists believed in controlling owners, and as such controlled business. Obama is much more controlled by (via lobbying, and advisors) business. It's a subtle but real distinction.

Its a sliding scale, but realistically, he's closer to a British Tory (more right than a Tory sure), but closer to a Tory than a fascist.
edit on 7-3-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 03:05 PM
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

No, it isn't rhetoric. I've studied nearly all political ideologies, I'm not one to spout things I heard from someone else.

Fascists ARE collectivists.

Fascists advocate a state-directed, regulated economy that is dedicated to the nation; the use and primacy of regulated private property and private enterprise contingent upon service to the nation or state, the use of state enterprise where private enterprise is failing or is inefficient, and autarky

Obama's healthcare bill is FASCIST. It forces citizens to purchase health insurance from a private company. That is the merging of corporate and state.

Obama's insider deals with Solyndra = fascist

Voting for the bail out as a senator = fascist

The fascist party and state is led by a supreme leader who exercises a dictatorship over the party, the government and other state institutions.[12] Fascists reject conventional democracy that is based on majority rule.[13][14] Fascists claim to advocate an authoritarian democracy based on rule of the most qualified, rather quantitative majority rule, though multiple scholars are strongly skeptical of fascism's claims to be democratic.

Not getting congressional approval to bomb Libya = fascist

Getting sued by congress and nothing happens = fascism

There is nothing Marxist about Obama's policies

edit on 7-3-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 03:26 PM
Just found this, haven't listened to it,

They are only assuming?

Is this the Andrew Breitbart Obama race video? A clip from 1991 shows then-law school student siding with black professor who demanded a black female professor be tenured

The current editors of Mr Breitbart's website confirmed that it is the video that their former leader was referencing, but say that 'the video has been selectively edited--either by the Boston television station or by Buzzfeed itself'.
They promise that the entirity of the video will be released over the course of the day showing the true nature of what they ensure is an extreme video. ded-black-female-professor-tenured.html

Edited to say, he was very impressive even back then,
edit on 033131p://bWednesday2012 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 05:40 PM
reply to post by RealSpoke

You appear to be unaware

that the globalist oligarchy has been busy for decades


both Marxism and capitalism into a bastardized conglomeration, as combined agents of tyranny.

1891: Cecil John Rhodes organized a secret society to take control of the world. His mentor at Oxford University was John Ruskin. Ruskin has a swastika engraved on his gravestone, just as Rhodes Trust member Rudyard Kipling has on the covers of his early books.[11] Prior to Adolph Hitler, the swastika, which reportedly also has been seen at the S&B vault at Yale University, was an elitist symbol. In an apparent contradiction, John Ruskin referred to himself as a Tory and a Communist. [12] However, one must realize that the elite have no qualms about working with both the political left and the political right, with an ultimate goal of synthesizing them into a world socialist government.

83."Bear in mind, the five-pointed star, like the Soviet one, which shines all over Europe, the star composed of the five Rothschild brothers with their banks, who possess colossal accumulations of wealth, the greatest ever known." Christian G. Rakovsky Bolshevik founder Describes a Financial International based on money and banking, which founded and controls the Communist International Red Symphony


edit on 8/3/2012 by BO XIAN because: spelling

posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:25 PM
reply to post by BO XIAN

Jesus, you'll believe absolutely anything!

Here's his grave... no swastika:

There's dozens of pictures of it, no swastika...

You can see a lot of first edition Kipling covers here: ce=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=kk1ZT_-1Jumg0QXF-7TPDQ&biw=1440&bih=785&sei=lU1ZT5jkIMPR0QXt9si2DQ

No swastikas...

Do you not have access to google??

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 12:24 PM
The Vetting: Cassandra Butts - Bell Devotee, Obama Advisor, Judicial Scout

The story of Cassandra Butts is an important example of how Critical Race Theory and its adherents continue to shape President Barack Obama's worldview and his administration.

At Harvard Law School from 1988-1991, Butts was one of the student advocates of Professor Derrick Bell’s strike for "faculty diversity." She was also a fast friend of Obama’s, whose career she has helped to promote from the halls of the Harvard Law Review to the White House.

In sum, Butts and many of her friends and associates have long seen American politics through a Bell-style radical prism, sharing a belief in the permanence of racism and/or the need for radical transformation of the Constitution.

Butt's mentor, it should be noted, did not see the election of Barack Obama to the Harvard Law Review as indicative of any real change in race relations.

Likewise, despite the wishes that Obama would be a “post-racial” president, Butts told The Wall Street Journal just days after Obama’s election that he doesn’t consider himself “post-racial.”

“When people say that, they seem to suggest that we are beyond the issue of race, that issues of race don’t matter,” she said. “I don't think that is necessarily the case. I don't think Barack considers himself post-racial in that way. He will tell you he thinks race does matter.”

Having worked to remake the judicial branch in harmony with Bell’s theories, Butts is now at work remaking American development aid as Obama’s appointee to the Millennium Challenge Corporation, doling out millions in American taxpayer dollars.

She is both a symptom, and a cause, of the important role Critical Race Theory plays in the Obama administration's governance.

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 12:46 PM
reply to post by Stormdancer777


Chalk up one more.

It seems many of these "associates" and "casual friends"
keep getting exposed more and more as "policy" advisers
and appointees !!

posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:37 PM
Sheriff Joe: 'Tons' more shocking Obama info
Rips 'biggest censorship blackout in the history of the United States'

Sheriff’s investigators were able to replicate the alleged forgery by obtaining a circa 1980 pica stamp and a circa “2008″ date plug. Investigators were able to clearly demonstrate the “80″ (which should have actually read 1980) in Obama’s Selective Service Registration form resulted from cutting out the “08″ from an authentic “2008″ date plug, and inverting the “08″ to read “80″ when the cut plug was loaded into the year slot on the 1980 pica stamp.

Meanwhile, although Arpaio did not focus on Obama’s Social Security Number at his news conference, WND has also reported the president may be using a fraudulent number, another important piece of information the national news media continue to suppress.

Follow all the future developments in this story – sign up for WND’s email news alerts right now!
The Arpaio findings are not the only items the media are refusing to cover. As WND reported yesterday, a full-blown cover-up appears to be taking place in connection with WND’s disclosure about a retired U.S. postman who has signed a sworn affidavit suggesting Obama was a foreign-born student who was receiving financial help to go to Harvard from the parents of domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.

posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:53 PM

The stamp on Obama's selective service registration has only two digits. This video demonstrates how it could have been made.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in