Are Obama, McCain and Boehner Working Together?

We already know that it is possible that Obama and McCain have been working together since the 2008 elections, as they have been chummy and both investigated by the N.S.A. (which was conveniently smeared back in June).

So check this out - the N.S.A. was smeared in June, but who were they watching, mostly? Look at the news. They were mostly watching governments, corporations and the like. Those are the ones who got upset. The people got upset, sure, but the evidence all showed the N.S.A. was spying on the big players.

So they needed to get out of the way. Check. Next, you have Homeland Security ready to go with big ammunition purchases, you practice martial law in Boston during the Boston Marathon Bombing (okay that was not in chronological order), and then get a whole ton of things done by October 1st (as evidenced by the October 1st threads) -

Then send 400,000 DOD workers home because of the shutdown for 5 days, enough time to make preparations in the dark, and return them home, just in time to get ready for the big event.

All because Boehner and Obama working together know that they are going to be able to crash the budget and hit the default. It has to happen at some point. So maybe they figure it might as well be now. If neither one of them budges, we crash, so if they work together(as in under the table), we crash.

Sure, look at the official story, Boehner and Obama aren't getting along, Obama says things about being frustrated here and there, and whatnot. Then go watch some WWF.

----------

In the end, the country is divided and everyone else is bickering and left in the dark as the country is swept out from underneath people who were being played, kind of.

-Skunk Works

>> I think we will probably resolve this budget crisis thing.

reply to post by darkbake


I don't know, Darkbake.

I think the problems with the USA right now have more to do with Republicans being unwilling to pay attention to all of America's citizens than they do with some kind of master stroke of bipartisan corruption. Especially between Boehner and Obama. Look at how much of an anchor around the President's feet that Boehner has been this whole time.

I think the real issue is that Boehner and his Republican cronies don't care about the poor, and don't like the idea that the Affordable Care Act would force them to care about the poor. In retaliation, they're shutting down the government in an attempt to bully Democrats into letting them not care about poor people again.

I'll wait and see though.

~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by darkbake


The decision to topple the USA was made back in the 1930's. Pascal Lamy Director-General of the World Trade Organization came right out and said so point blank.

Wesphalian order of 1648 means nations are sovereign and not vassal states of another government such as the UN.

Whither Globalization? - Is the globalized world of the 21st century being managed with a system — and a mindset — designed for a century that has faded away?

...All had lived through the chaos of the 1930s — when turning inwards led to economic depression, nationalism and war. All, including the defeated powers, agreed that the road to peace lay with building a new international order — and an approach to international relations that questioned the Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty...

“Global governance requires localising global issues” — Lamy

... the world becoming ever more interconnected and challenges become truly global, governance remains to a large extent local. The discrepancy between the reality of today’s interdependence, the challenges resulting from it, and the capacity of governments to agree politically on how to deal with them is striking.

For the international system is founded on the principle and politics of national sovereignty: the Wesphalian order of 1648 remains very much alive in the international architecture today. In the absence of a truly global government, global governance results from the action of sovereign States. It is inter-national. Between nations. In other words, global governance is the globalization of local governance.

But it does not suffice to establish informal groupings or specialized international organizations, each of them being “Member driven”, to ensure a coherent and efficient approach to address the global problems of our time. In fact, the Wesphalian order is a challenge in itself. The recent crisis has demonstrated it brutally.....

So what does Lamy and the others want?
Global Governance: Lessons from Europe - What can the world learn about global governance from the diplomatic model of the European Union?

...Growing interdependence requires that our laws, our social norms and values, our mechanisms for framing human behavior be examined, debated, understood and operated together as coherently as possible. This is what would provide the basis for effective sustainable development in its economic, social and environmental dimensions.... [Otherwise known as UN Agenda 21]

...the European construction is the most ambitious experiment to date in supranational governance. It is the story of a desired, defined and organized interdependence between its member states....

On efficiency, Europe scores rather highly thanks to the primacy of EU law over national law....

Most frightening is a new document obtained by Judicial Watch. This is an excerpt from the 133 page FOIA document obtained from the Department of Defence entiled: AFSS 0910 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND TREATMENT INCIDENTS (EOTI) LESSON PLAN

D. Extremist Ideologies

1. Introduction
• As noted, an ideology is a set of political beliefs about the nature of people and society. People who are committed to an ideology seek not only to persuade but to recruit others to their belief. In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples.


• While not all ideologists are violent in nature, it is characteristic of ideology to be action-oriented and to regard action in terms of a military analogy. How often have you heard words such as struggle, resist, march, victory, and overcome when reading about or talking to ideologists about their beliefs?

2. Ideologies
a. Nationalism – The policy of asserting that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations. Many nationalist groups take it a step further and believe that their national culture and interests are superior to any other national group.

WTF!!!! The US Military has now redefined Patriotism as Extremism?!?

b. Supremacy – The belief that one’s race or ethnicity is superior to all others and should dominate society. Supremacy, as with racial supremacies in general, has frequently resulted in anti-Black and anti-Semitic violence.

c. Separatism – Setting oneself or others apart based on culture, ethnicity, race, or religion.

d. Anarchism – A political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful, or undesirable. National anarchists appeal to youths in part by avoiding the trappings of skinhead culture—light jackets, shaved heads, and combat boots—in favor of hooded sweatshirts and bandanas. They act the part of stereotypical anarchists as envisioned by most Americans outside of far-left circles: black-clad protesters wreaking havoc at political conventions and anti-globalization rallies....

reply to post by darkbake

Are Obama, McCain and Boehner Working Together?

You mean, maybe there really aren't two parties? Maybe they're all in cahoots, doing the bidding of the folks who give them money and make them promises? Maybe the politicians don't really give a rat's butt about the people?

No, can't be!

Yeah the fact is the Republicans just don't wish to give head to anything the black man wants. It's sick I know, but evident.

incoserv
reply to post by darkbake

 

Are Obama, McCain and Boehner Working Together?

You mean, maybe there really aren't two parties? Maybe they're all in cahoots, doing the bidding of the folks who give them money and make them promises? Maybe the politicians don't really give a rat's butt about the people?

No, can't be!

edit on 5-10-2013 by incoserv because: (no reason given)

Yes, I often think this to be the case as far as those in the know, and the rest is just show, although this latest set of circumstances since the Snowden leak makes everyone seem like they are improvising and off-balance. Not Obama as much.

reply to post by crimvelvet


I think that a global government would not work without a way to deal with issues on a local scale, not only because of culture, but because of different resource sets and all kinds of other issues that one single cookie-cutter set of laws would have a hard time dealing with.

Not to mention, diversity in the different national laws allows for a stronger system overall, putting all the eggs in one basket means that they will all crack at once.

reply to post by Wandering Scribe


Yeah, I don't understand why religious people don't care about the poor, the Republicans have gotten to be extremists. It doesn't make sense. Part of what I was thinking is that the Tea Party in the House is planning on driving the U.S. Government off a cliff because they don't want it around anyway, they might count it as a victory.