Barack Obama

Azur said:
To summarize at a high level this whole discussion, with disregard to the underlying, discordant and implied emotions unexpressed on an individual basis, we get a hope for this:

WHAT?

* To summarize at a high level this whole discussion

To you this whole discussion boils down to


* with disregard to the underlying, discordant and implied emotions unexpressed on an individual basis,

you are going to overlook the not so apparent, conflicting and indirectly expressed emotions that are not expressed by by all persons participating in the discussion


{TRIMMED} the rest seems just as difficult to make much sense of.

Azur can you talk in words that don't get lost in la la land?
 
A: USA heading for destruction!
Q: (L) Hello. Can we say hello first?
A: Hello
Q: (L) And who do we have with us this evening?
A: Yeaionnia of Cassiopaea.
Q: (L) Do you transmit through Cassiopaea?
A: Yes
Q: (L) Okay. Why do you introduce tonight's adventures with "US is headed for destruction"?
A: Passed the point when anything could possibly be done to change the outcome.
Q: (L) What is this outcome?
A: Increasing inner turmoil. Review what happened in Germany.
Q: (L) Well, what happened in Germany in what period?
A: Towards the end of the war. Hitler's madness and the hatred of the world towards Germany.
Q: (L) Wasn't a pretty picture, was it? (J) In Germany, the rest of the world bombed Germany...
A: Yes. Expect it in the USA ultimately.
Q: (J) Would that be nuclear bombs?
A: And more.
Q: (A***) Is it going to destroy the rest of the world with it?
A: Not exactly... but the cosmic stuff will take its toll.
Q: (L) Anything else on that topic for the moment since we have other issues we want to cover?
A: Be alert.

If madness is going to play more of a role than it currently does then I think some horrid and totally crazy things are in store for the USA and the rest of the world, unimaginable at this point. I suspect there will be efforts to expose the evil in more than one area and some of it will be successful and some of it will lead to more madness and more death and more trying to stay in control and more madnes and ...

What bugs me more though really isn't Bush or Obama or ZioCons or Dominionists, ... what bothers me the most is who controls the Pentagon? Who controls that technology. I don't think it is zionists or dominionists or neocons or obamacons. I just can't get over the thought that such technologies are controlled by anyone outside of that structure itself. And therein lies another agenda completely hidden.
 
Xman said:
What bugs me more though really isn't Bush or Obama or ZioCons or Dominionists, ... what bothers me the most is who controls the Pentagon? Who controls that technology. I don't think it is zionists or dominionists or neocons or obamacons. I just can't get over the thought that such technologies are controlled by anyone outside of that structure itself. And therein lies another agenda completely hidden.


Well, would that be the "Military Industrial Complex"? Or even a bit further, I remember the C's talking about that any given president and the "official" government really has not clue to begin with, but true control is in the hands of "The Consortium". I can't find the specific excerpt for that, but came across this one as well:

A: Your government is operating on many cross-purposes, very complicated! On purpose!
Q: (T) Very true. Question: The government, our government, the U.S. government, is holding 36 craft of one kind or another that they gotten in one way or another. How many other governments have craft?
A: All is one.
Q: (L) We already have a one-world government is what they're saying. (T) Yes, they're just waiting to make it official somehow.
A: Has been so for long time, as you measure time.
Q: (L) What is the "ultimate secret" being protected by the Consortium?
A: You are not in control of yourselves, you are an experiment.
 
Dan Denning presents a chart of four equity bear markets showing the dramatic 51.9% drop in the S &P 500 largest US stocks. The Index 500 is the most widely held stock allocation in American “baby boomer” retirement accounts. I could present endless evidence of the on going financial collapse. Henry Paulson called it a once in a century event.

http://www.ezimages.net/DR/Denning112108.PNG

Joe Biden said:
We're gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I'm asking you now, I'm asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you're going to have to reinforce us. There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, 'Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don't know about that decision'," Biden continued. "Because if you think the decision is sound when they're made, which I believe you will when they're made, they're not likely to be as popular as they are sound.

Nienna Eluch said:
Yes, that was quite unsettling to hear that, I agree. To me it looks like the CIA/MOSSAD have been told to gear up for another false-flag operation. Don't want to let things get too peaceful, doncha know. And all of those poor, poor rich elite need the blood money from the Military-Industrial-Complex war machine.

The only way to do that is another 9/11-type event, or so I think. Either that or this is just fear-mongering. But we do know that Obama's advisers are pro-war no matter which way you look at it and that ain't good.

Hi Nienna Eluch

I don’t have the link, but I recall the Cassiopeans noting that Mossad is the intelligence wing of the Rothschild banking cartel. The world financial system is experiencing the equivalent of 9/11 collapse of the Trade Towers. The following article by Simon Davies and Donald Hunt explores the spider web of power by forces behind the financial system. It is one of the best essays on the subject I have encountered. I will quote a few paragraphs as the article is long and the point I want to propose is that possibly, the event Joe Biden hints at, may be the financial crisis and a solution which will shock Americans. This solution may be a ONE WORLD FINANCIAL SYSTEM. This possibility is further supported by Obama’s selection of Timothy F. Geithner as Treasury Secretary of the USA. Mr. Geithner is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and an advocate of a ONE WORLD FINANCIAL SYSTEM. He proposed this solution to the financial crisis days after meeting with the Bilderburger Group in an oped essay in the Financial Times. There are many articles which can be googled of his statements leading me to propose the above senario. It seems Obama will have the players in place to make such a dramatic move in January similar to FDR's bank holiday in l933. The parallels are striking.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/169225-Money-Supply-Debt-Slavery-and-other-Manipulations

Stef Zucconi said:
It's also worth remembering that, at the same time the seeds for the current crash were being sown, the key components of a fully-blown surveillance and detention state were being rushed into place in the same countries that were inflating the bubble.

(Something which dawned on me whilst pondering the Conspiraloon vs the Non Conspiraloon mental models for comprehending how the world of high finance works is that the Loon looks upon the financial markets as being a means of waging war on ordinary people. And, in war, any successful general makes provision for the unexpected, engages in contingency planning, retains reserves, and makes cold-blooded calculations about what proportion of his own forces he is willing to expend. In warfare, chaos and Black Swan events are pretty much a given and positively encouraged. Your objective is to comprehensively f*** up your enemy's ability to comprehend and respond to what you are doing, and then kill him. Non Loons who simply take the markets at face value will probably lose me totally at this point...)
Zucconi argues that Black Swan events, such as 9/11, Katrina, or the financial crisis, far from being random unforeseen event were in fact planned and very well foreseen by the planners.
Taleb quotes events like the 9/11 attacks and stock market crashes as being examples of unpredictable, Black Swan events, when there's copious evidence that they were anything but. One person's Black Swan; be it due to deceit, dissonance, indoctrination, or plain incompetence, is very often another person's Bleeding Obvious.
According to Zucconi, the problem with most economic commentary is that it is not "loony" enough.

A lot of people have heard the famous Jefferson quote...

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

...but don't seem to have understood its implications.
 
go2 said:
...the point I want to propose is that possibly, the event Joe Biden hints at, may be the financial crisis and a solution which will shock Americans. This solution may be a ONE WORLD FINANCIAL SYSTEM....

You make a compelling argument. Scary as hell, but very plausible....

:scared:
 
PepperFritz said:
go2 said:
...the point I want to propose is that possibly, the event Joe Biden hints at, may be the financial crisis and a solution which will shock Americans. This solution may be a ONE WORLD FINANCIAL SYSTEM....

You make a compelling argument. Scary as hell, but very plausible....

:scared:

Oh, yes, I agree on that, also. There is no doubt that what this whole economic bailout BS is all about is to take us to a one world financial system. Well, okay, I don't want to put that in stone, but it's very likely. :/

In SOTT's last Connecting the Dots article:

Gordon Brown argues that "we need an early warning system for the world economy." That is the excuse: we don't want these things to happen again. So first they will offer a series of financial measures designed to regulate banks and stop speculation, and everybody will nod in agreement.

As time goes by though, they may wish to extend their warning system, not just to the brokers of the world, but also to the masses. After all, the common people take a part in the collapse or booming of an economy, depending if they invest their money or hide it under their mattress. So, given the right conditions and after a few more months or years of recession and gentle conditioning, they may come up with an argument like this:

"Banks have been in danger because of greedy 'loose cannon' speculators. We have taken care of them as best as we can, but we have now realized that the masses in panic can also bring the system down if they decide to get their cash out all at once. If everybody had confidence and discipline, there would be no problem and the system would go on nicely. But we cannot leave things to the whims of the masses anymore. We need a system that will not allow for everyone to make silly moves at the same time. We cannot trust on people taking care of their own cash cause it hurts the system, and therefore it hurts everyone. On top of that, we already see that many banks are having trouble getting enough cash to cope, and in spite of the bail-outs they are collapsing.

"But what is cash anyway, if not an invention of human beings? It is merely an artificial representation of material goods. So we can solve the problem simply by reinventing cash in a controlled fashion. We have now the advantage of technology to do so. So we can create a single global computerized system based on e-money, with a centralized conglomerate of banks, or a single bank authority backed by the world governments, which through virtual intelligence technology will guarantee that individual bankers, financial speculators and the masses don't make waves in the system. Besides, we have tried everything else already and we are still in recession. At this moment this is our only option and if we don't do it, lots of people are going to lose all the money in their accounts and we will be back in the Middle Ages.

And then, after some time of living almost exclusively with e-money, they may add:

"This new system poses practical problems, such as people having to rely on plastic cards for all their money and therefore risking loss, theft or fraud. To solve this, we can offer people to have their accounts linked to implants, tattoos or fingerprints. It will not be compulsory, of course, but that will be the trend from now on and we expect everyone to join sooner or later."

You may think: So what? If money is just artificial representation, what difference would it make if it is on paper or electronically? A big one, we think. We would be immersed in a control system in which every transaction would be under surveillance and registered somewhere. We would not really be owners of our money, but we would rather be 'allowed' to use a technological system over which we have no control. Except that there would not be any opting out - unless you are ready to starve. Would you be brave enough to dissent under such conditions?

I think that SOTT is right on in this respect.

I would discuss more, but at this time I have to go. But, fwiw, there is definitely something in the wind.

We live in interesting times!
 
Xman said:
Azur said:
To summarize at a high level this whole discussion, with disregard to the underlying, discordant and implied emotions unexpressed on an individual basis, we get a hope for this:

WHAT?

* To summarize at a high level this whole discussion

To you this whole discussion boils down to


* with disregard to the underlying, discordant and implied emotions unexpressed on an individual basis,

you are going to overlook the not so apparent, conflicting and indirectly expressed emotions that are not expressed by by all persons participating in the discussion


Well, no. I'm not overlooking, but have noted AND am disregarding the "underlying and implied emotions unexpressed" by individuals.

Most people commenting on this thread and forum aren't newbies, and have read up and understand about the "machine" and the controllers. Not just read up, but have been shown pieces that suddenly fit into a unknown, inexplicable part of their map of the World that explains a LOT.

So, I'm pointing out how some people can have some knowledge, and still, STILL, expend energy towards a straw man saviour. That particular affliction can only be dealt with personally, and can't be taught.

I can understand the mechanics of attachment, and sympathize with the trials that disentanglement entails, but this one, the Obama/President thingie astounds me with the energy people HERE put into it.

The damnest thing is that once you realize the limitations of the system, you really don't know where to cast out since you only know a small part of reality. How little reality that has been shown you. Nobody can "gate keep" reality, they only make you think so. Everybody can see, if they want to.

As for geopolitics on this planet, personally, I don't give a -shite-. I see my perceived slice of reality as all told at every point. These snapshots build and are years in the making, and understanding. And they're still being revised.

My point basically is, I garner Hope too. I know something is going to come forth, not from an element or player of the system, but something much removed from the system.

What can that be?
 
Excellent post Azur!

Azur said:
My point basically is, I garner Hope too. I know something is going to come forth, not from an element or player of the system, but something much removed from the system.
That sounds like hope of the non anticipatory variety :)

What can that be?

Maybe this?

Laura said:
There is much, much more in this little book. But the point I hope to have made is that, perhaps, these goddess symbols, these moon symbols, are conveying to us the message of the return of the god and goddess of light - Gog and Magog - to overcome the demon of darkness: Yahweh/Jehovah (speaking metaphorically here), and the half-moon symbol is, as described above, a representation of the New Moon, the return of the light, and the impending dawn?
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=9383.msg67178#msg67178

Cheers!
 
Laura wrote:
...why do we not think that a decent person could, under the very trying circumstances we have all endured over those same 8 years, decide to try to do something about it, to behave covertly, so as to get into position to do something?

It's probably not the case, but I think we ought to leave the door open to that possibility.

That possibility is still alive in my mind, which is part of why watching all this unfold is interesting. But, the fact that the New Age CoIntelPro message is exactly this, as Berhard pointed out, has me leaning very hard the other way. The channelers say he's an agent, he's playing the game, he's keeping up appearances only to change the whole game when it is time. Now they're saying the golden age has arrived -- no two ways about it -- no wiggle room, which is highly unusual. Anart's comment seems almost infinitely more likely: the system prevents anyone who doesn't "play ball" from getting this far. If Obama is to change the whole game, the big question, for me, is "How?"

Here's the meat of my comment today: to continue to entertain the possibility that Obama is a "good guy" intending to make a difference for STO, I think we have to reason that he - and probably others in a secret alliance - have a plan -- a big plan -- an intensely detailed plan -- a plan of which getting him elected is merely an early phase. Surely Obama doesn't plan merely to "wing it" once getting into office. I think that a plan good enough to get a "good guy" elected would imply a lot of sophisticated awareness and forethought. So, winging it from here would be out of the question. In such a plan, what in the world would be next?

What can we observe? We see Obama staffing up with, apparently (do we really know?) unsavory types. Somehow I doubt he plans to assemble them all and "talk sense" into them to put them on his side, unless they're all in some secret alliance. So, what could come out of this? A couple of posters have started to speculate about this. As SAO mused, what if he said "inside job" on TV? Seemingly, it would take the kind of secret, advanced knowledge of psychology and the social sciences that the PTB use against us to know how to make a difference from Obama's position. How else to dent the great, "scientific dictatorship?" What about all that mind-control technology arrayed against the public, which Obama & co. surely would not be controlling? The only glimmer of an idea that enters my feeble brain at this precise moment would be to use, somehow, the idea of communicating to people directly via the Web, as Obama has allegedly planned, for some kind of de-programming inroads. OK, better stop now and just collect the data as it comes in.

I don't think that discussing this is worthless just because presidents know nothing and control nothing. That has merely been the way up to now. The presidency really is a kind of seat of power because the people think it is, and surely they would be the real power, if not controlled by a miniscule minority of 3D STS managers, of which the U.S. president is normally a part (or a stooge).
 
PopHistorian said:
Here's the meat of my comment today: to continue to entertain the possibility that Obama is a "good guy" intending to make a difference for STO, I think we have to reason that he - and probably others in a secret alliance - have a plan -- a big plan -- an intensely detailed plan -- a plan of which getting him elected is merely an early phase.

Thus far there no data, nothing -- NADAA -- to support such a "possibility". And a preponderance of data to support the opposite probability. In my opinion, until such supportive data emerges, we must view the "Obama = Hope + Change" expectation for what it is -- wishful thinking.
 
If we think in the direction of "madness" and hatred of the US escalating, perhaps Obama will be a government in exile working to expose the madness. That would be interesting. Even the financial crisis could be leveraged in the next couple of months to cause such instability as to require a declaration of martial law and suspension of the constitution and then no Obama in office. Madness, fleeing of political dissenters from the US....

The scenarios are just about endless. It will certainly be quite a show any way that you look at it.
 
Bernhard said:
Well, would that be the "Military Industrial Complex"? Or even a bit further, I remember the C's talking about that any given president and the "official" government really has not clue to begin with, but true control is in the hands of "The Consortium". I can't find the specific excerpt for that, but came across this one as well:

A: Your government is operating on many cross-purposes, very complicated! On purpose!
Q: (T) Very true. Question: The government, our government, the U.S. government, is holding 36 craft of one kind or another that they gotten in one way or another. How many other governments have craft?
A: All is one.
Q: (L) We already have a one-world government is what they're saying. (T) Yes, they're just waiting to make it official somehow.
A: Has been so for long time, as you measure time.
Q: (L) What is the "ultimate secret" being protected by the Consortium?
A: You are not in control of yourselves, you are an experiment.

This is the system that Barak Obama has 'inherited'. What will he make of it, and how will he make it 'run'? That is a question that can only be answered by the individual himself and observed by others over time, by its 'fruits'.... If I was to propose an answer, I would suggest 'very carefully'... because these people are very dangerous and of course they work for the 'ultimate' power and authority in the region (4D sts) and yes, that particular 'power and authority' can and will squash anything like a bug, even its minions when necessary.

I'm hoping that he has some inckling of what he's inherited and does not end up like JFK, thinking he can 'take on' the beast and destroy it. It is quite possible that he will have to end up being 'as wise as a serpent' to survive this, let alone make any 'system', such as it is, work for him or indeed work at all.

I'm really glad that 'the other guy' didn't get in. Something tells me he was really quite astonishingly connected to that atrosity that was 9/11. Would be interesting to prove. ;)

I'm also wondering if The Mossad isn't currently learning the lessons the US Navy has already learnt (especially regarding who's ultimately 'in charge'). Wouldn't surprise me if they got a little more 'humble' and 'quiet' if they finally worked that one out. :scared:
 
This discussion has put forward many very good thoughts, both positive and negative in regard to Obama. Each time I read the latest posts, I consider what has been said and try to see how each point presented could be possible. However, I just keep coming back to what I have learned about this universe, and how the President is not in control of what actually happens, or is controlled in a puppet like fashion by the PTB. This leads me to think that it is all wishful thinking, as PepperFritz has already stated a few times here.

Obama is already a part of the system. He had to have made those connections and/or decisions to get elected to Congress. I am pretty sure he has done the same and probably more to put himself into position to even run for President. Now he has been elected President and is putting together a staff and his plans on how to run the country. What kind of commitments did he have to make to get elected? Who is sitting out there waiting for the payoff for their 'efforts' to help him get elected? He has already committed to full support of Israel, and many other issues that seem to fall in place with the normal patterns we have all seen before.

I wonder about what is really going on? We do still live in a 3D STS world, controlled by 4D STS and the 3D PTB at this time. As Xman stated, there is still the possibility of another false flag operation, where martial law is declared, and Bush stays in office. This could be a hugh smoke screen to deflect attention away from events that are happening right now, i.e. the economic crisis, the current wars being waged in the middle east, and the one that the PTB want to start in Iran.

I think there are so many possibilities involved with this election, that trying to predict any of the possible future outcomes is nothing but 3D anticipation and/or wishful thinking. I know I can be totally wrong about this, but this is what I am seeing. As for myself, I plan on continuing to seek data on this subject and wait and see what unfolds. I do feel the need to guard against making any judgements or decisions at this time. I will keep the future open at this point.

my 2 cents,

gwb
 
gwb1995 said:
Now he has been elected President and is putting together a staff and his plans on how to run the country. What kind of commitments did he have to make to get elected? Who is sitting out there waiting for the payoff for their 'efforts' to help him get elected?

Well, perhaps this is one election payoff?

_http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/news/story?id=3717068

Obama makes case for Olympics in Chicago in 2016
 
Black Swan said:
gwb1995 said:
Now he has been elected President and is putting together a staff and his plans on how to run the country. What kind of commitments did he have to make to get elected? Who is sitting out there waiting for the payoff for their 'efforts' to help him get elected?

Well, perhaps this is one election payoff?

_http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/news/story?id=3717068

Obama makes case for Olympics in Chicago in 2016

Can't vouch for the authentiicity of this but it ties in well with recent JFK coverage:
Could Obama ‘Pull a JFK’ in Office? Kennedy-Obama Parallels Intriguing - Michael Collins Piper

BARACK OBAMA ENTHUSIASTS who were angered by the appointment of Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff, are hoping Obama will “pull a JFK” and work around Emanuel—a hawkish advocate for Israel—and those powerful pro-Israel families in Chicago who helped elect Obama.

One of John F. Kennedy’s first appointments was Myer Feldman as his point man for Jewish and Israeli affairs—an important post, considering the Jewish lobby was suspicious of JFK’s commitment to Israel.

Says author Seymour Hersh, “the president viewed Feldman, whose strong support for Israel was widely known, as a necessary evil whose highly visible White House position was a political debt that had to be paid.”

However, JFK was determined to make certain that nobody—Feldman in particular—could circumvent any of his Middle East policy intentions: Hersh has written that “the president’s most senior advisors, most acutely McGeorge Bundy, the national security advisor, desperately sought to cut Feldman out of the flow of Middle East paperwork.”

Another JFK aide told Hersh:

“It was hard to tell the difference between what Feldman said and what the Israeli ambassador said.”

JFK had his own suspicions about Feldman, according to his close friend, journalist Charles Bartlett, who recalled visiting JFK at his home in Massachusetts where talk turned to Feldman’s Zionist agenda. JFK said, “I imagine Mike’s having a meeting of the Zionists in the cabinet room.” JFK’s brother, Robert Kennedy, later said Feldman’s “major interest was Israel” rather than the United States.

In fact, despite Feldman’s position in the White House, JFK was making it clear to the foreign policy establishment that he (JFK) was determined to find a path to Middle East peace, stopping Israel from building nuclear weapons of mass destruction, and helping the Palestinians violently displaced by Israel in 1948.

As part of his effort to stop Israel’s bomb program, JFK worked behind the back of James Angleton, the CIA’s liaison with Israel and a strong pro-Israel partisan. When JFK appointed a new CIA director, friend John McCone, he directed McCone to shut Angleton out of efforts to stop Israel’s nuclear weapons program.

Like JFK, Obama forged relationships with billionaire Jewish families closely tied to Israel and to the Jewish organized crime network dubbed “the Supermob” by investigative journalist Gus Russo. A Chicago politician, Obama had to rely on Chicago-based billionaire pro-Israel families—the Crowns and Pritzgers —whose “Supermob” origins Russo outlined in his book Supermob.

But, as the historical record shows, JFK bucked these interests when he became president. JFK captured the White House by narrowly winning a number of states in which the Chicago crime syndicate arranged vote fraud on his behalf. Although legend presents Chicago under the heel of Italian-American gangster Sam Giancana, Giancana’s nephew has revealed his uncle was no more than a front man for the real Chicago crime boss, Jewish mobster Hyman Larner, longtime partner of Meyer Lansky, chief of the national Jewish crime syndicate and its “Mafia” elements.

JFK’s contact with the Jewish lobby was New York financier Abraham Feinberg, a major fundraiser (along with the Crown family of Chicago) for Israel’s nuclear weapons program. Needing critical Jewish money and Jewish votes in the 1960 election, JFK met with Feinberg and other Jewish dollar barons at Feinberg’s home. Later, Feinberg and his cronies agreed to come up with $500,000 for JFK. Feinberg later claimed JFK’s “voice broke” and that “he got emotional” with gratitude.

However, according to Hersh: “Kennedy was anything but grateful the next morning in describing the session” to Charles Bartlett. Hersh noted that JFK had “driven to Bartlett’s home in northwest Washington and dragged his friend on a walk, where he recounted a much different version of the meeting the night before.”

“As an American citizen he was outraged,” Bartlett recalled, “to have a Zionist group come to him and say: ‘We know your campaign is in trouble.We’re willing to pay your bills if you’ll let us have control of your Middle East policy.’ Kennedy . . . also resented the crudity with which he’d been approached.”

“They want control,” JFK angrily told Bartlett. Hersh added that “Bartlett further recalled Kennedy promising to himself that if he ever did get to be president, he was going to ‘do something about it’”—that is, Jewish money dictating American elections and foreign policy.
-_http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/obama_pull_a_jfk_158.html
 
Back
Top Bottom