C: "Bush will be president until he dies"

[anart]

Pinkerton, I respect your opinion but I will say it is not about rightness.

According to your posts, bltay, it is about you being right - which is unfortunate, since you are, at the base, mistaken. This is often referred to as 'Right Man Syndrome', though in your case, it is likely extreme identification with what you hold to be emotionally true, despite copious evidence to the contrary.

I have seen so many assumptions about what I have posted, and not what is actually there, it is actually mind boggling.

This is because you are being presented with a picture of yourself that you do not want to accept. Basically, you are seeing a reflection of yourself that does not match your understanding - yet the reflection is accurate.

However, an interesting question arises, just what is the opinion of this forum?

This forum is not interested in opinions. It is interested in facts.

Previously anart stated that Obama is the only person who can change anything. In the next post after yours SAO states that no matter who gets into that position nothing will change. Do you see the contradictions?

No, we see you twisting what has been said to fit your own preconceptions. Context - bltay - Context is very important. If the context of those statements is truly lost on you then that indicates that something is missing in your thought processes. The statement about Obama was directly related to Constitutional Law - the statement by SAO was directly related to the big picture, and he is correct in that.

So, is it that context is wholly lost on you, or is it that you are legalistically nitpicking in order to prove yourself 'right' ?

Now you may say how petty this is, but the devil is in the details, and believe it or not I followed through with this to learn something.

No. It is not 'petty' - it is twisting and legalistically nitpicking, which indicates that you are fundamentally incapable of understanding the crux of the matter. The devil is indeed in the details, and you have left all of the details on the floor, scattered about like so much garbage, in order to continue to push your own limited understanding despite the facts of the matter.

Apologies for having to put that so bluntly, but - really - enough is enough. Your agenda is clear and there is no place for such on this forum.

 

[bltay]

Please note the key word in that phrase is "appear." You have created an assumption, and it is probably from me not being able to express the written word well enough, which also made me "appear" to be confrontational.

Or, maybe it is not an assumption but a working hypothesis, and instead of it being more likely to be a communication error as you so quickly surmise, maybe it really is an issue with identification and mis-conceptions on your part? Why are you so quick to dismiss it and instantly declare to to be improbable? Is that based on data or ego?

SAO, thank you for your reply. I am not sure I follow, but I think you mean am I not sure that I was not being confrontational? Or are you referring to the entire discussion? You have asked a question I need a little more specifics on.

As I said, I am observing, but right now I see nothing to lose by having him removed and everything to gain by putting someone else in. Now this next president may not be any better, who knows. But right now, Obama has proven that we are still at the bottom of the barrel which is the level set by Bush/Cheney, and we have nowhere to go but up.

I disagree, I think it won't make a difference. What is there to gain from replacing one puppet by another? But there is something to lose - it perpetuates the illusion that it could somehow make a difference. The problem is not the president, and neither can it be the solution.

I agree that it may not make any difference. I have said this all along. But if the future is open and dependent upon the actions we take, how can you say definitely that it will not make any difference? As I stated, which is in agreement with you, that it will never be a cure all. But then, if it does not make any difference at all, I still ask what has anyone got to lose by replacing someone so obviously beholden to the PTB?

For the same reason you post current event stories on the SOTT page. To analyze them and come to an understanding of how the PTB are woking through the systems to carry out their schemes.

I think SOTT often reports on theatre just to point out that it is theatre. The PTB do not really work through the "system" because the system changes a billion times a day to suit their fancy - and even that constant morphing of the system is part of the larger "system" that allows for such morphing, and that larger system is the pathocracy. For example, one day the geneva conventions are there, the next day they might as well not be. What is the purpose of pointing out that the PTB are violating the geneva conventions? Because that helps understand that PTB completely disregard any of their own laws and policies and agreements when it suits them. The problem is not the violation of geneva convention - it's just a symptom and helps us understand the larger problem of psychopathy and the entropic system of lies and control. And the point is not to argue that the geneva conventions must be "respected" - if you start a movement to reinstate the geneva conventions it will really miss the mark. No written agreement or document is without its loopholes, nevermind that it can be subjectively twisted and interpreted in any number of ways to the point of being practically meaningless. The geneva conventions much like the constitution is more important symbolically than literally, as in, what they "intend" to represent. Expecting them to actually work isn't the right approach. Any time a document appears to "work" is because it is allowed to work by the PTB to maintain the illusion that a society can somehow exist unconsciously and mechanically, governed by a system of a billion rules, laws, regulations, and agreements, and that it all can somehow work out and everything is good and dandy. In reality, none of it has ever mattered or worked, and it all changes like the wind throughout all of history, on a daily basis. It all comes down to how the PTB wish to "define reality" today.

I have no argument with you here. I don't believe I have said anything to contradict this.

The fact that anyone ever thought a constitution could ever work, or that making "3 branches of government" is somehow going to protect them, that is the problem. Knowledge protects, never a mechanical system, ever. I think we can liken that to rituals - our "system" is nothing but a big ritual.

How did you come up with the idea that knowledge protects? Was it not from the C's speaking through Laura? It is great that this info exists and is accessible now, but what were the people who wrote the constitution supposed to do. I think they tried very hard to work within the framework in which their perceptions laid, they did not have any choice. We can sit here and criticize it all day, but put yourself in that position at that time and ask yourself what you would have done. They had no concept of "knowledge protects" and not even any way of obtaining that information. I don't see anything laughable about this.

 

[bltay]

Executive orders bypass your American congress.... I am aware of this as an Aussie.

To a limited extent this is true. These orders have limited applications.

Nevertheless you are quoting your new stories from World Net Daily which I looked up and it is described as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldNetDaily

an American journalism website founded in May 1997 with the stated intentions of "exposing wrongdoing, corruption and abuse of power."[1] According to its homepage, WorldNetDaily is "an independent news company dedicated to uncompromising journalism, seeking truth and justice and revitalizing the role of the free press as a guardian of liberty." and has a conservative christian perspective[1].

And you appear to be taking their Obama line in a fabulous example of sock puppetry.

Claims about Barack Obama

During the closing days of the 2008 presidential campaign, and in the weeks following Barack Obama's election as president of the United States, WorldNetDaily posted numerous articles that advanced conspiracy theories about his citizenship status, alleging he is not constitutionally eligible to be president because he is not a natural-born citizen and that his Hawaiian birth certificate is a forgery. These claims, however, have been disputed by Obama and Hawaii's state health department.[40][41] WND frequently posted articles on its homepage giving updates on numerous lawsuits that questioned Obama's citizenship status and were aimed at postponing the election and, later, the inauguration. These articles featured interviews with the plaintiffs, which included former New Jersey lawyer Leo Donofrio, 9/11 Truth attorney Philip J. Berg, and former Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes. WND and Joseph Farah also touted The Obama Nation, a book critical of Obama written by WND staff reporter Jerome Corsi, which repeated the forgery allegations and claimed that Obama was born in Kenya. These claims, like many others in The Obama Nation, were widely disputed by Obama's campaign, progressive bloggers, and news outlets. WND also began an online petition to have Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate released to the public,[42] even though Obama's campaign already posted it on its' website and a hard copy of the document is sealed by state law. The website also unsuccessfully urged Supreme Court justices to hear the Donofrio, Berg and Keyes lawsuits.[43] Several WND columnists frequently revisited the birth certificate allegations, including Farah; Corsi; Christian television host Hal Lindsey;[44] Faith and Values Coalition co-chair Janet Porter[45][46] and talk radio host Barbara Simpson.[47]

In an August 23, 2008, article about Berg's lawsuit, WND claimed it had examined Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate with forgery experts and, "found the document to be authentic," contradicting claims made in other WND articles and in Corsi's book.[48] However, on December 20, after numerous liberal websites, politicians and media personalities touted WND's findings, Joseph Farah claimed in a WND column that the forgery experts had not actually concluded it was authentic and that, "None of them could report conclusively that the electronic image [of the birth certificate on Obama's campaign website] was authentic or that it was a forgery."[49] After MSNBC's Keith Olbermann named Farah the, "Worst Person in the World," on his show, Countdown, for his apparent reversal, Farah defended himself, claiming, "the veracity of that image was never the major issue of contention. Rather, the major issue is where is the rest of the birth certificate – the part that explains where the baby was born, who the delivery doctor was, etc...I can tell you WND has done its part to find out the truth."[50]

In a February 10, 2009, column, Janet Porter further alleged that President Obama was acting as a mole for the Soviet Union. Porter suggested that Obama was raised as an atheist and Communist and was subsequently trained by Soviet agents during the early 1990s, despite the fact that the Soviet Union no longer existed at that time. Porter also suggested that Obama's election as president was the result of a long-term Communist conspiracy. Porter's only evidence for these allegations was a series of uncorroborated claims made to her by an American computer programmer, who claimed to have spoken to a Russian scientist in 1994 who told him that Obama was a Communist and was being groomed by Russian agents to infiltrate the presidency.[51][52]

Is Wikipedia cointelpro?
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1212.msg5950#msg5950

You are wearing your heart on your sleeve.

In this case I am, which was my intent. It was time to be hammered, to let the friction start and the mirroring begin.

 

[anart]

In this case I am, which was my intent. It was time to be hammered, to let the friction start and the mirroring begin.

It began quite a while ago and revealed the truth of the matter, as it always does. Did you miss that part??

 

[curious_richard]

I agree that it may not make any difference. I have said this all along. But if the future is open and dependent upon the actions we take, how can you say definitely that it will not make any difference?

I think it is perfectly clear, to me at least, that Obama is a puppet. In my opinion, he was chosen because he had no real way of getting to the top unless he agreed to be a puppet. Also, he probably has a vast amount of baggage that could be used as blackmail, another point that would make him a compliant puppet.

But then, if it does not make any difference at all, I still ask what has anyone got to lose by replacing someone so obviously beholden to the PTB?

One can waste time and emotional energy on meaningless side-shows. Again, it is clear to me that any replacement would also be just as loyal to the powers. Time and energy are precious. Why waste even the smallest amount if there is no payoff?

 

[Beau]

Is Wikipedia cointelpro?

This is a deflection from Johnno's point, which was that your rhetoric was strikingly similar to that of World Net Daily. If you are going to ignore a point someone is making about your posts, at least do so without trying to subtly manipulate readers. Whether or not Wikipedia is COINTELPRO is irrelevant in the context of the discussion. Would you have preferred an alternate source for finding a description of WND?

 

[Johnno]

There's this from my neck of the woods. Written by CNET's Asher Moses in the Sydney Morning Herald.

Perhaps Wiki is sometimes Cointelpro courtesy of World Net Daily's the Jerusalem bureau chief?

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2009/03/11/1236447270592.html

Obama Wiki fiddler caught red-handed

Asher Moses

A right-wing pundit has been caught red-handed manufacturing controversy after claiming US President Barack Obama's Wikipedia page was being whitewashed, in a scandal that fooled big news outlets including Fox News.

Aaron Klein, the Jerusalem bureau chief at online news publication WorldNetDaily (WND), reported that Obama's Wikipedia entry was far too positive and did not mention his claimed links with controversial pastor Jeremiah Wright and "Weatherman terrorist" Bill Ayers.

The entry also did not mention concerns surrounding Obama's eligibility to serve as US commander-in-chief due to an alleged lack of proof that he was born in the US, Klein said. But Klein neglected to mention that there was an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to the Obama citizenship claims.

The claims are regarded in the US as conservative conspiracy theories.

Klein claimed Wikipedia's army of volunteer editors were quickly censoring edits on the Obama entry and appeared on Fox News airing the claims.

He reported that a Wikipedia user, Jerusalem21, had attempted to add in the missing details but they were quickly deleted by a Wikipedia administrator for being "fringe" theories. When the user attempted to add the details a second time he was suspended from Wikipedia for three days.

Klein did not identify who owned the Jerusalem21 account but further digging by the ConWebWatch blog discovered that the only entry the user had tried to edit other than Obama's was Klein's. Jerusalem21 had created Klein's entry and edited it 37 times, adding several links and pictures.

Claims that Jerusalem21 was Klein himself are backed up by discussions by Wikipedia administrators on the talk page attached to Klein's entry.

"It reads as a total puff piece and was obviously heavily influenced by Klein himself and cronies/sockpuppets at WND," one wrote.

Further, when questions were raised about the identity of Jerusalem21, Klein edited his original story to remove references to Jerusalem21, replacing them with "one Wikipedia user".

Eventually, in response to emailed questions from Wired News, Klein admitted he had a hand in engineering the facts used to stand up his scandal. But he blamed the Jerusalem21 edits on his researcher.

"I am not 'Jerusalem21', but I do know the Wikipedia user (he works with me and does research for me), and I worked with him on this story," Klein said.

It is not clear whether he was referring to Klein but Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales recently wrote on his Twitter page: "Conspiracy theorists are exhausting. The facts mean nothing to them; their pursuit of a villain trumps all. Any response only brings ire."

WorldNetDaily has a history of attacking Wikipedia and Obama. At the time of writing, two of the lead stories on the site are headlined "Obama earns an 'F' on performance" and "Has Obama been snubbing U.N. chief?".

In December, WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah, miffed that his Wikipedia entry had been modified to include a line that he was a "noted homosexual", wrote an opinion piece labelling the free encyclopedia "a provider of inaccuracy and bias" and a "wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known".

In May last year, another article accused Wikipedia of promoting porn by including "detailed photos of nude homosexual men engaging in sex acts and a variety of other sexually explicit images and content".

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

I agree that it may not make any difference. I have said this all along. But if the future is open and dependent upon the actions we take, how can you say definitely that it will not make any difference? As I stated, which is in agreement with you, that it will never be a cure all. But then, if it does not make any difference at all, I still ask what has anyone got to lose by replacing someone so obviously beholden to the PTB?

It's like asking how do I know that waking up in the morning and going outside will not change the world. In our non-linear universe it might, but it would be ridiculously unreasonable to hope that it will since anything could potentially effect anything else. But it seems that the reason you're so unreasonably attached to the idea that changing a president *might* somehow make a change is because of your identification with it. You're using a pretty pathological rationalization that since nobody can guarantee you with certainty that it won't make a difference, that it's worth a shot. I don't think it is, I think it would be a huge waste of time and energy when instead you could be doing far more useful and beneficial things like actually looking to understand the human condition and help others who ask understand it too.

Or, maybe it is not an assumption but a working hypothesis, and instead of it being more likely to be a communication error as you so quickly surmise, maybe it really is an issue with identification and mis-conceptions on your part? Why are you so quick to dismiss it and instantly declare to to be improbable? Is that based on data or ego?

SAO, thank you for your reply. I am not sure I follow, but I think you mean am I not sure that I was not being confrontational? Or are you referring to the entire discussion? You have asked a question I need a little more specifics on.

It's simple, Anart is suggesting you are identified which is why you're misunderstanding. You are suggesting you're not identified, that instead it's just mis-communication. I'm asking why you dismiss Anart's analysis so quickly? It seems that the reason may be because of the identification.

How did you come up with the idea that knowledge protects? Was it not from the C's speaking through Laura? It is great that this info exists and is accessible now, but what were the people who wrote the constitution supposed to do.

I'm not saying that they should've known better - that would be an unreasonable expectation of humanity in any point of our history. I'm just pointing out the problems given what we know now, so that we can address them with objectivity instead of repeating the mistakes of the past.

I think they tried very hard to work within the framework in which their perceptions laid, they did not have any choice. We can sit here and criticize it all day, but put yourself in that position at that time and ask yourself what you would have done. They had no concept of "knowledge protects" and not even any way of obtaining that information. I don't see anything laughable about this.

So you assume. Perhaps the problem is not that they had no access to such knowledge - which is really universal and intuitive, and anyone who addresses something with great care, thought, openness, and love, will inevitably arrive at this concept because historically some people have always known it, they were simply ignored. This is not some great secret that needs to be "channeled" at all and there are plenty of examples that show that it was always known, not just by some select groups but by even those who were in the governments at the time. Your identification with "they did their best" blinds you from understanding that those who were "drafting" our form of government and our laws never cared to "do their best" with love and objectivity and to foster a society based on that. And people were never allowed, by those same people, to have knowledge and objectivity and to be able to care about the right things. Oh sure they were allowed to care for things like Jesus or a political party or "stuff" all they wanted, because that was all managed and worked in the best interests of those who would otherwise "lose" if everyone started caring about the truth or empathy or other dangerous things of that nature.

You don't honestly think that things like slavery are just "mistakes" that happen despite people "doing their best" with the resources they have? If you can understand how the same kind of "humans" and the same kind of dynamic that created slavery and religions is also responsible for almost all our processes and political systems and laws, then it becomes clear that it was never ever humans just "failing" because they just didn't know any better, it was much more nefarious than that. Have you ever read Political Ponerology? If not, I would highly highly recommend it.

 

[Pierre]

Have you ever read Political Ponerology? If not, I would highly highly recommend it.

And this book might help to understand this "Obama = illegitimate President" topics differently.

On an individual level, PP show that the real difference is not between blacks and whites, Democrats and Republicans, US born and foreign Presidents but between psychopathic and non psychopathic individuals. From this perspective a foreign non psychopathic President is far better for the nation's interest than an American psychopathic President.

on a societal level, PP shows that after a certain point (the US are obviously far behind this point) the whole system is made by and for psychopathic individuals. Focusing our energy on changing puppets is, as Mullah Nassr Eddin would put it, trying to remove a bubon from a plagued body.

So the only solution is to understand and cure the real causes of this disease without getting swallowed by some of its apparent symptoms.

 

[spyraal]

Hello Bltay,

Now as far as Bush/Cheney decimating the Constitution, I disagree with that also.

Executive orders bypass your American congress.... I am aware of this as an Aussie.

To a limited extent this is true. These orders have limited applications.

If you can, take the time to read the artcle http://www.sott.net/articles/show/180319-Do-the-Secret-Bush-Memos-Amount-to-Treason-Top-Constitutional-Scholar-Says-Yes on SOTT, and see if after reading this article you feel like reconsidering your above quoted words.

Also,(emphasis mine)

I also stated that the intent of the founders was to have a natural born citizen be president because he/she is more likely to serve the interest of the U.S. It is a fundamental law of the land. Our present form of government has become too corrupted to expect birth to determine loyalties now, although I would still expect someone being born here to be more likely to protect national interests than someone who is not. And once again, if you do not force this law to apply, it really opens the door for the Hitlers, MaoTse Tungs, Lennins, etc. to just walk in and say I want to run for president. The foreign interest could take over without any kind of confrontation.

I am only expressing my opinion here, but what is the phrase "fundamental law of the land" but an obvious sacred cow? Why is that? What is "The Land"? Did America exist 5000 years ago, or will it exist 5000 years in the future? Can't you feel the true scale of things? Is this really a "fundamental law" or rather in others words an "unchallenged imposed belief"? True fundamental laws are not created by man, but they rule man instead. And they rule us with a vicious force, as these are the laws of the Cosmos and not of any single country in our tiny planet.

But since you seem to use and be familiar with Laura's work, the Cs, higher densities etc., how can you explain your belief in "national interests" that fight against "foreign interests" and the lot? Can't you see the contradiction between the being a 3rd density STS creature and being an American with national interests, both at the same time? Actually, this is not very contradicting in terms of content ;) , but what i mean is that you seem to selectively use elements of two entirely different cosmologies, and then you are selectively fusing these elements to create your own subjective but -to my eyes- self-contradicting world view.

Anyway, this is but my own subjective opinion, but i hope that helps.

:)

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

The only thing that makes Hitler, Lenin, and Mao "foreign" is that they are psychopaths - and this includes Bush, and many other "US leaders" both visible and behind the curtain. Why would you think that someone from another country has a greater chance to be a psychopath? Anybody who has feelings of nationalism, whether a psychopath or just pathocracized non-psychopath, is unfit for office. Any kind of arbitrary preference of one group over another, whether it be a nation, a religion, a race, or anything else, is damaging to not only your own nation, but all others as well. Why is racism considered a bad thing, but nationalism, which is exactly the same thing - arbitrary preference of one group over another, a good thing? That's funny.

 

[BlackCartouche]

Concerning your question about Bush still being president, the answer is NO. Bush has left the Office of President, and could not be brought back into power according to the constitution. If Obama were to be removed from office for the reasons you are asking about, or for any other reason via impeachment, the line of succession is clear. The Vice President would be in line to replace the former sitting President.

wb, I agree with you that Bush is out, his 2 terms are up and the constitutional 2 term limitation prevents him from ever being president again.

I don't know much about the constitution or how rigorously it works, but I came across this comment after a search in Quora - I thought the commenter, Edward, makes quite a compelling scenario:

>>>

https://www.quora.com/How-many-time...t-of-the-U-S-A-What-is-a-written-law-about-it

"I see a great deal of misunderstanding in the comments here. Unfortunately, the misunderstanding is interspersed with accurate information, so I will try to tease out the accurate information from the misconceptions.
The controlling Amendment is the 22nd Amendment. The operative section is section1:

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

"This is one of the most poorly worded of the amendments, because it is ambiguous. On the other hand, this ambiguity has never caused a problem. Our founders did leave many things to the political process, and the situation that would reveal the ambiguity has never occurred, amost entirely, if not entirely for political reasons.
Here is where the ambiguity exists:

"Suppose a President is elected twice to the Presidency (or once to the Presidency after having served two years of a term to which someone else was elected.) Then suppose some subsequent election, the former (or outgoing) President runs as Vice-President. The ticket wins, and then the newly elected President resigns, elevating the former President to the Presidency.
In this case, the President who is beginning this hypothetical third term was not elected to this third term, so the third-term President is abiding the letter of the Constitution.

"Of course, such a person would be stepping all over the spirit of the Twenty-second amendment. This would seem to indicate an error in drafting the Twenty-second amendment, and I know of no credible scholar or publication that suggests this wording was intentional to permit just this scenario.
If someone tried this, it would cause an uproar far worse than the 2000 Presidential election. At least for now, the political process would prevent a former President from running as a Vice-Presidential candidate.

"But there is a less henious situation. Suppose a former President decided to run for Congress and became the Speaker of the House. And suppose both the President and Vice-President die, resign or are rendered somehow incapable of serving. What then? Could the former President serve a third term, given that he was un-elected?
Well, again, no former President has served in Congress since Andrew Johnson entered the Senate after his Presidential term (and the only other person to enter Congress after being President was John Quincy Adams.) So the political process alone has made this a moot point.

"If this very unlikely situation were to arise, I cannot predict how it would turn out. It would depend upon a number of factors. I would think that it would require strange political circumstances for this to be politically acceptable.
One scenario that might permit this is if we were at war, the former President were well respected during her (his) two terms of service, and the President and VP were killed by an enemy attack. In that case, I could see the American people rallying behind the third term.
Other than that, I think it would be a major political crisis.

"So to most people's understanding, a President can serve up to ten years, completing up to two years of a term to which someone else was elected and two terms on her (his) own.
No President since Franklin D. Roosevelt, however, has served more than eight years."

<<<

So I thought, in light of Jeb Bush with possible push for presidential candidacy 2020 - and in light of what appears to be a concerted attempt to slowly nurture back a rise for 'popularity' of George W Bush through man-of-the-people type TV-time such as on Jimmy Kimmel… One wonders if such a possibility for a 3rd Term stage could well be in the works via somehow riding in on the back of 'Trojan horse' lil bro "President Jeb" - with the Cs being 3D-literal 'correct' after-all... Coz, hey, anything now possible in these, like, craaaaaaazy times, right?

And to reiterate Edward here: "...the former President were well respected during her (his) two terms of service,"
- with Bush "both one of the most popular and unpopular U.S. presidents in history" (Wikipedia George W. Bush - Wikipedia) - And given how more and more polarized and divisive the bewildered herd are in choosing whom they want representing leadership....? All it takes is for the right climate and the fertilising of particular events converging at the right time... And Hey presto - Craaaaaaaaaaazy times!