@Mike’s America: You really didn’t read a word of what I wrote, did you? Or perhaps your own life has to be compartmentalized. Only pray at church, only read in the library, only eat in the dining room…. but you’ll piss anywhere, won’t you?
Cary: Your snide little name calling is the kind of “civility” we have come to expect from your kind. Civility, like free speech, is a one way street with you folks.
It’s pretty clear you think that Obama going to church is unimportant. Obviously you are comfortable with his priority of ME FIRST.
Whether Obama goes to church, or how or where he prays, or whether he prays to God or Allah isn’t the point here.
The point is that he would rather go to the gym for himself rather than go to church. It’s a pattern we have seen before. If you are so ill informed about the visit to the troops in hospital I suggest you look it up. Security was not an issue. Which do you think is more secure: a military hospital or a public square in Berlin surrounded by hundreds of thousands of screaming Germans?
One would think that if the country is SOOOO screwed up, as you people constantly suggest, that Obama just might want to reassure the masses by showing his face in church even if he doesn’t believe what is practiced there.
So, I guess I can conclude that things in this country are not so bad after all.
I’m normally quite civil, but when you twist what I say into what you want it to mean, then you take what you get. There was no “name calling”, by the way, yet another twist of yours.
I couldn’t care less about Obama’s church going habits, nor any other President’s or politician’s, and showing their face in one isn’t going to make me feel better about a damn thing. Frankly, your logic, your argument and your methods of conveying both are rather sophomoric.
At the time I addressed your troops issue, I wasn’t home and didn’t have time to look it up -AS I SAID. Frankly, it isn’t relevant to the going to church issue.
So grasp at straws however you want. If this is the best you can do, then I feel pretty good. But I’d recommend, instead of offering ad hominem hyperbole, perhaps you’d do well to take some time to do some praying yourself.
So, I’m done with you. Go ahead and have the last word, but try to make it something intelligent, PLEASE.
“Come on guys…go easy on Obambi. He has to look good for all his male “staffers” you know.”
And just when you thought the discourse couldn’t get any more lowbrow, a gay joke emits from the smelly depths of the locker room. “Yeah, man, he’s a sissy. Yuk, yuk.”
In contrast to the Politico article this month, other articles in Nov. looking at that the Obamas and church finding reported Bush attended church very infrequently over his eight years in office:
In a November 17 article, the Associated Press’ Matthew Barakat reported that Obama “could choose, as many presidents have done, not to attend services at all. President George W. Bush, for instance, has only infrequently attended services in Washington, occasionally going to St. John’s [Church, near the White House].”
In a November 14 article, Time magazine senior editor Amy Sullivan noted that “Ronald Reagan didn’t go to church at all” and reported that while “[t]he Clintons drove down the street every Sunday to Foundry United Methodist … George W. Bush never became a regular member of any local church, preferring to worship most often at the chapel at Camp David.”
In a November 11 article, The Hill’s Jordy Yager wrote: “President Bush is widely known for his religious beliefs, but for eight years has not frequented a local church, at times citing security concerns.” Yager added that “security does not make regular worship impossible. Both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, for example, attended D.C.-area churches. Clinton’s church, Foundry Methodist Church, installed metal detectors because many tourists attended services on Sunday — some simply to catch a glimpse of the president.
…Perhaps Obama could also tout “security concerns” and the economic crisis for his past 3 church “absences”?
I guess he no longer needs the political and social connections that church provided.
Now he’s free to go back to doing what he does best: worship himself!
Mike, here’s one liberal who agrees with you.
I don’t want to keep beating the same horse, but watch Obama with the following in mind.
Firstly, I agree with you 100% that Obama is all about Obama. That was very clear from that excellent PBS special on Obama and McCain which aired the night before the election. Everything he’s done has been done in a very calculated fashion, to advance his own career. This includes moving to South Side Chicago, chumming up to Mayor Daly (through which he met Ayers, a close friend of Daly’s), joining his Church, going to Harvard Law and running for Law Review President, and so forth. I even think that he married Michelle, at least in part, to advance his career.
He has no bed rock principles. He’s not committed to any particular cause or ideology. I think that George W Bush was principled, but so was Jimmy Carter. I think that Clinton and Nixon were not principled. They were also about their own careers. Both, unfortunately, had serious personal flaws.
Obama is like Clinton and Nixon. Obama’s ambition is to be the greatest President in the history of the USA. But the only way he gets there is if he does a spectacularly good job.
What’s he done so far? Well, look at national defense. He’s keeping on Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense. His national security advisor is Marine Gen. Jim Jones. His NSA chief is Admiral Dennis Blair.
George W. Bush’s National Security Advisor was Condoleeza Rice. His Secretary of Defense was Rumsfeld.
So the idea that Obama is going to turn over the keys to Washington DC to Osama Bin Laden are greatly exaggerated.
Obama is an incredible politician. Here’s what I predict. He’s basically going to toss the hard core liberal “base” under the bus. Where else are they going to go? Are they going to vote for Sarah Palin? And he’s going to move as far as he can to the Right to marginalize the GOP and possibly to destroy the GOP, which will lose the economic conservatives to Obama and which will lose the strong national defense segment to Obama and which will be left only with the Evangelicals and racists and anti-immigrants as a dependable base.
Evaluate everything he does and ask yourself if everything he does is not consistent with the above strategy.
It was Ah-Nold’s comment that he made stumping for McCain on the last days of the election about his girly-man arms that is haunting him… I suppose we can cut President Elect Chicken-legs some slack.
Obama has chosen another course. Though he comes out of the McGovern-Jesse Jackson left, he has shed past positions like support for partial birth abortion as fast as he has shed past associations, from William Ayers to ACORN, from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to his fellow parishioners at Trinity United.
One question remains: Will a President Obama, with his party in absolute control of both Houses, revert to the politics and policies of the Left that brought him the nomination, or resist his ex-comrades’ demands that he seize the hour and impose the agenda ACORN, Ayers, Jesse, and Wright have long dreamed of?
Whichever way he decides, he will be at war with them, or at war with us. If Barack wins, a backlash is coming.
I wish it were a joke, Dave. I truly do. Honestly, this is the thing I thought about when first seeing this story. Does he need to exercise like anyone else? Sure. But, Mr. Obama’s affinity to men just seems like the pink polka-dotted elephant in the living room, and had to be at least mentioned. If he wasn’t the Pres.-elect of the U.S.A., I would not loose any sleep over what he does in his private life!
I can’t believe your lack of morale Larry. So for you a President that is a liar, a manipulator, a fraud and an American’s hater is good for this country. WOW! And this is who you vote for. Like all always say: Like attracts like.
And don’t kid yourself, Obama will not be the greatest President, he will be the worst if he ever gets to be sworn in. And I sure hope he won’t be President in January. Obama has a narcissic personality disorder. And American needs someone who will work for them not for himself. Obama is only a puppet in Soro and others crooks hands. He will do hat they will tell him to do and he will ruin this country. When communism will be in U.S., you will see that I was right Larry. Meanwhile, keep dreaming!
Obama did NOTHING to get to the POTUS seat. All his vicious associations and the MSM did it for him. He is only a puppet in their hands. They wanted him there for a very good reason. They want to destroy capitalism and be a socialist Marxist communist country. Period.
The New World Devised by Maurice Strong and George Soros
By Judi McCleod, Monday 24, 2008
Have you ever wondered how capitalism was pushed over the edge of the cliff just six weeks before the American presidential election?
According to financial experts, the world, as we know it will change dramatically by the year 2012. People, who provided for their families only three years ago, will be desperately searching for food.
The story of the economic meltdown of 2008 begins and ends with the United Nations and its carefully managed One World Order.
Behind the curtain of this dark chapter in human misery are ogres Maurice Strong and George Soros.
It is both power lust and an all-consuming hatred of the United States of America that elevated this deadly duo to ogre status.
Fortunately for all of those searching for answers, much of their plan for the world, post November 4, 2008 is already mapped out in writing.
Leading economic experts and Strong agree that in 2012 people will be going hungry.
“Strong has worked diligently and effectively to bring his ideas to fruition, He is now in a position to implement them.” (Henry Lamb, The Rise of Global Governance, available at soverignty.net). “His speeches and writings provide a clear picture of what to expect. In 1991, Strong wrote the introduction to a book published by the Trilateral Commission, called Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World’s Economy and the Earth’s Ecology, by Jim MacNeil. (David Rockefeller wrote the foreword). Strong said this:
“This interlocking…is the new reality of the century, with profound implications for the shape of our institutions of governance, national and international. By the year 2012, these changes must be fully integrated into our economic and political life.”
These chilling words are in line with ones he used for the opening session of the Rio Conference (Earth Summit II) in 1992, that industrialized countries have:
“Developed and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which have produced our present dilemma. It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class—involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing—are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns.”
The only change that has happened since 1992 is that Strong and Soros now have their Agent of Change coming to the White House.
In other words, the world according to Maurice Strong, is unfolding as it should.
In an era ridden by bankruptcies and job loss, Zombie-like cultists will swarm Washington, D.C. for the January 20, 2009 inauguration of Barack Obama.
Voluntary acceptance of global governance is the preferred means of achieving a takeover of America without a single shot having been fired.
“Education programs to teach the “global ethic” have been underway by UNESCO and by UNEP for more than twenty years.” (Page 90, The Rise of Global Governance). “That the U.S. government, through its representatives to the various U.N. agencies, has not already crushed this global governance agenda is s testament to the effectiveness of the U.N.’s education program.”
Back to how to how ogres Strong and Soros, along with others, were able to hijack a world economy.
“A new Economic Security Council (ESC) would replace the existing Economic and Social Council. The new ESC would consist of no more than 23 members who would have responsibility for all international financial and development activities. The IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO—virtually all finance and development activities—would be under the authority of this body. There would be no veto power by any nation. (Italics CFP’s). Nor would there be permanent member status for any nation.”
Bloggers and website owners may recall how the Ohama campaign team seemed to have thousands of volunteers available with G-Mail accounts to send out a barrage of nasty letters any time a blog or website asked too many questions or dared to criticize “The Messiah”.
In a post January 20 world, it seems that Obama will develop his activist base from within the White House.
But in Maurice Strong’s New World, NGOs will flag the new order about truth tellers: “The Commission (on Global Governance) believes that the U.N. should protect the “security of the people” inside the borders of sovereign nations, with or without the invitation of the national government. It proposes the expansion of an NGO “early warning” network to function through the Petitions Council to alert the U.N. to possible action.” (Italics CFP’s).
Maurice Strong has had a longtime influence with the major Foundations, which provide the funding for NGOs, and he has influence with the major international NGOs that coordinate the activities of the thousands of smaller NGOs around the world.
Small wonder that Strong spends his time far away in Communist China these days.
But there is a silver lining to be found even with the darkest of storm clouds over America and something for Americans to contemplate over the upcoming holidays.
In spite of the hype coming out of the Office of the President-elect, Obama is merely a fop for the global elite. He is their, and not the people’s true agent of change.
The January 20 inauguration with its promise of 5 million observers in Washington, D.C. will be the extravaganza of a lifetime, deepening recession notwithstanding.
It is Obama’s job to demoralize the 58 million people who did not buy into his campaign and for all of those who do not want One World Order.
Starring among all the glitterati at the Inauguration Ball, Barack and Michelle are like the stick figures from a kindergartener’s drawing, for this is an emperor who truly has no clothes.
Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, and Glenn Beck.
One question remains: Will a President Obama, with his party in absolute control of both Houses, revert to the politics and policies of the Left that brought him the nomination, or resist his ex-comrades’ demands that he seize the hour and impose the agenda ACORN, Ayers, Jesse, and Wright have long dreamed of?
O.K. So either Obama is going to be an extreme leftist or he’s going to be following an ACORN, Ayers, Jesse, Wright agenda. One or the other.
So precisely which of these constituencies engineered the nominations of Robert Gates, Marine Gen. Jim Jones, and Admiral Dennis Blair? Let me say it again: he’s keeping on the Secretary of Defense of George W Bush. His National Security Advisor is the former Commandant of the US Marine Corps. His National Security Administration Director is the former Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.
And Craig thinks that Obama would destroy capitalism and turn the USA into a “socialist Marxist” country.
Now, were Obama a principled idealist, he might just do that. But he’s not. Were he to do that, he wouldn’t even be re-elected, much less go down in history as the greatest President ever.
Craig thinks that Obama is a puppet.
Whatever Obama is, he’s no one’s puppet.
Craig is underestimating Obama.
Let’s look at another Pat Buchanan quote, courtesy of Mike:
Obama has chosen another course. Though he comes out of the McGovern-Jesse Jackson left, he has shed past positions like support for partial birth abortion as fast as he has shed past associations, from William Ayers to ACORN, from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to his fellow parishioners at Trinity United.
This isn’t precisely correct. Obama didn’t “come out of the McGovern-Jesse Jackson left.” This implies that he grew up on the South Side of Chicago and had mentors and sponsors along the way. But this isn’t what happened. Obama chose to move to the South Side of Chicago as a grown man. He grew up in Hawaii, moved to Los Angeles and went to Occidental College (a decidedly non-Jesse Jackson type of place), then to Columbia, then worked in New York for 4 years, then made the calculated decision to move to the South Side of Chicago, because he thought it gave him the best opportunities for a political career. He became a Chicago liberal because to succeed in politics as an African American in Chicago, you had to be a Chicago liberal. The idea that he is some sort of Jesse Jackson protege is ludicrous. Jackson himself said earlier this year that he’d like to “castrate” Obama, because Jackson thought he was a phony civil rights liberal, as opposed to being a principled civil rights liberal.
Obama has no allegiance to any ideology. He is a calculating politician, and he’s calculated his position precisely as I’ve described it. He doesn’t give a s— about William Ayers or ACORN or Wright or Jackson or Soros. He doesn’t need Soros or any other fat cat liberal financier. He’s got a donor list of over 3,000,000 people who donated an average of 85 dollars apiece to his campaign, enabling him to raise record amounts of money. He doesn’t need to go around to dinners with fat cat donors. George Will and David Brooks have both praised this aspect of his campaign. It gives him a great strength — he’s beholden to no one, except a vast constituency of reasonably average sorts of people. Like me, who, by coincidence, donated exactly $85 to his campaign, in response to 3 separate email solicitations.
Why did I support him? Precisely because I believe that his ambition is to be the greatest President in history and has the competence to have a shot at doing this, and we as a nation could currently use an administration driven by pragmatism as opposed to being driven by ideology.
Craig has made some predictions concerning what Obama will to to the country. I’ve made some predictions concerning what Obama will do for the country.
Unlike the situation which existed before the election, when this was all theoretical, we’ll actually have the chance to see who’s predictions pass the test of time.
Larry: Keeping Gates as Sec. Def. isn’t so much proof of Obama’s desire to govern as a centrist than as a desire to avoid any blame for anything that might go wrong the next four years. It’s easier to keep Gates and blame him when things go wrong than to pick some newcomer and get stuck with the responsiblity when he screws up.
And yes, Obama comes less from the McGovern mold of the party than he does the far left radical/marxist wing. From his mother who attended the “red church” in Washington state to Frank Marshall Davis, the stalinist who mentored him in Hawaill he’s much further left than McGovern ever was.
But you’re right that he’s not stupid and will likely continue to disguise his ideological leanings and that will be easy for him since he’s more interested in himself first, second and third than he is interested in promoting marxism.
It remains to be seen whether someone so egocentric can put aside his own desires and truly serve the people well enough to be counted as a great president. Perhaps you ought to define what you mean when you use the term.
I’d say it’s more likely that the character flaws which were all so evident, but hushed up by the media, during the campaign will at some point come to haunt him in the White House.
We saw this very clearly with Bill Clinton and since Obama is appointing former Clintonites like Eric Holder who have certain ethics and judgement issues we may very well see that scenario played out again in a different way.
All that campaign money and spending is bound to be the seeds for eventual corruption and scandal. The last eight years of President Bush have been remarkably scandal free. In a few years we may be reminded what real corruption and scandal are.
[…] Comment on Obama Skips Church and Heads to the Gym Instead….Again … It is Obama’s job to demoralize the 58 million people who did not buy into his campaign and for all of those who do not want One World Order. Starring among all the glitterati at the Inauguration Ball, Barack and Michelle are like the … […]
Retaining Bush people as national security appointees may not affect Obama’s possible plan to remake america in the socialist mold.
IMHO, that’s more of an economic question rather than one affected by national security. A national security disaster would do more to threaten Obama’s hold on the presidency, and thus his marxist plans for america.
With Bush people in charge of national security, Obama knows he is getting people better qualified than his kumbayah democrats to handle this important area.
I see Obama as driven by personal ambition for power first, then by idealogy. He has to secure his power first, and avoid anything that may disturb it, like a national security crisis(eg:massive terrorist attack). But then, having secured this angle, he will carry on with his marxist plans to increase govt control of money and assets and to redistribute wealth as he sees fit, to further increase his power by creating a new class of voters financially dependent on handouts from his admin.
His abandonment of the extreme left is typical chicago gangsta style: use em and throw em under the bus when they ain’t useful anymore. With Obama, all of them get thrown, his pastor Wright, Ayers, the extreme left, his white grandmother…….
Sig said: “With Bush people in charge of national security, Obama knows he is getting people better qualified than his kumbayah democrats to handle this important area.”
Absolutely right!
The problem will come when his liberal base demand he lives up to his promises to gut the military and particularly missile defense.
If he does that he’ll find that having a Republican Secretary of Defense won’t save him from the firestorm he’ll get from the right and center and if he doesn’t do it the left will go even more berserk.
The one bright star is that with the Iraq forces agreement in place he can mostly live up to his pledged withdrawal in Iraq even though it was negotiated and agreed to by the Bush Administration.
@Mike’s America: You really didn’t read a word of what I wrote, did you? Or perhaps your own life has to be compartmentalized. Only pray at church, only read in the library, only eat in the dining room…. but you’ll piss anywhere, won’t you?
Cary: Your snide little name calling is the kind of “civility” we have come to expect from your kind. Civility, like free speech, is a one way street with you folks.
It’s pretty clear you think that Obama going to church is unimportant. Obviously you are comfortable with his priority of ME FIRST.
Whether Obama goes to church, or how or where he prays, or whether he prays to God or Allah isn’t the point here.
The point is that he would rather go to the gym for himself rather than go to church. It’s a pattern we have seen before. If you are so ill informed about the visit to the troops in hospital I suggest you look it up. Security was not an issue. Which do you think is more secure: a military hospital or a public square in Berlin surrounded by hundreds of thousands of screaming Germans?
One would think that if the country is SOOOO screwed up, as you people constantly suggest, that Obama just might want to reassure the masses by showing his face in church even if he doesn’t believe what is practiced there.
So, I guess I can conclude that things in this country are not so bad after all.
@Mike’s America:
I’m normally quite civil, but when you twist what I say into what you want it to mean, then you take what you get. There was no “name calling”, by the way, yet another twist of yours.
I couldn’t care less about Obama’s church going habits, nor any other President’s or politician’s, and showing their face in one isn’t going to make me feel better about a damn thing. Frankly, your logic, your argument and your methods of conveying both are rather sophomoric.
At the time I addressed your troops issue, I wasn’t home and didn’t have time to look it up -AS I SAID. Frankly, it isn’t relevant to the going to church issue.
So grasp at straws however you want. If this is the best you can do, then I feel pretty good. But I’d recommend, instead of offering ad hominem hyperbole, perhaps you’d do well to take some time to do some praying yourself.
So, I’m done with you. Go ahead and have the last word, but try to make it something intelligent, PLEASE.
“But I’d recommend, instead of offering ad hominem hyperbole, perhaps you’d do well to take some time to do some praying yourself.”
That’s the kind of smarmy B.S. we’ve come to expect from people like you.
Go hug a tree!
You’ll learn soon enough that character does matter. Maybe some day you’ll develop some character yourself!
“Come on guys…go easy on Obambi. He has to look good for all his male “staffers” you know.”
And just when you thought the discourse couldn’t get any more lowbrow, a gay joke emits from the smelly depths of the locker room. “Yeah, man, he’s a sissy. Yuk, yuk.”
In contrast to the Politico article this month, other articles in Nov. looking at that the Obamas and church finding reported Bush attended church very infrequently over his eight years in office:
…Perhaps Obama could also tout “security concerns” and the economic crisis for his past 3 church “absences”?
Mike wrote:
Mike, here’s one liberal who agrees with you.
I don’t want to keep beating the same horse, but watch Obama with the following in mind.
Firstly, I agree with you 100% that Obama is all about Obama. That was very clear from that excellent PBS special on Obama and McCain which aired the night before the election. Everything he’s done has been done in a very calculated fashion, to advance his own career. This includes moving to South Side Chicago, chumming up to Mayor Daly (through which he met Ayers, a close friend of Daly’s), joining his Church, going to Harvard Law and running for Law Review President, and so forth. I even think that he married Michelle, at least in part, to advance his career.
He has no bed rock principles. He’s not committed to any particular cause or ideology. I think that George W Bush was principled, but so was Jimmy Carter. I think that Clinton and Nixon were not principled. They were also about their own careers. Both, unfortunately, had serious personal flaws.
Obama is like Clinton and Nixon. Obama’s ambition is to be the greatest President in the history of the USA. But the only way he gets there is if he does a spectacularly good job.
What’s he done so far? Well, look at national defense. He’s keeping on Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense. His national security advisor is Marine Gen. Jim Jones. His NSA chief is Admiral Dennis Blair.
George W. Bush’s National Security Advisor was Condoleeza Rice. His Secretary of Defense was Rumsfeld.
So the idea that Obama is going to turn over the keys to Washington DC to Osama Bin Laden are greatly exaggerated.
Obama is an incredible politician. Here’s what I predict. He’s basically going to toss the hard core liberal “base” under the bus. Where else are they going to go? Are they going to vote for Sarah Palin? And he’s going to move as far as he can to the Right to marginalize the GOP and possibly to destroy the GOP, which will lose the economic conservatives to Obama and which will lose the strong national defense segment to Obama and which will be left only with the Evangelicals and racists and anti-immigrants as a dependable base.
Evaluate everything he does and ask yourself if everything he does is not consistent with the above strategy.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
It was Ah-Nold’s comment that he made stumping for McCain on the last days of the election about his girly-man arms that is haunting him… I suppose we can cut President Elect Chicken-legs some slack.
Larry you may well be correct.
But it is an open question whether Democrats in Congress, not to mention Moveon and the rest will allow Obama to govern from the center.
A column by Pat Buchanan in October summed it up:
@Dave Noble:
I wish it were a joke, Dave. I truly do. Honestly, this is the thing I thought about when first seeing this story. Does he need to exercise like anyone else? Sure. But, Mr. Obama’s affinity to men just seems like the pink polka-dotted elephant in the living room, and had to be at least mentioned. If he wasn’t the Pres.-elect of the U.S.A., I would not loose any sleep over what he does in his private life!
I can’t believe your lack of morale Larry. So for you a President that is a liar, a manipulator, a fraud and an American’s hater is good for this country. WOW! And this is who you vote for. Like all always say: Like attracts like.
And don’t kid yourself, Obama will not be the greatest President, he will be the worst if he ever gets to be sworn in. And I sure hope he won’t be President in January. Obama has a narcissic personality disorder. And American needs someone who will work for them not for himself. Obama is only a puppet in Soro and others crooks hands. He will do hat they will tell him to do and he will ruin this country. When communism will be in U.S., you will see that I was right Larry. Meanwhile, keep dreaming!
Larry,
Obama did NOTHING to get to the POTUS seat. All his vicious associations and the MSM did it for him. He is only a puppet in their hands. They wanted him there for a very good reason. They want to destroy capitalism and be a socialist Marxist communist country. Period.
Larry, here is an interesting article for you:
The New World Devised by Maurice Strong and George Soros
By Judi McCleod, Monday 24, 2008
Have you ever wondered how capitalism was pushed over the edge of the cliff just six weeks before the American presidential election?
According to financial experts, the world, as we know it will change dramatically by the year 2012. People, who provided for their families only three years ago, will be desperately searching for food.
The story of the economic meltdown of 2008 begins and ends with the United Nations and its carefully managed One World Order.
Behind the curtain of this dark chapter in human misery are ogres Maurice Strong and George Soros.
It is both power lust and an all-consuming hatred of the United States of America that elevated this deadly duo to ogre status.
Fortunately for all of those searching for answers, much of their plan for the world, post November 4, 2008 is already mapped out in writing.
Leading economic experts and Strong agree that in 2012 people will be going hungry.
“Strong has worked diligently and effectively to bring his ideas to fruition, He is now in a position to implement them.” (Henry Lamb, The Rise of Global Governance, available at soverignty.net). “His speeches and writings provide a clear picture of what to expect. In 1991, Strong wrote the introduction to a book published by the Trilateral Commission, called Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World’s Economy and the Earth’s Ecology, by Jim MacNeil. (David Rockefeller wrote the foreword). Strong said this:
“This interlocking…is the new reality of the century, with profound implications for the shape of our institutions of governance, national and international. By the year 2012, these changes must be fully integrated into our economic and political life.”
These chilling words are in line with ones he used for the opening session of the Rio Conference (Earth Summit II) in 1992, that industrialized countries have:
“Developed and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which have produced our present dilemma. It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class—involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing—are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns.”
The only change that has happened since 1992 is that Strong and Soros now have their Agent of Change coming to the White House.
In other words, the world according to Maurice Strong, is unfolding as it should.
In an era ridden by bankruptcies and job loss, Zombie-like cultists will swarm Washington, D.C. for the January 20, 2009 inauguration of Barack Obama.
Voluntary acceptance of global governance is the preferred means of achieving a takeover of America without a single shot having been fired.
“Education programs to teach the “global ethic” have been underway by UNESCO and by UNEP for more than twenty years.” (Page 90, The Rise of Global Governance). “That the U.S. government, through its representatives to the various U.N. agencies, has not already crushed this global governance agenda is s testament to the effectiveness of the U.N.’s education program.”
Back to how to how ogres Strong and Soros, along with others, were able to hijack a world economy.
“A new Economic Security Council (ESC) would replace the existing Economic and Social Council. The new ESC would consist of no more than 23 members who would have responsibility for all international financial and development activities. The IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO—virtually all finance and development activities—would be under the authority of this body. There would be no veto power by any nation. (Italics CFP’s). Nor would there be permanent member status for any nation.”
Bloggers and website owners may recall how the Ohama campaign team seemed to have thousands of volunteers available with G-Mail accounts to send out a barrage of nasty letters any time a blog or website asked too many questions or dared to criticize “The Messiah”.
In a post January 20 world, it seems that Obama will develop his activist base from within the White House.
But in Maurice Strong’s New World, NGOs will flag the new order about truth tellers: “The Commission (on Global Governance) believes that the U.N. should protect the “security of the people” inside the borders of sovereign nations, with or without the invitation of the national government. It proposes the expansion of an NGO “early warning” network to function through the Petitions Council to alert the U.N. to possible action.” (Italics CFP’s).
Maurice Strong has had a longtime influence with the major Foundations, which provide the funding for NGOs, and he has influence with the major international NGOs that coordinate the activities of the thousands of smaller NGOs around the world.
Small wonder that Strong spends his time far away in Communist China these days.
But there is a silver lining to be found even with the darkest of storm clouds over America and something for Americans to contemplate over the upcoming holidays.
In spite of the hype coming out of the Office of the President-elect, Obama is merely a fop for the global elite. He is their, and not the people’s true agent of change.
The January 20 inauguration with its promise of 5 million observers in Washington, D.C. will be the extravaganza of a lifetime, deepening recession notwithstanding.
It is Obama’s job to demoralize the 58 million people who did not buy into his campaign and for all of those who do not want One World Order.
Starring among all the glitterati at the Inauguration Ball, Barack and Michelle are like the stick figures from a kindergartener’s drawing, for this is an emperor who truly has no clothes.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/6485
Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, and Glenn Beck.
O.K. So either Obama is going to be an extreme leftist or he’s going to be following an ACORN, Ayers, Jesse, Wright agenda. One or the other.
So precisely which of these constituencies engineered the nominations of Robert Gates, Marine Gen. Jim Jones, and Admiral Dennis Blair? Let me say it again: he’s keeping on the Secretary of Defense of George W Bush. His National Security Advisor is the former Commandant of the US Marine Corps. His National Security Administration Director is the former Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.
And Craig thinks that Obama would destroy capitalism and turn the USA into a “socialist Marxist” country.
Now, were Obama a principled idealist, he might just do that. But he’s not. Were he to do that, he wouldn’t even be re-elected, much less go down in history as the greatest President ever.
Craig thinks that Obama is a puppet.
Whatever Obama is, he’s no one’s puppet.
Craig is underestimating Obama.
Let’s look at another Pat Buchanan quote, courtesy of Mike:
This isn’t precisely correct. Obama didn’t “come out of the McGovern-Jesse Jackson left.” This implies that he grew up on the South Side of Chicago and had mentors and sponsors along the way. But this isn’t what happened. Obama chose to move to the South Side of Chicago as a grown man. He grew up in Hawaii, moved to Los Angeles and went to Occidental College (a decidedly non-Jesse Jackson type of place), then to Columbia, then worked in New York for 4 years, then made the calculated decision to move to the South Side of Chicago, because he thought it gave him the best opportunities for a political career. He became a Chicago liberal because to succeed in politics as an African American in Chicago, you had to be a Chicago liberal. The idea that he is some sort of Jesse Jackson protege is ludicrous. Jackson himself said earlier this year that he’d like to “castrate” Obama, because Jackson thought he was a phony civil rights liberal, as opposed to being a principled civil rights liberal.
Obama has no allegiance to any ideology. He is a calculating politician, and he’s calculated his position precisely as I’ve described it. He doesn’t give a s— about William Ayers or ACORN or Wright or Jackson or Soros. He doesn’t need Soros or any other fat cat liberal financier. He’s got a donor list of over 3,000,000 people who donated an average of 85 dollars apiece to his campaign, enabling him to raise record amounts of money. He doesn’t need to go around to dinners with fat cat donors. George Will and David Brooks have both praised this aspect of his campaign. It gives him a great strength — he’s beholden to no one, except a vast constituency of reasonably average sorts of people. Like me, who, by coincidence, donated exactly $85 to his campaign, in response to 3 separate email solicitations.
Why did I support him? Precisely because I believe that his ambition is to be the greatest President in history and has the competence to have a shot at doing this, and we as a nation could currently use an administration driven by pragmatism as opposed to being driven by ideology.
Craig has made some predictions concerning what Obama will to to the country. I’ve made some predictions concerning what Obama will do for the country.
Unlike the situation which existed before the election, when this was all theoretical, we’ll actually have the chance to see who’s predictions pass the test of time.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Larry: Keeping Gates as Sec. Def. isn’t so much proof of Obama’s desire to govern as a centrist than as a desire to avoid any blame for anything that might go wrong the next four years. It’s easier to keep Gates and blame him when things go wrong than to pick some newcomer and get stuck with the responsiblity when he screws up.
And yes, Obama comes less from the McGovern mold of the party than he does the far left radical/marxist wing. From his mother who attended the “red church” in Washington state to Frank Marshall Davis, the stalinist who mentored him in Hawaill he’s much further left than McGovern ever was.
But you’re right that he’s not stupid and will likely continue to disguise his ideological leanings and that will be easy for him since he’s more interested in himself first, second and third than he is interested in promoting marxism.
It remains to be seen whether someone so egocentric can put aside his own desires and truly serve the people well enough to be counted as a great president. Perhaps you ought to define what you mean when you use the term.
I’d say it’s more likely that the character flaws which were all so evident, but hushed up by the media, during the campaign will at some point come to haunt him in the White House.
We saw this very clearly with Bill Clinton and since Obama is appointing former Clintonites like Eric Holder who have certain ethics and judgement issues we may very well see that scenario played out again in a different way.
All that campaign money and spending is bound to be the seeds for eventual corruption and scandal. The last eight years of President Bush have been remarkably scandal free. In a few years we may be reminded what real corruption and scandal are.
@Mike’s America:
ditto to what Mike said.
[…] Comment on Obama Skips Church and Heads to the Gym Instead….Again … It is Obama’s job to demoralize the 58 million people who did not buy into his campaign and for all of those who do not want One World Order. Starring among all the glitterati at the Inauguration Ball, Barack and Michelle are like the … […]
Retaining Bush people as national security appointees may not affect Obama’s possible plan to remake america in the socialist mold.
IMHO, that’s more of an economic question rather than one affected by national security. A national security disaster would do more to threaten Obama’s hold on the presidency, and thus his marxist plans for america.
With Bush people in charge of national security, Obama knows he is getting people better qualified than his kumbayah democrats to handle this important area.
I see Obama as driven by personal ambition for power first, then by idealogy. He has to secure his power first, and avoid anything that may disturb it, like a national security crisis(eg:massive terrorist attack). But then, having secured this angle, he will carry on with his marxist plans to increase govt control of money and assets and to redistribute wealth as he sees fit, to further increase his power by creating a new class of voters financially dependent on handouts from his admin.
His abandonment of the extreme left is typical chicago gangsta style: use em and throw em under the bus when they ain’t useful anymore. With Obama, all of them get thrown, his pastor Wright, Ayers, the extreme left, his white grandmother…….
That’s what the “O” and the “B” in OBAMA stands for:
When you O-utlive your usefulness, you get thrown under the B-us.
Sig said: “With Bush people in charge of national security, Obama knows he is getting people better qualified than his kumbayah democrats to handle this important area.”
Absolutely right!
The problem will come when his liberal base demand he lives up to his promises to gut the military and particularly missile defense.
If he does that he’ll find that having a Republican Secretary of Defense won’t save him from the firestorm he’ll get from the right and center and if he doesn’t do it the left will go even more berserk.
The one bright star is that with the Iraq forces agreement in place he can mostly live up to his pledged withdrawal in Iraq even though it was negotiated and agreed to by the Bush Administration.