A prediction for the coming insanity

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain
a reply to: TheRedneck

Supposing your theory happens OP, there will be a Civil War in this country unlike History has ever seen.

There will be a Civil War in any case. It's what the NWO Cabal wants. But it will be for different reasons than that in the OP.

When Hillary becomes President in January 2016, she will select a Liberal Supreme Court nominee. If the Republicans lose control of the Senate, that nominee will probably be approved quickly. All of Obama's illegal Executive Orders will be approved.

The Democrats will begin the process of amending the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The borders will be open. The US will lose its national sovereignty.

The US will be flooded with immigrants, not only illegal Hispanic immigrants, but Islamic "refugees" brought in from the Mideast & Africa -- in the hundreds of thousands.

The approximate 15 million illegal immigrants in the US now (this is a White House estimated number) will be given US citizenship and voting rights.

This is why the Republicans will NEVER again win a Presidential election. 2016 was their LAST chance.

The TPP and other trade deals will be approved. More jobs will disappear from the US.

There will be increasing joblessness, homelessness, poverty. The Middle Class as the majority is already history in the US.

Inflation will increase as the national debt increases.

All crime will increase as poverty does. The presence of Mexican drug gangs will become more apparent. Attacks on women will increase as the numbers of men (from cultures that have NO respect for women) increases.

The drugs will be released on the public -- not only marijuana, but all currently illegal drugs. There will be more drug deaths. It's planned. The NWO Cabal owns Big Pharma and controls the major illegal drug cartels.

There will be increasing attacks from Islamic terrorists already in the US.

Sources of ammo will be shut down. Militias will be persecuted.

There will be riots in the streets. Civil War as the real US citizens fight for their lives & to protect their families.

Law Enforcement will be overwhelmed.

During all the chaos, the US laws will be rewritten.

Martial Law will be declared. Americans will wake up to find themselves in an openly Totalitarian state.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: rollanotherone


It would have to be bigger than 9/11....a lot bigger.

Wasn't there an interview going around very early on in Obama's tenure, 1st term, where he was talking to someone ... I've searched and searched for it and can't find it where he was talking about the magnitude of disaster that the US can absorb, and he made it sound like the US could take nuke almost like he was more or less unconcerned with the idea of a nuke attack on the US (as in one nuke, not all out nuclear war).

I remember it making a splash at the time, but I can't find it now. I might be just searching for the wrong wording.

Even Newt Gingrich said (during a Fox News interview) that it was only a matter of time before the Islamic terrorists use a nuke.

I had a nightmare that a US city had been nuked -- this was a few months after 9/11.

According to a Hopi prophecy (made back in the late 1950's or early 1960's -- the book was published in 1963), the US will be destroyed by nukes from a land "where the (spiritual) light was first seen" -- that could be any number of countries in the Mideast -- or Pakistan.

I'm sorry but you are spewing the same old story I have heard for a lot longer than Ford, let's go back to Eisenhower. You been suckered in. It's not gonna happen. What executive order might that be? One you heard about on Fox News?

originally posted by: nomad2
Interesting. But I have to say your assessment of Obama is debatable:

Obama is, and has been during his national political career, a rebel in search of a cause.

He is exactly the opposite of a rebel. He is a very conservative person with a conservative agenda. For all intents and purposes, a neocon pursuing the imperialist agenda abroad. But because he is masquerading as a liberal he has to pursue this agenda by duplicitous means. Liberal rhetoric, conservative policies. His shtick is to allow the other side to when while in reality desiring the conservative outcome. It's a passive/aggressive style.

And he has and always has had a cause: the corporate, imperialist agenda.

Obama is a NWO Cabal puppet. Obama was brought in to accelerate the destruction of the US as a sovereign state.
One of the main purposes of Obamacare was to help destroy the Middle Class in the US.

Obama did not have any problem with this NWO agenda -- he was raised by White Communist grandparents and his early mentor was Frank Marshall Davis.

a reply to: AuranVector

It's a very confused situation. Donald Trump has knocked over the Republican applecart and apples are rolling all over the road.

I think he could actually win the general election, if and only if he avoids making any major gaffes in debates or out on the hustings.

Part of the GOP establishment are running scared of Trump because he has made so many statements that run counter to their traditional interests. His views on globalism, in the context of accepted Republican views, amount to inviting Beelzebub to give the Commencement address at Liberty University. And that's just one thing.

But Trump is all over the map in his opinions. He's an amateur.

Hillary Clinton is old news, but she is a political professional. She will be attempting to "rope a dope" Donald, or to keep him charging at the cape while waiting for just the right moment to slip the blade in. He should not underestimate her.

His most dangerous weapon will be the atomic bomb of politics, "time for a change".

If I were putting money on it right now, I would put my money on Trump (in a two party race). I don't think he has reached his high water mark yet.

It is going to be an exciting election, and very tough. Neither of these two likes losing and both are very serious about this contest.

originally posted by: ipsedixit
a reply to: AuranVector

It's a very confused situation. Donald Trump has knocked over the Republican applecart and apples are rolling all over the road.

I think he could actually win the general election, if and only if he avoids making any major gaffes in debates or out on the hustings.

Part of the GOP establishment are running scared of Trump because he has made so many statements that run counter to their traditional interests. His views on globalism, in the context of accepted Republican views, amount to inviting Beelzebub to give the Commencement address at Liberty University. And that's just one thing.

But Trump is all over the map in his opinions. He's an amateur.

Hillary Clinton is old news, but she is a political professional. She will be attempting to "rope a dope" Donald, or to keep him charging at the cape while waiting for just the right moment to slip the blade in. He should not underestimate her.

His most dangerous weapon will be the atomic bomb of politics, "time for a change".

If I were putting money on it right now, I would put my money on Trump (in a two party race). I don't think he has reached his high water mark yet.

It is going to be an exciting election, and very tough. Neither of these two likes losing and both are very serious about this contest.

Very interesting viewpoint. I especially agree with your:

"But Trump is all over the map in his opinions. He's an amateur.

Hillary Clinton is old news, but she is a political professional. She will be attempting to 'rope a dope' Donald, or to keep him charging at the cape while waiting for just the right moment to slip the blade in. He should not underestimate her."

I hope you're right about Trump winning. To me, what faces this country is an irreversible nightmare if Hillary wins.

originally posted by: ipsedixit
I've started several threads on Donald Trump, from a critical perspective. To put it in a nutshell, I think that Trump is a dabbler in politics with very little real understanding of the issues that he has promoted in his campaign. In that sense he is very representative of "the average American", who knows about as much as Trump does about what is going on. The average American can truly say, on that basis, that Donald Trump is "one of us".

Trump is, as a result, a formidable political force.

The opposition that Trump has encountered in the Republican Party establishment and among significant numbers of ordinary Republicans comes from that smaller number of Americans who know more about how politics works in the United States and know more about the political issues facing the country. These people don't like Donald Trump's approach to politics or to dealing with political and social issues. They think that Donald Trump is excessively authoritarian (fascist?), excessively rebellious, and possibly mentally unstable.

In short, they think he's a crackpot.

I think the short term future of America is in the hands of those on the Republican side of politics in the country who want to stop Donald Trump from getting his hands on the levers of power in the country. It seems like the only way to do that would be to run a prominent third party candidate on the right of the political spectrum (the Stop Trump Party?) which would split the Republican vote and either hand the presidency to Clinton, or force a vote in Congress that would give the nation's highest office to a congressional choice, not Trump.

If this were to happen, would there be civil unrest? I think it is possible that there would be some trouble. The activity of a third party in American politics is not unprecedented but the precedents are not contemporary ones. Many Americans might see such a maneuver, running a "Stop Trump" candidate in a third party, as blatantly subversive of the normal electoral paradigm and take violent umbrage at it.

One can understand this, but in countries around the world where political opinion is fractured in the way that American public opinion is being fractured, the presence of multiple political parties is taken for granted.

Donald Trump's supporters will realize, hopefully, that the fracturing of American political opinion is Donald Trump's most profound contribution to politics in the United States and has been achieved without even having to win elected office.

Trump himself, if he has real weight and integrity as a political leader, if he is more that a lightweight flash in the pan, should take ownership of this development and start to navigate as if it were an established fact and not a temporary anomaly. He does show signs of doing that, but there are also signs of his being subsumed into the larger remnant of the established Republican matrix (endorsement by Dick Cheney!).

Problems will arise if Donald Trump's political supporters are not sophisticated enough to realize what has happened. A simple minded Trump centric viewpoint will be tempted to cry "foul" at the obviously manipulative appearance of a "Stop Trump" political party. They might not see such a development as being consistent with "freedom of speech", "freedom of assembly" or "the right to self determination" and, rather, view it as simple, cynical chicanery. Such people could take to the streets.

It is very possible that Americans are going to be put into a position where, for the first time in generations, they will be able to understand and experience why politics in places like Greece and France and Italy seem so turbulent and unsettled.

European politicians are used to shuffling over in their seats into coalitions, where clear majorities can't be obtained. Do parliamentary systems accommodate better than presidential ones to fractured political landscapes? Perhaps that's one of the things that makes European politics different from the politics of South America (and "America"?).

In any case, we live in interesting times. It will be the responsibility of responsible politicians in the United States to guide Americans peacefully into uncharted political territory. These coming months will be a challenge and a test of the maturity and good sense of the American political establishment across the political spectrum.

Excellent post, even if I don't agree with every conclusion in it. Worth reading.

originally posted by: SoulSurfer
a reply to: TheRedneck

Political correctness is the one thing destroying this nation. S&F and well written. I don't trust trump either, but I give him the benefit of the doubt. I have my own reasons for withholding trust on Trump though. But if the rumors are true that he is anti establishment, then I'll go with the lesser of the two evils, because the alternative would destroy this nation.

At-least Trump Speaks common sense, which is a plus in my book. But I am with you on not affiliating myself to any party. But here's hoping Trump is the real deal. Otherwise we are screwed & distracted.

Political Correctness is a Communist tactic for shutting down Free Speech.

I truly highly doubt your scenario is going to play out.

Not a chance

originally posted by: nomad2

Liberal/Progressive: interpret the Constitution as needed to enforce 'enlightened' policies; regulate and tax commerce; consolidate power on the Federal level; use military actions to police other countries.
TheRedneck

Yes, that is a really different interpretation of progressive than mine. "a person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas"
And Obama is clearly a person in opposition to social reform (while as I say pretending otherwise). Case in point, healthcare reform. Warmed over Republicanism for the benefit of the corporate health care vipers. He is the most conservative president since Ronald Reagan.

Obama is a NWO shill. The NWO Cabal is using the Far Left & the Radical Islamic terrorists to do their dirty work of destroying the First World nations. The members of the Far Left & the Islamic terrorists are useful idiots to the NWO Cabal.

originally posted by: Miracula2

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Miracula2

LOL, that's a good one.
Name me a politician that isn't crooked.

Rethink Trump! He's at least a successful crook! Although, obviously Hilary is a successful crook as well.........or, well, Bill is.

Everyone possesses some ethical problems. Difference is Hillary Clinton has political experience. If I have to choose between two crooks I will choose one who has already been Secretary of State.

What good did she do as Secretary of State? Lie about Benghazi? Lie to the parents of those Americans who died at Benghazi?

Compromise classified info on a private, unsecured server using unencrypted transmissions? Twenty-two of those emails were Above Top Secret SAP (Special Access Program) -- so sensitive that the members of Congress cannot read them -- they aren't cleared at that level. Peddle influence to foreign countries thru her private server?

What Hillary did would be considered Treason in most countries. And you want her as President?

a reply to: dogstar23


Actually that's true. I had forgotten that.

a reply to: AuranVector

I question your conclusions. They weren't afraid of Carson or Carly.

They were largely ignored. The angst in the responses from the left, establishment right AND the controlled media is more than enough evidence they fear Trump. Perhaps it's as much the support that he is receiving as Trump, himself, but having said that everyone is controllable to some degree.

With Trump the perception it is far, far less.

Taking it one step further. The fear the loss of control of the political process, Trump and the response he's receiving.

They may fear that this is but the beginning.....

for those of you creaming for civil war, do you have kids? daughters?

I think there are folks in this country who just wanna use their guns and their safe hidey places. they're jealous, they didn't get quite where they thought they would in life and they're mad at those who did. they also hate Obama to a point that's just odd...

a reply to: knoxie

I'm sure there are some who hope for another civil war; I'm not among them. I am of the thought that it is prudent to watch, because such an occurrence is both possible and terrifying at the same time.

You did hit on one key point that I think makes such a possibility more probable: we live in a society where 'getting ahead' is seen equivalent to 'trip your opponent'. The reality that impeding others' goals does nothing to accomplish yours seems to have gotten lost in the fray.

We have also forgotten what war is. We tend to think of war like the first-person-shooter video games. The difference is that no one response in reality. For every corpse lying on the ground, there is the permanent loss of a life, the mourning of family and friends, the end of hope and the finality of the grave. Video games don't show that.

There is an old saying: "Those who have forgotten history's lessons are doomed to repeat them."

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Lots to unpack there and I will have to leave most of it alone for the sake of avoiding a long rambling response, but a quick note...The EO outlining Presidential Transition is not mysterious. It has been a security issue ever since the war on terror. The days where an administration like Clinton's could have fun prying the "w" keys off the computers before they exit the WH and call it a day are long over. Emerging threats are the norm. Anyone walking into the Whitehouse has to be briefed, prepped and ready to roll on a multitude of issues. To view this move by Obama as needing to be sinister in nature is a product of your bias IMO.

a reply to: Indigo5

I stated before that I had not read the executive order myself and was relying on reports. I have now read it, and have not seen anything that I saw as nefarious. I still believe the rest of my OP is potentially relevant.

For anyone else wishing to read the order, the link is www.whitehouse.gov...

A good lesson here for everyone: always check facts out for yourself.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: knoxie
for those of you creaming for civil war, do you have kids? daughters?

I think there are folks in this country who just wanna use their guns and their safe hidey places. they're jealous, they didn't get quite where they thought they would in life and they're mad at those who did.

they also hate Obama to a point that's just odd...

---

Absolutely! --- Not just Civil War but OUTRIGHT ANARCHY is the DESIRED end-result!

I kinda like that scenario myself!

I can then pillage, plunder and be a general Ghengis Khan
as I run riot over the land and subjugate the dimwit peasants
to my unbending desires!

Can't wait! I'll make sure I start my own Hunger Games too!

Except this time, as President Snow, any hottie Katniss Everdeen
will made my "personal" bodyguard and I'll make sure that any
Peeta-like character gets quickly dispatched to the netherworld!

Bring-on the Panem et Circenses! Babeeeee! ;-) :-)

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: knoxie

I'm sure there are some who hope for another civil war; I'm not among them. I am of the thought that it is prudent to watch, because such an occurrence is both possible and terrifying at the same time.

You did hit on one key point that I think makes such a possibility more probable: we live in a society where 'getting ahead' is seen equivalent to 'trip your opponent'. The reality that impeding others' goals does nothing to accomplish yours seems to have gotten lost in the fray.

We have also forgotten what war is. We tend to think of war like the first-person-shooter video games. The difference is that no one response in reality. For every corpse lying on the ground, there is the permanent loss of a life, the mourning of family and friends, the end of hope and the finality of the grave. Video games don't show that.

There is an old saying: "Those who have forgotten history's lessons are doomed to repeat them."

TheRedneck

---

While you have outlined some VERY VALID STATEMENTS,
the KEY differentiation between the wars of today and
the wars of yesterday is MACHINES !!!!

Today, we have machines that can AUTOMATICALLY
hunt, track, recognize, target and KILL 65,000+
objects/persons/vehicles EVERY SECOND!

The people cannot win against that sort of
VERY REAL FIREPOWER! Machines Win! Humans Lose!
It's that simple. And those that BUILD or CONTROL
the machines WILL be the victors in ANY civil war!

In any war, you need to do a decapitation strike
against the leadership and secondary minions who
run the mid-level operations. Once you do that you
can either just kill rest of the masses wholesale,
or you subjugate them to your whims.

If it DOES come down to a Civil War 2,
IT ABSOLUTELY WILL BECOME A MAD MAX
ROAD WARRIOR scenario! So be prepared
with LOTS of Gas, Diesel, Food, Water
and G-U-N-S/AMMO!!! -- Again, you will
need literally TONS of Guns and AMMO!
Enough for DECADES of urban and rural battle!