President Obama/Lincoln and the next False Flag?

It is the international bankers that control the country (and the world) and are responsible for the Civil War and any future conflicts. Yet all you people can do is sit here and bicker amongst one another.

Stop making their job easier by arguing with each other, and start fighting the international bankers (peacefully).

[edit on 19-4-2009 by Riposte]

Originally posted by jfj123
...Are you saying you don't like the obama administration because it's more transparent then the bush administration?

I have never said I don't like President Obama's Administration. I have said his administration has said and have done things that has my radar way up there. I have asked is something being done by this administration to cause serious problems within this country on purpose.

Also, I have read some reports that state the report was available to President Bush, yet I have also read reports that state that is simply not true. I am still searching for more facts about that statement, so please forgive me for not responding to that question just yet.

--Charles Marcello

Originally posted by Riposte
Yet all you people can do is sit here and bicker amongst one another.

With all due respect, I don't believe all the people on this site are doing is bickering amongst each other. Within this thread I have seen some very good points from both sides. Save for a few posts, it appears people are paying attention and watching what is going on within America, and around the world. Learning is the first step toward understanding. Paying attention to words that are spoken by our leaders can lead to greater understanding of the future. If bankers are pulling the strings as you claim, then paying attention to what our leaders are doing and saying, and talking about it, will make all of us see clearer.

--Charles Marcello

Originally posted by littlebunny

Also, I have read some reports that state the report was available to President Bush, yet I have also read reports that state that is simply not true. I am still searching for more facts about that statement, so please forgive me for not responding to that question just yet.

--Charles Marcello

The report you cited says as example,

— (U//LES) The FBI noted in a 2008 report on the white supremacist movement that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups.

Either you linked to a falsified report or you didn't.
If you did link to a falsified report, I'd appreciate a correction.
If you didn't, then we know that the bush administration DID have access to a 2008 report at the very least.

Originally posted by jfj123
The FBI noted in a 2008 report on the white supremacist movement that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups.

What I would like to see clarified by this administration is a list of groups that they consider to be "extremist". For all we know, the vets mentioned by the FBI may have joined the local chapter of the VFW or American Legion. If you think that I am exagerating, I am not. Remember that in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing that President Clinton tried to blame talk radio, he later tried to claim that he was talking about HAM radio operators and not Rush Limbaugh. Think about that for a minute, HAM radio operators, I can't think of a more harmless group of people anywhere.

Originally posted by jfj123

If you did link to a falsified report, I'd appreciate a correction.
If you didn't, then we know that the bush administration DID have access to a 2008 report at the very least.

Well that link was to the NEW YORK TIMES, and I have a very low view of the New York Times and their non objective, and very bias reporting. Also, that says it linked to a FBI report in 2008, not that this report was available in 2008, there is a difference. Also, I chose the New York Times so as to make liberals happy. If I would have used another source I am sure they would have dismissed it out of hand whether it was dead accurate or not. Either way your stated quote does not in fact negate why I am still searching for the truth.

Now, I did ask an honest question of you, I realize you haven't had a lot of time to formulate your response, so consider this just a friendly reminder, to you, and any other person who would choose to answer.

--Charles Marcello


[edit on 19-4-2009 by littlebunny]

Originally posted by lunarminer

What I would like to see clarified by this administration is a list of groups that they consider to be "extremist". For all we know, the vets mentioned by the FBI may have joined the local chapter of the VFW or American Legion. If you think that I am exagerating, I am not.

That is a very good question. That is the same problem I have with this publicly released report. What exactly constitutes extremist activities, and American terrorist? For sure, depending on their definition, ATS members would qualify I would think. Does that mean each and everyone of us is under federal investigation? The lack of clarity in this report speaks volumes. To what level is one of the main reasons for this thread.

--Charles Marcello

[edit on 19-4-2009 by littlebunny]

Originally posted by littlebunny
Originally posted by jfj123


Also, that says it linked to a FBI report in 2008, not that this report was available in 2008, there is a difference.

If the FBI made the report, they knew about the report so we know that the FBI knew about their own report. That being said, a government agency did have the information in 2008 at the latest. Now do you actually believe they hid it until the obama administration came into office and rushed it over to them so they could read and comment on it?

Now, I did ask an honest question of you, I realize you haven't had a lot of time to formulate your response, so consider this just a friendly reminder, to you, and any other person who would choose to answer.

--Charles Marcello


[edit on 19-4-2009 by littlebunny]

Sorry, I missed the question entirely. Could you repost it and I will answer it.

reply to post by jfj123


To be honest I am not sure how to answer your question just yet. I need to read more information. Whether President Bush new or not is something that I still am searching to find out. What is interesting, even if that is true, to me is not the fact that his administration kept it secret. What I find interesting is President Obama's administration told police stations across the country to keep this a secret, not to mention the information therein regardless of when this report was done. To be fair about the secret claim and President Obama's administration, I have read that that is true and untrue, so I am searching to find out the truth on that as well. I still have some very honest questions and until I find those answers I really don't want to answer that question until I am satisfied I have all the facts...

Here are the questions I asked of you, or anyone who is willing to answer.

Originally posted by littlebunny

...On paper I would agree that forced volunteerism is not a bad idea, but on paper only.... Let alone the fact the Federal Government has ZERO right to force that kind of law onto anybody. If you believe that is a good idea that must come to pass, then please point out where in the Constitution the Federal Government has the right to force that onto its citizens? Let alone the right to force States to comply?

I don't care if you are left or right, believe in or disagree with what President Obama is doing we must always question. Do you mean to say you don't question what is going on and why certain things are being said? Not only by President Obama's Administration, but also from state lawmakers, and now a Governor, and how they are going (and are trying) to force the federal government to verbally dismiss the 10th Amendment to the Bill of Rights?

--Charles Marcello

Originally posted by littlebunny
reply to post by jfj123

 

Here are the questions I asked of you, or anyone who is willing to answer.


Originally posted by littlebunny

...On paper I would agree that forced volunteerism is not a bad idea, but on paper only.... Let alone the fact the Federal Government has ZERO right to force that kind of law onto anybody. If you believe that is a good idea that must come to pass, then please point out where in the Constitution the Federal Government has the right to force that onto its citizens? Let alone the right to force States to comply?

Well this is assuming that the obama administration would have forced volunteerism, aka a draft, I wouldn't agree with this on many levels.
1. There is no need for a draft at this time.
2. Failing a military draft, this would be in violation of the Constitution and would not be enforceble.

I don't care if you are left or right, believe in or disagree with what President Obama is doing we must always question. Do you mean to say you don't question what is going on and why certain things are being said?

Such as?

Not only by President Obama's Administration, but also from state lawmakers, and now a Governor, and how they are going (and are trying) to force the federal government to verbally dismiss the 10th Amendment to the Bill of Rights?

Well I can't answer this because you haven't posted evidence to suggest this is true.
Typically when making claims like this, many people on ATS including myself, will ask for sources. Just so you don't have to go back later and find them, my humble suggestion is that you post sources with comments that are claims of fact. Once this is done, I'll be able to more appropriately answer your questions.


[edit on 19-4-2009 by jfj123]

Originally posted by jfj123

Not only by President Obama's Administration, but also from state lawmakers, and now a Governor, and how they are going (and are trying) to force the federal government to verbally dismiss the 10th Amendment to the Bill of Rights?

Well I can't answer this because you haven't posted evidence to suggest this is true.
Typically when making claims like this, many people on ATS including myself, will ask for sources. Just so you don't have to go back later and find them, my humble suggestion is that you post sources with comments that are claims of fact. Once this is done, I'll be able to more appropriately answer your questions.

I'm sorry, I am completely taken aback that you haven't heard of this either. This has been all over the news and ATS for several months now. Below are two very quick searches on Youtube.

Texas Governor Backs 10th Amendment Fight

20 States Seek 10th Amendment Bills

There are many more sources all over ATS, the Internet, and several news articles with many sources and statements by lawmakers from several states. A simple Google search will give you a plethora of information for you to educate yourself with.

--Charles Marcello


[edit on 19-4-2009 by littlebunny]

Originally posted by littlebunny


I'm sorry, I am completely taken aback that you haven't heard of this either. This has been all over the news and ATS for several months now. Below are two very quick searches on Youtube.

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. Yes I'm familiar with the 10th amendment legislation being examined and/or passed in many states. At last count 33 states.
www.tenthamendmentcenter.com...
My state is one of the 33.

The part I'm not familiar with is

and how they are going (and are trying) to force the federal government to verbally dismiss the 10th Amendment to the Bill of Rights?

Sorry for the confusion.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Barrack Obama is no Abraham Lincoln, for that matter Abraham Lincoln was no Abraham Lincoln. The distortions of history tend to be kinder to some than others!

Lincoln was a tyrant in his day and pushed through his agenda ruthlessly.

When the United States of America was founded it was founded ostensibly as an experiment in government. There was a time during Andrew Jackson’s Presidency that a number of states wanted to secede and leave the Union and Jackson talked them out of it.
The premise still prevailed though that the nation’s government was experimental, and that if any state took severe objection they were free to go their own way.

Lincoln changed all that and turned some things that had long been written in sand into written and stone and other things he wiped clean as if they had never been there. Like the original 13th Amendment for one. The current version was quietly slipped into the Constitution during reconstruction and sealed the Nation’s doom in the process.

Lincoln turned a nation that had long leaned towards being an agrarian one into an industrial one and ushered in the era of modern warfare along with it. Lincoln began mixing religion with government like it had never been before in a foolhardy desire to garner as much Northern support for the war as he could and the religious right and left have never stopped trying to make greater inroads since then all to the nation’s at large detriment. Lincoln even threatened to jail the entire Supreme Court over their objection to one unconstitutional act after another. Lincoln’s use of Green Back fiat instrument of debt currency attached to nothing opened the door to Federal Reserve and a world wide system of fiat instrument of debt currency that plagues us to this day.

Abraham Lincoln in short was a diabolical and cunning remorseless ruler who inherited a whole intact experiment in Democracy and left it a shattered and battered entity forced to conform to a Federal Government that would never ever stop expanding its powers and authority.

All I can say is if Barrack Obama really imagines himself to truly be another Abraham Lincoln, I hope he deviates enough to go to Ford’s Theatre early in his term instead of at the end of it!

I've never done this before and I hope I don't catch hell for it. But I "quoted" your entire post simply because it's so incredibly well written that I'm hoping any viewers who might have just skimmed over it will take the time to read it here.

That's an absolutely outstanding post! Much respect! If the mods haven't given you applause yet, I urge them to.

reply to post by Albertarocks


Thanks my friend, most Americans truly have no idea what was at stake in the Civil War and what the real results of it being won by the North were.

It pretty much ushered in the modern era of big government and big business and ended representative democracy in the United States.

Hey maybe they will still welcome me up in Pincher Creek when the States fall apart?

Regards,

Protoplasmic Traveler

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Wow! Why do you say Pincher Creek? That's very near Waterton Park, my childhood stomping grounds. A very pretty part of the world for sure, but did you know it's officially the windiest location in Canada? I could point you toward some other places that are much, much more beautiful and with climates that would likely surprise you. That's if you'd like to live in a place that has fruit orchards, wineries, enormous crystal clear lakes (and when I say "enormous"... one of them has a 2,000 mile shoreline) surrounded by forests you can get lost in for months, and where you could go water skiing and snow skiing on the same weekend. If that's not your cup of tea, Pincher Creek would do nicely.

And as far as whether or not they'd welcome you back? I know I would. I take it you've been there before because you use the words "still welcome"? Anyway, no worries... intelligent, classy people are always welcome in Canada. Even Americans

[edit on 19-4-2009 by Albertarocks]

Originally posted by jfj123
The part I'm not familiar with is

and how they are going (and are trying) to force the federal government to verbally dismiss the 10th Amendment to the Bill of Rights?

Sorry for the confusion.

I guess there is a serious lack of understanding on my part as well. Because, if the States’ do in fact start to enforce their 10th Amendment Rights, and when the Federal Government passes laws that the States demand are not within the Federal Governments power, so therefore illegal, and completely ignore those laws... How do you think the Federal Government is going to respond? Do you really think this a blind charge towards the Constitution, or could it be, that it is a well thought-out showdown between the States and the Federal Government for a second time, however this time it is the States fighting with laws instead of bullets. Because the simple fact remains, not even a civil war can negate our Bill of Rights, or more accurately, a civil war did not revoke our protections from an over reaching Federal Government.

So I guess, if you understand what is going on with these states, how can you be confused by my statement? Isn’t my question/statement at least implied by the actions of these, 33, States’?

--Charles Marcello


[edit on 19-4-2009 by littlebunny]

Originally posted by littlebunny

Originally posted by jfj123
The part I'm not familiar with is

and how they are going (and are trying) to force the federal government to verbally dismiss the 10th Amendment to the Bill of Rights?

Sorry for the confusion.

I guess there is a serious lack of understanding on my part as well. Because, if the States’ do in fact start to enforce their 10th Amendment Rights, and when the Federal Government passes laws that the States demand are not within the Federal Governments power, so therefore illegal, and completely ignore those laws... How do you think the Federal Government is going to respond?

They only have a few options.
1. See if they can work out a compromise.
2. Start a civil war. This will bring even more then 33 states into a coalition which means the federal government will have no power to do much of anything.

Do you really think this a blind charge towards the Constitution, or could it be, that it is a well throughout showdown between the States and the Federal Government for a second time,

The government hasn't done anything well thought out for years.

however this time it is the States fight with laws instead of bullets. Because the simple fact remains, not even a civil war can negate our Bill of Rights, or more accurately, a civil war did not revoke our protections from an over reaching Federal Government.

So I guess, if you understand what is going on with these states, how can you be confused by my statement? Isn’t my question/statement at least implied by the actions of these, 33, States’?

--Charles Marcello

You're implying that the obama administration is trying to force the erradication of the 10th amendment. You haven't posted any evidence as proof of this. All those 33 states are doing is to re-affirm their Constitutional rights. I haven't heard obama or anyone in his administration even say, "that's a bad texas, you're grounded"

reply to post by mikerussellus


yea you hit it on the head. it would turn the south's slaves against them, allow more soldiers for the north (who at the time were getting butts kicked) and disrupt their econ. Good work sir.

reply to post by Albertarocks
In my misbegotten youth I snuck into Canada on an altered Birth Certificate to play the clubs in a top 40 cover band out of Billings Montana. We would play a lot of the small towns throughout Alberta and British Columbia. One very smitten Club Owner in Pincher Creek even proposed marraige. What a sweet woman I didn't have the heart to tell her I was only 16!

There sure was a lot of beautiful wide open pristine country throughout the whole area.

This was back in the beginning of the 80's and a lot of Canadians were very welcoming but resentful too because of Norad and MAD. I sure couldn't blame them and thankfully they sure couldn't blame me!

Very pretty country you have, nice people and nice places.

Thanks my friend.

reply to post by jfj123


I really am not trying to be hardhead or purposely obtuse, I would hope the same holds true for you... Second, did you listen to President Obama's Inaugural Address?.

The answer you seek is right within that speech.

--Charles Marcello

(sadly I must call it a day... I will try to return tomorrow or the day after next. I enjoyed our conversation and all the posts I have read within this thread. Edit for this addendum

[edit on 19-4-2009 by littlebunny]