Bombshell: Barack Obama conclusively outed as CIA creation

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Osama bin Laden is also a CIA operative, or was up until the day before 9 11. Research Bush/ bin Laden joint financial entities. Al Queda is also a CIA invention, as were the so-called 'terrorists' who supposedly destroyed the twin towers. Ask why the 'stand-down all air strikes' order was given on 9 11 by Bush/ US military. Ask why nanothermite was used to implode the two towers, study Bush's reaction upon being told of what had happened, study Bush's speech accidentally saying the word 'explosives used in 911". Still believe the official story?? Study the phone calls made by the so-called victims of the so-called 'hijacked planes' to their loved ones, and keep listening to them being told "well done you did really well..." before they were led away by the CIA and executed.

So what does this mean? Considering people seem to hate Obama more than Bush, the CIA must be a terribly incompetent organization.

Now theres an idea... Right ladies and gentlemen, may I ask how everyone would feel about an outright ban on the intelligence services of western nations having ANY say in what thier nations do from now on?

How do we get to page seven of a thread like this, and still no one is terribly interested in WHO Obama "really" is?

What's higher than the CIA?

Who is Barry's "real" father? (hint already included)

What about his "mother", is she really his mother?

Why is any of this important?

The simple reason why we're not allowed to officially "know" about this man's past, is because we can't handle it. It's too far out of the accepted paradigm, and so, it's easier to talk about "comfortable" things like, the CIA for example, or to misdirect, and maybe start up yet another "birther" debate.

Again, why is it important, to know "who" this guy is? Because a total paradigm shift would come along with the knowing, and then you could really get alarmed at what it all implies, which lies just ahead, in the Twilight Zone...

JR

You know the old saying in the bible, about his mother being a jackal?

Well all these years we've been looking for someone with a mom that has a dog skeleton, we shoulda been looking for someone who's mom was CIA.

lol

while i wouldn't be suprised if Obama was somehow involved in the CIA's ring, i really don't think that is 'exactly' how it 'is'..

this is just a personal philosophy, but it might make sense to someone else

rather than trying to understand it has 'Obama being part of the CIA somehow' it can be looked at as 'the CIA being a part of any institution of power'...

thus, the CIA would have to have 'some' sort of 'control' over the president so while it's not farfetched to assume Obama might knowingly be pushing a CIA secret agenda, or perhaps the CIA decided to make him president knowing he would push their agenda regardless of their influence

Uhm, this is from Prison Planet...case closed.

Any evidence except a link to Alex Jones´s site?

Related thread below. S & F! Good new info in your thead, thanks.

ATS thread

[edit on 8/22/2010 by mikelee]

Originally posted by silkysilicone

Originally posted by works4dhs
quite a coincidence; Clinton and Obama were both from fairly poor broken homes; both rocketed to political success; both ended up as left-wing presidents espousing globalism. Was 'somebody' grooming them, or is that the new template?

Members of fairly poor broken homes would not attend Punahou school and Harvard U.

normally, no...

Bush SR was head of the CIA for a year in 1975-76, although he was reluctant to take the job because he thought it might damage his political career. This was right during the time time that all the "Family Jewels" were coming out of the closet: MK-Ultra, Frank Olson's murder, biowarfare, assassinations, overthrowing governments, all of it.

Bush had connections with the CIA back to the 1950s when he ran an independent oil company and visited important countries and leaders in the Persian Gulf. He also supposedly helped with the recruitment and training of anti-Castro Cubans when Eisenhower and the Kennedy brothers were waging the covert war against him.

The antipathy that many in the CIA felt toward Kennedy because of the Bay of Pigs is well known, although there are still others who think too much is made of that--even that the whole operation was set up to fail from the start and that no amount of support from the outside could have made any difference.

I'm not so sure that the CIA was all that upset over Kenendy's reluctance in Vietnam, though, since they were the ones reporting all the time that it probably couldn't be won. They actually wanted to get rid of corrupt, unpopular dictators like Diem, Trujillo, Batista, the Somoza family, etc, as did Kennedy.

My suspicion is that many in the CIA came to prefer Obama to Bush JR because of the quagmire in Iraq and his failed economics policies. There's no way I can prove this, but I believe Obama had overwhelming support from people working overseas in various capacities, probably on the order of 10-to-1. Bush's mishandling of domestic and foreign policy was the reason--just one disaster after another. People working overseas could see clearly that things just couldn't go on this way any more.

Then Gen. Powell endorsed Obama. Not because he was black--no one who knows anything about Powell would ever believe that he thinks that way--but it was a signal to many people to get on board behind Obama if they weren't already.

Speaking of Obama's father, he was certainly the kind of young, reforming, anti-Communist nationalist that the CIA would have wanted to support in the Cold War years. Those were the people the U.S. actually preferred to work with if it could find them, and it's why the intelligence agencies have always taken a strong interest in all these exchange programs of students and faculty to foreign countries. No one knew better that many of the regimes the U.S. was supporting were highly corrupt and unpopular with their own people, and that newer leadership was necessary.

Obama's mother was working in Indonesia, another key country in a crucial period. Obviously, the CIA always used journalists and academics as a cover to learn about foreign countries, especially at the grassroots levels. They had plausible reasons for being there, after all. This is not to say that Obama's parents were CIA agents, but certainly the agency was always closely aware of all these programs involving important countries.

Originally posted by MrAndy
So what does this mean? Considering people seem to hate Obama more than Bush, the CIA must be a terribly incompetent organization.

To be sure, much of that hatred is being carefully orchestrated, to make Obama appear to be far more "radical" than he is in fact. It has been going on since the day he was sworn into office, and it is being very well funded. It's partially Rupert Murdoch, who is in fact a truly dangerous character with a suspicious past, along with various other individuals on the far Right who paid for and orchestrated the constant attacks on Clinton.

If Obama really were a CIA "asset", I think the agency would have done a better job of protecting him, by causing a couple of these people to have "accidents" as a warning to the rest.

I'm not terribly bothered that Obama may have been an agent for the CIA or NSA - depending of course on what he did while in such a position. In fact, if it were true, what would that mean for all those who have questioned his patriotism or the validity of his citizenship status? How would they feel if it came out he was actually involved in some sort of dangerous covert mission for the US during his time in Pakistan? Shouldn't such a thing only prove that he's a patriot and in fact has been working to further US even as a young man?

Originally posted by pr3l33t

Originally posted by Son of Will

Originally posted by mothershipzeta
Other Wayne Madsen "bombshells:"

In 2005, he wrote than an unidentified former CIA agent claimed that the USS Cole was actually hit by a Popeye cruise missile launched from an Israeli Dolphin-class submarine.

In 2006, he criticized the movie industry for indirectly causing suffering in Africa by promoting diamonds in movies like Breakfast At Tiffany's and Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend.

In a 2008 ArabNews article, Madsen is quoted as suggesting that the criminal prosecution of New York State governor Eliot Spitzer was partly due to the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad.


Random neural firings are now "journalism."

Usually when you make comments that criticize the claims of others, it helps to offer at least a shred of evidence that those claims are false!

You would have us deny that Mossad has a hand in various branches of US policy? And you're calling HIM a nut? Oh the irony.

You would have us stupidly (dare I say... ignorantly?) accept nonsense, uncorroborated claims, clearly made up on the spot by a mad man as truth? I'm sure you think Glenn Beck is a genius, too.

The influence of Israel on every spectrum of the political structure of the US is vast, and by NO means uncorroborated nonsense. You must be stunningly naive to not comprehend the existence, let alone the magnitude of this, if you actually consider yourself versed in politics.

To reiterate, Madsen has already brought the evidence - if you're going to make accusations, then it is your job to discredit that evidence - not make snide comments and pretending that it doesn't even exist in the first place. If you actually looked at the OP, which I'm betting you didn't, you'd see a wealth of information supporting his case.

Care to dissect some of Madsen's comments and actually show where he's wrong? Until then, "The less a man makes declarative statements, the less apt he is to look foolish in retrospect."

[edit on 4-9-2010 by Son of Will]

Kudos to the original poster. Didn't know this information, but after watching the interview Madsen did with Jones on YouTube it looks like the CIA connections goes back to even before Obama was born. Does anyone here know if even Obama's birth was planned for this reason. I heard that some occult members do have babies for certain purposes, and was wondering if maybe Obama;s birth was the same way...

reply to post by thedarktower


Daddy Bush was director of the CIA under Ford I believe. Before that I think he was a congressman. The transition from insider congressman to CIA seems reasonable to me. But the transition from CIA to Presidential challenger and then VP/Pres is a little more suspect. When half your workload and accomplishments are secret/illegal how do you mount a campaign without some serious shadow backing? And this is coming from a Republican...just an honest question.

i know this may be kind of off topic, but does anyone have any information on Michelle's background? I don't mean the obvious well known stuff, but rather was at some point possibly groomed for her future role over this country? I just don;t think she was clueless about it....

reply to post by MrAndy


You realize why there is SO much vitriol directed at Obama, don't you? (John Kerry was such a nobody that I'm not really sure that democrats were all that surprised at how he wussed out) Even people who weren't all that impressed (or not impressed at all) with Obama expected him to at least be not as bad as Bush. He's been more of the same and WORSE.
He's actually more egotistical, more arrogant, & more tyrannical than Bush. (HOW is that possible?!) He lied up one side & down another and took Bush's worst & pushed it further. (Yes. People should have known what he was when he voted for FISA, immunity for the telecoms, & the bailouts- cognitive dissonance, I guess) The things he's got the OFAs saying & doing are nothing short of outrageous.
My grandmother used to have a saying, "the guts of a government mule" (& I'm pretty sure she was a democrat). I never grasped what she meant until this year. I will vote for the devil before I will EVER vote for a democrat again. #1 they act like the worst side of republicans, squared & #2 it feels like they are cheats; like they're deliberately throwing the game.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Without a great deal of documentation this accusation probably is not going to gain traction outside of conspiracy theorists who seem to blame a great deal of the world's ills on an alphabet soup of intelligence agencies. It honestly makes no sense for someone running for US president to hide links to CIA since given the militarist nature of the United States, this might be viewed as a plus for many voters (note the presidency of George Herbert Walker Bush a former CIA Director). As for all presidents possessing links to CIA as a perquisite of office...that seems difficult to believe given what we know of CIA and the individuals who have been president since 1948 when the agency was founded. All one need do is read any of the histories of CIA and its predecessor OSS to understand that until the 1980s, CIA only employed white Anglo-Saxon protestants, preferably from Ivy League schools, as case officers. Non-white case officers existed of course but they were very much in the minority being primarily employed as expendable assets. It seems improbable that Eisenhower, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton would have possessed strong links to CIA simply because their backgrounds did not fit the profiles of case managers. A Bush 43 association is questionable because he is an ex-alcoholic and drug user. As for Obama's CIA association...anything's possible I suppose but as indicated, a great deal of evidence for this would be required before the notion gained any traction and I have to wonder if this information was obtainable by an ordinary citizen, why was it not exposed by the Clinton campaign.

Bear in mind: I'm not ruling out an associations because I believe intelligence agencies regardless of which nation they represent are capable of anything if they deem it necessary. CIA in this sense is no better or worse than MI5/MI6, Mossad/Shin Bet, KGB/FSB, DGSE, ISI, Bundesnachrichtendienst, or MSS. It does appear that CIA is often singled out as somehow being 'worse' then the rest: It is not. The intelligence business is ugly and that's always been the case. Yet, I seriously doubt any knowledgeable fair-minded person would argue that in a dangerous world national security agencies aren't necessary (if they were not, why would virtually every nation on the planet have them including notably peaceable nations such as Denmark [PET] and New Zealand [SIS]). Secrecy however, is a dangerous thing especially in a supposedly democratic society and, the very nature of intelligence--it's secret--leaves the behavior and activities intelligence agencies subject to myriad of abuses. CIA is certainly guilty of abuses and in the past, they have been called to task. However, anyone who suggest that CIA is any different from their competitors in the world of intelligence is probably mistaken. In fact, they quite possibly may be less competent and less nasty that many.

Originally posted by pr3l33t

Originally posted by Son of Will

Originally posted by mothershipzeta
Other Wayne Madsen "bombshells:"

In 2005, he wrote than an unidentified former CIA agent claimed that the USS Cole was actually hit by a Popeye cruise missile launched from an Israeli Dolphin-class submarine.

In 2006, he criticized the movie industry for indirectly causing suffering in Africa by promoting diamonds in movies like Breakfast At Tiffany's and Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend.

In a 2008 ArabNews article, Madsen is quoted as suggesting that the criminal prosecution of New York State governor Eliot Spitzer was partly due to the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad.


Random neural firings are now "journalism."

Usually when you make comments that criticize the claims of others, it helps to offer at least a shred of evidence that those claims are false!

You would have us deny that Mossad has a hand in various branches of US policy? And you're calling HIM a nut? Oh the irony.

You would have us stupidly (dare I say... ignorantly?) accept nonsense, uncorroborated claims, clearly made up on the spot by a mad man as truth? I'm sure you think Glenn Beck is a genius, too.

Don't put words in my mouth. If you can't reply to what I said, then don't reply at all. Spouting garbage, and pathetically trying to apply them to me, is just pitiful.

For example, I think Glenn Beck is a moron. However, he constructs his points better than you have. Make of that what you will.