This President is dangerous to the US. The logic that started the war in Libya has nothing to do with Gadhafi, per se. It has to do with setting the stage. This president is not a leader. He IS an actor. The stage is being prepared by others. He is only the lead role at the moment. And this is WHY he is dangerous. Nothing is REAL. It’s all staged. No one that is a REAL player gets hurt, according to the globalists.
I’m convinced that there is a fracturing in the Globalists clique. Some of them are Global Capitalists and others are Global Communists. There is an ideological strife a foot. The reason I believe that is because there are leaks of information surfacing that would otherwise NOT be there.
Be that as it may, the other agents in play are the Muslims. They are outmaneuvering the Globalists on some fronts and the Globalists are making hasty errors in judgement. They are forced to move more quickly, but some have already made deals with the other side. Those, I believe, are the Capitalists, because they have only one goal, money, but not money in that they have paper or stuff like that, but money in terms of true wealth and that is Control driven. They have to get CONTROL of the commonly accepted currency, because in the end, that is their only truest commodity.
So, how does that correlate to Gadhafi and how does that set the stage for a war that the US be subjected to?
It’s the Logic. The UN is the Global GUN. The reason that Gadhafi was attacked is to begin to set the precedent and NO other reason. The next casualty will be potentially Syria, in my opinion. The following, and this may not occur until AFTER the election, is Israel. And the reasoning is nice outlined below, in Gaffeney’s article. However, I would take it a step farther. The same situation is setting itself up here too, in the US. The next casualty, may indeed be, the US. Hezbollah and Hamas have set up shop in South America and Mexico. They are taking over the cartels. They got their FEET in the door by selling weapons and training the Cartels. Now, they are tenured within those “armies.” The same situation is setting itself up. What difference is there in logic? It is the same. The Palestinian’s cry that they were removed from their land. The Mexicans cry the same. US children are being taught toward sedition and outright treason of their own country by “teachers” whose agenda is to overthrow the state that they teach. Even the methods are the same between the Palestinians and what they are doing to Israel and what the “Mexican’s” are doing to the US. The similarities should not go unnoticed. The fish ALWAYS stinks from the HEAD.
<thanks to Mandy for the Gaffney article.>
I would also like to mention that Obama sitting as the head of the UN security council is a direct violation of the nobility clause in Article 9 of the US CONSTITUTION.
The ATF who’s under the Homeland security, which the CIA is also under, is headed by a CZAR. This agency is NOT steered by an elected official. This is an appointment by the PRESIDENT. These CZAR headed agencies have taken control of legitimate agencies and are run by executive fiat. This is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. How is it that they have been allowed these POWERS? These agencies have seized control of America. They overrule the Constitutional limitations of power.
Communist China may be bad, but America is going to be much worse, if this continues unchecked.
The Gadhafi precedent: Could attack on Libya set the stage for action against Israel?
By Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | There are many reasons to be worried about the bridge-leap the Obama administration has just undertaken in its war with Col. Moammar Gadhafi. How it will all end is just one of them.
Particularly concerning is the prospect that what we might call the Gadhafi precedent will be used in the not-too-distant future to justify and threaten the use of U.S. military forces against an American ally: Israel.
Here’s how such a seemingly impossible scenario might eventuate:
It begins with the Palestinian Authority seeking a United Nations Security Council resolution that would recognize its unilateral declaration of statehood. Three top female officials in the Obama administration reprise roles they played in the council’s recent action on Libya: U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, a vehement critic of Israel, urges that the United States support (or at least not veto) the Palestinians’ gambit. She is supported by the senior director for multilateral affairs at the National Security Council, Samantha Power, who in the past argued for landing a “mammoth force” of American troops to protect the Palestinians from Israel. Ditto Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose unalloyed sympathy for the Palestinian cause dates back at least to her days as first lady.
This resolution enjoys the support of the other four veto-wielding Security Council members – Russia, China, Britain and France – as well as all of the other nonpermanent members except India, which joins the United States in abstaining. As a result, it is adopted with overwhelming support from what is known as the “international community.”
With a stroke of the U.N.’s collective pen, substantial numbers of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Israeli citizens find themselves on the wrong side of internationally recognized borders. The Palestinian Authority (PA) insists on its long-standing position: The sovereign territory of Palestine must be rid of all Jews.
The Israeli government refuses to evacuate the oft-condemned “settlements” now on Palestinian land or to remove the IDF personnel, checkpoints and facilities rightly seen as vital to protecting their inhabitants and, for that matter, the Jewish state itself.
Hamas and Fatah bury the hatchet (temporarily), forging a united front and promising democratic elections in the new Palestine. There, as in Gaza – and probably elsewhere in the wake of the so-called “Arab awakening” – the winner likely will be the Muslim Brotherhood, whose Palestinian franchise is Hamas.
The unified Palestinian proto-government then seeks international help to “liberate” its land. As with the Gadhafi precedent, the first to act is the Arab League. Its members unanimously endorse the use of force to protect the “Palestinian people” and end the occupation of the West Bank by the Israelis.
Turkey, which is still a NATO ally despite its ever-more-aggressive embrace of Islamism, is joined by Britain and France – two European nations increasingly hostile to Israel – in applauding this initiative in the interest of promoting “peace.” They call on the U.N. Security Council to authorize such steps as might be necessary to enforce the Arab League’s bidding.
Once again, Team Obama’s leading ladies – Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Power and Ms. Rice – align to support the “will of the international community.” They exemplify and are prepared to enforce the president’s willingness to subordinate U.S. sovereignty to the dictates of transnationalism and his personal hostility toward Israel. The concerns of Mr. Obama’s political advisers about alienating Jewish voters on the eve of the 2012 election are trumped by presidential sympathy for the Palestinian right to a homeland.
Accordingly, hard as it may be to believe given the United States’ long-standing role as Israel’s principal ally and protector, Mr. Obama acts in accordance with the Gadhafi precedent. He warns Israel that it must take steps immediately to dismantle its unwanted presence inside the internationally recognized state of Palestine lest it face the sort of U.S.- enabled “coalition” military measures now under way in Libya. In this case, they would be aimed at neutralizing IDF forces on the West Bank – and beyond, if necessary – in order to fulfill the “will of the international community.”
Of course, such steps would not result in the ostensibly desired endgame, namely “two states living side by side in peace and security.” If the current attack on Libya entails the distinct possibility of unintended (or at least unforeseen) consequences, application of the Gadhafi precedent to Israel seems certain to produce a very different outcome from the two-state “solution”: Under present and foreseeable circumstances, it will unleash a new regional war, with possible worldwide repercussions.
At the moment, it seems unlikely that the first application in Libya of the Gadhafi precedent will have results consistent with U.S. interests. Even if a positive outcome somehow is forthcoming there, should Mr. Obama and his anti-Israel troika of female advisers be allowed, based on that precedent, to realize the foregoing hypothetical scenario, they surely would precipitate a new international conflagration, one fraught with truly horrific repercussions – for Israel, the United States and freedom-loving people elsewhere.
A Congress that was effectively sidelined by Team Obama in the current crisis had better engage fully, decisively and quickly if it is to head off such a disastrous reprise.
– Here’s another article as food for thought –
WHY THE FRAMERS INCLUDED THE “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” CLAUSE
by Tom Deacon
(May 16, 2010) — Section 1 ofArticle II of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Try to understand this: At the time of the adoption of the Constitution there were no “natural born Citizens” (no country yet = no citizens, period?), so yes, the Founders wrote in a “grandfather” clause to allow those present (already born) at the time the Constitution was signed to qualify to be president. However, if you weren’t born yet when the Constitution was adopted (that includes Obama), then you had to be a “natural born Citizen,” meaning both parents must be U.S. citizens. It is amazing how tough this is for some people to understand. The reason Congress “investigated” McCain was because he was not born in the USA. They concluded in their report that that was OK, because his “parents” (notice the plural form of “parents”) were both U.S. Citizens. This is not true for Obama, and he clearly was not held to the same standard.
The Constitution says you must be a natural born Citizen, or a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted. The Founders wanted the president to be a natural born Citizen, but they recognized that there were NO natural born Citizens until after the Constitution was adopted. They didn’t know that 200+ years from the signing, the education system would have dumbed down the USA’s population to the point that understanding it was an endangered ability.
Some may believe the natural born Citizen clause isn’t fair. The Founders of our nation believed it was the right thing to do because they had just fought a war with those who had allegiance to a country other than the one they were fighting to create….that country was the one they left to come to America, namely, England. The Founders did not want to elect a newborn to the office of the president, nor did they want to wait 35 years for a natural born Citizen to meet the age requirement to be president. So they grandfathered themselves in with the statement “or a Citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.” No doubt they trusted themselves and their children who were born prior to the signing of the Constitution to be loyal only to the USA, fighting a war with England would have had that effect on them.
Obama is the “poster child’ who proves once again that the wisdom of America’s Founders was impeccable.
You can make up excuses till the earth fries from global warming, but you can’t change the truth.