Post: #351

(12-17-2016 10:50 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(11-06-2016 11:58 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  IKE, I would almost make the argument that having a college degree today is a sign of not having an IQ above average. If your degree isn't in a hard science, it is not only borderline useless, the person has likely been indoctrinated into believing a bunch of liberal nonsense that simply makes no sense.

Many of those with college degrees are in massive debt, their degree is completely useless in the real world, they have learned nothing but victimhood mentality, and they live off the govt. like a leach. They either live off of welfare, a worthless govt. grant that is really theft of the tax payers, or working a govt. job that is completely pointless and only causes everyone else more grief in life.

Yes, the low IQ support the Democratic party, because they can vote themselves a raise and say "to hell with the future, it is all about me and right now".

Worthless govt job... cops, firemen.

Worthless degree? Useless in the "real world"

this chart shows it cuts unemployment in about half.

The real world is one with objective data, not emotional reasoning.

Excelsior - if you see IKE, these are the guys you need to boot from the Democrat party if you want to get shit done.

He is a typical Corpressive. He claims to be Progressive yet regurgitates nothing but Corporate propaganda. He thinks he is doing his side good but actually looks very unintelligent and makes independents swing to the right.

We had the same problem with cuckservatives for the past 16 years. Once we lost to Obama we started the long process of eliminating them from the party but it's only halfway done. It seems cleaning out an American party takes about 24 years (a full generation!!!). No one said it was easy, but that's how things work in America.

Post: #352

Post: #353

https://mansizedtarget.wordpress.com/201...-horrible/

Whole thing is a vicious takedown. Visit the original link for his hypertext with additional info.

Quote:Barack Obama was an atrocious president. His ideas, his attitude, and his effect on the country were almost exclusively negative. Even for someone ill disposed to his politics, there was, for me at least, a hope that his very presence would lead to a moral renewal among black Americans and a rejection of the corrosive “blame whitey” attitude that is so inimical to self-improvement. Furthermore, while doing so for mostly leftist reasons, I hoped that his rejection of the Iraq War would lead to a broader embrace of foreign policy minimalism. Both of these possible silver linings turned out to be made of tin. On race relations he was terrible, fomenting racial troubles at home, while getting us involved in new conflicts abroad. Thus, he was bad in the ways I expected because he is an extreme liberal, and he was not even good in the ways he suggested he would be. He was simply a disaster across the board.

It’s easy to forget all the ways he and his presidency was a disaster, so let’s recap some things we may have forgotten.

Domestic Policy

Obama’s domestic record, particularly in his first term, has been characterized by standard issue liberal causes–more government, Obamacare, Obamaphones, more spending, big deficits, a heavy tax burden–with newer and more exotic ones, such as transsexual rights, continued mass immigration, vaguely technocratic globalist free trade views, and a loose monetary policy that has only slowly raised the stock market and done little to help the “real economy.”

While the economy is undeniably better off today than at the height of the Great Reset in 2008, the growth was slow and the number of structurally unemployed has been significant. The massive growth in the market and confidence since Trump’s electoral victory suggests Obama’s pro-regulation and big government views were holding things back considerably. Furthermore, his use of executive orders and failure to recognize and adapt to his opponents made the style of his presidency imperious and hostile.

While he came from a Constitutional law background, Americans probably don’t realize how radical the law schools are, often hostile to the civics-style understanding and respect they have for law and government. He exemplified the cynical legal realism of his Harvard education.

Race Relations

We saw hints of Obama’s racial attitudes during his 2008 Campaign, where his toxic pastor Jeremiah Wright’s “God Damn America” sermon was revealed. A prelude to later events, we may also forget how Obama made excuses for the Jena Six crooks and was soft on crime generally. Throughout his presidency, whenever there was a black-white conflict, the insecure mulatto took the black side, right or wrong. In the process, he encouraged lawlessness and made the job of police officers more difficult, leading to race riots and increased violence against cops and people in general. We saw this embrace of the worst kinds of lawlessness and hostility with the incident of Officer Crowley and Professor Gates, Trayvon Martin, Ferguson, Baltimore, etc. In his “let’s understand their anger” schtick, he constantly flattered blacks and, in the process, made whites more nervous, cohesive, and aware that minorities are tribal and somewhat hostile, whereas, by contrast, whites are chiefly concerned with justice defined in universal terms.

Gun Control

Obama hates guns. He hates guns because he hates freedom and hates white people. He knows white people out in the Red States love guns and freedom and fear their government. He wants the government to be able to control white people, and he knows it will hit a brick wall eventually if whites still have guns. He also thinks, against much evidence, that it’s a winning electoral issue. And he knows, in his heart of hearts, that as much as he hates (mostly white) cops, that minorities with guns are very dangerous, and scare little old ladies and urban white liberals, so disarming them is also popular and necessary.

He tried hard after Newtown to ban assault weapons–rarely used in crime, but useful for grinding a tyrannical government to a halt–but he failed. His hatred of guns, gun culture (i.e., white culture), and historical American freedoms was always manifest. The Supreme Court gave those who support gun rights a useful tool in Heller, but it met with no help from Obama and his buddies in Congress.

Spending and Regulation

Obama was in love with government spending and regulation. His stimulus package after the 2008 economic crisis has almost nothing to show for it, other than nearly a $20T deficit, almost double than when he took office. He’s gotten the DOL to push higher wages through new overtime rules, the EPA to stop useful pipelines and to hamstring American business for dubious fears of global warming, the DoD to shake down local police departments and schools for various racial justice reasons, and the Education Department to push schools to allow boys in the girls bathrooms, when it’s not harassing them for inevitable racial “gaps” in testing.

He has little respect for business, especially small business. He has weighed them (and individuals) down with Obamacare, and given little moral support for the American free market system. He never worked in the private sector in a meaningful way, knows little about it, and has little sympathy for its virtues and its challenges. Naturally, he and his wife acted like royalty the minute they got money, much like the Clintons, jet-setting on the taxpayer dime when they’re not cozying up to celebrities. For him money is to be spent; the idea of capital, thrift, and hard work as a virtue eludes him.

The one area where he might have had some moral authority in this area was to reign in the casino-like activity of Wall Street and the Investment Banks. He didn’t do this. Whether out of laziness, conflict of interest, or just it not being a priority, it seemed an area where he could do something both popular and useful, and he mostly abjured.

Social Issues

Obama was an extreme leftist on all social issues, pushing beyond the 2008 boundaries for gay rights and gay marriage, to the new frontier of normalizing mentally ill transsexuals. He ignored statutes and constitutional limits on immigration law and brought about the Dreamer executive order, which legalized millions of young (and not so young) illegal immigrants. And he not only was pro-abortion, but in totalitarian fashion aimed to coerce religious institutions and businesses opposed to abortion to provide them in the form of his Obamacare mandate. On a great many issues the distinction of public and private is under assault, and Obama did nothing to defend the freedom of conscience, the right not to participate in that which one abhors. The goal, of course, whether it’s abortion or making people celebrate gay marriage is to normalize one point of view and, more important, label more conservative views as retrograde and unacceptable. In this he is quite simply a typical leftist fanatic.

The end result of all this social issue ferment was to accelerate the very tangible assault on the family. A social revolution has transpired since the 1960s, reinforced by an economic revolution that hurts working class men through deindustrialization and wage stagnation. These events conspire to accelerate the breakdown of the traditional family, which has real consequences: impoverished single mothers, mass unhappiness, cut-throat economic competition between the sexes, the economic obsolescence of men and fatherhood, the failure to socialize and contain men and women to do their duty to society and posterity, and a decline in family formation among the most talented. The assault on the family is dysgenic and disorienting.

These social and economic costs are most pronounced among minorities. Instead of recognizing and doing something to address this genuine social problem, he has instead doubled down, denigrating heterosexuality with the cult of the transsexual and the gay. This movement is simply another unfolding of the Marxist sexual revolution, which aimed above all to destroy the family and delegitimize the past. By normalizing and celebrating the abnormal and failing to recognize we must restrain this powerful passion, the traditional family becomes one option among many, harder to support than ever, rather than the socially encouraged best path for the good of the community as a whole.

Foreign Policy

Mainstream Republicans criticize Obama, in part, for his deviation from neoconservative orthodoxy. While realism of one kind or another was the dominant view in the first Bush administration, neoconservative reigned in the Second, and many Republicans became uneasy with this au courant combination of idealism and interventionism. Far from undoing this legacy, Obama pursued the worst of all worlds, a chaotic hodge podge of deviations from our traditional core interests, a redefinition of the genius of our American system as a fundamentally leftist order, forays into idealistic wars based on dubious and sentimental concerns for the “oppressed,” and cynical support for the Saudis in the Great Game of the Middle East. Most important of all, he has downplayed the threat of ISIS and al Qaeda terrorism to paint his mediocrity as a success story, and throughout his presidency he has, like his predecessor, avoided noticing that immigration control is a more important and more efficient means of vouchsafing our security than playing whack a mole in the Middle East.

Anti-American

On foreign affairs, Obama’s rhetoric has been decidedly anti-American and anti-Western. Obama’s said ridiculous things about how Islam is an integral part of America, gave back a Churchill Bust to the English in a symbolic rebuff, shown no ability to make sense of nationalist leaders like Putin and Duerte, and made a big show of trying to close GITMO, which he failed to accomplish. He restored relations with Cuba with no counter-balancing benefit to the United States, even as he incorrectly labels democratically elected leaders who thwart his plans as dictators, especially Putin. His preference for the Third World over Europe is manifest.

The theme running through all of his speeches is that America had a bad past, which it must renounce, and that it’s only getting better now, in part because he was elected. His abiding belief was that the U.S’s disproportionate strength, global perceptions of our arrogance, and our shoddy record all combine to make the rest of the world hate us. If we only show that we understand them and are sympathetic, so this thinking goes, they will respond by scaling back their venom.This was not patriotism, but rather messianic utopian liberalism, and judging by all the countries in our grill these days, it didn’t work. Far from being a strategy, it was more of a psychodrama originating in his conflicted feelings about a country that he felt treated him and his people badly. It was silly to think an alienated minority would look out for those whom he deemed an oppressor class.

Less Safe

We are quite simply less safe, as are our European friends. Obama audaciously announced a lack of foreign terrorist attacks in his speech at MacDill Air Force Base in December of 2016. He somehow forgot Pulse, Fort Hood, Chattanooga, Boston, San Bernardino, and several other incidents, which he dismissed as merely home grown. These attacks are home grown in the sense only that the killers lived in the U.S. for five minutes before immigrating, or maybe their parents did. Their victims are just as dead. And the killers all thought, reasonably enough, they were doing it for Allah. Obama’s refusal to connect the dots of Islamic terrorism at home to immigration and Islam itself has been a disaster. He never showed moral clarity or intelligence on this issue, and his happy clappy talk, far from assuaging our enemies, emboldened them.

Stupid Wars

Obama ran on a platform of pulling out of Iraq, which was a popular part of his program that I agreed with. He did do that, but afterwards he illogically got us more deeply involved in Afghanistan (after dithering), then disastrously involved in Libya, Syria, and Yemen. He sent troops back to Iraq when his too-clever-by-half plans to depose Assad backfired. When the Arab Spring came along, he embraced “democracy,” even when it led to Islamic theocracy in places like Egypt. In the end, we have either helped our enemies (Libya), picked the wrong side (Syria), or picked a side when there was no good side to pick (Yemen). The old policy of tolerating stable dictators proved the superior one.

We’ve also gotten involved indirectly in places like Ukraine and sent arms to Vietnam on the realpolitik side of things. In all these instances, we’ve either accomplished nothing or made things worse. I don’t buy the Republican critique we should have stayed in Iraq forever, but if Iraq was worth leaving–it was–why are we in these other places? What’s our “exit strategy,” a term we haven’t heard much about since Iraq?

Weaker Military

Obama has shrunk the military and focused on using it as a tool for social change. He has done little to make the bloated procurement system more efficient, encourage any positive systemic change, nor did he ever embrace the role of “wartime president.” While men fought and died in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and elsewhere, he wanted everyone to know that he was the “guy who stopped Iraq,” that he was winning against al Qaeda, and thus the wars that we were still in, some of which he started, had to be ignored.

He basked in the glory of taking out Osama bin Laden (an undeniable good call that others may not have made), but he used it as an excuse to distract from the bigger strategic failure: that Islamic terrorists untied to states remain on the loose. Doubling down on his alibi, he said we were winning against ISIS, the “JV team” if you may recall, only days before the horrific Paris attacks.

Worse than all this, he wants the Army to pay for chopping off dicks, when it should be geared towards chopping off the dicks and heads of enemies soldiers. Women have been pushed relentlessly into combat arms, even as numerous studies have shown they’re less capable individually and weaken units collectively. Combat effectiveness is a secondary consideration and as current standards lead to disparities they will be modified. He had at least one Muslim turncoat terrorist incident at Fort Hood, which he insultingly had labeled “workplace violence.” When his narcissism does not compel him to label abject failure as success, the leftist ideologies of feminism or gay rights or multiculturalism are always the dominant motive, not military effectiveness.

The Real Silver Lining

Obama’s presidency made the country weaker, less unified, and less safe, and the government more bloated, sclerotic, and intrusive than it was when he began. The country taken as a whole is simply in worse shape.

The real silver lining is what Obama’s failed presidency did to conservatives and the middle class. He radicalized them. They realized who they were up against, and that their opponents were playing a zero sum tribal game of gimmedats in what was previously a less diverse country characterized by the politics of ideas and of class distinctions. Now the decline and deliberate marginalization of whites to minority status is celebrated, and whites are no longer engaged in unilateral disarmament. Those with broadly similar interests and disdain for political correctness have joined forces. And the unlikely hero of Donald Trump emerged. And Trump deployed the three legged stool of populist nationalism–immigration restriction, American First foreign policy, and pro-worker trade policy–to unify them.

In May of 2008, I wrote in a that , “Four years of this trend will propel someone like me well into the middle of the conservative mainstream, and that would be a good thing. Obama’s presidency will stress and purify the conservative movement, leading to clarity on issues of culture, the welfare state, demographics, and racism that it has lost in the fog of ‘compassionate conservatism’ under President Bush.”

Romney couldn’t pull it off in four; he was still disarmed by Obama’s withering attacks, the left’s naked tribalism, and his own refusal to embrace the logical alternative. Plus his “get government out of the way” Reaganesque view of things ignored the impact of demographics and the hostility of many large corporations to traditional values. We need to focus on the people more than policy, and we need also to embrace some species of industrial policy to undo the anemic economy and make sure workers have a stake and benefit in its success. Trump beat the Republicans by pivoting on the national question. And he beat the Democrats at their own game because he realized the ways Obama had radicalized everyone who was not part of his coalition of megarich urban liberals, welfare cases, foreigners, and big government beneficiaries. It turns out “identity politics” work reasonably well when the largest ethnic group is also the most hated, the most naturally Republican, and the most put upon by every institution of culture.

Obama’s leftist radicalism was always his core belief. It was plain from his past, his pastor, and his paean to his socialist father, and his presidency reflected this at nearly every turn. Trump simply saw the $100 bill lying on the ground in the form of alienated, working class voters and other scared whites, threw them a bone, and the lesson of that approach is valuable beyond the field of politics. It shows the power of conviction, common sense, and courage in a world of suffocating political correctness.

Post: #354

The best thing about Obama is that he led to Trump. His disastrous terms essentially allowed Trump to capitalize on turmoil in the nation and win. I have little doubt that Trump would have been able to succesfully run if we had Romney in 2012 or McCain in 2008.

Post: #355

Barack Obama is just rude.

He played golf today at Kapolei which is on the west side of Oahu. http://www.staradvertiser.com/2016/12/21...-vacation/

He is staying on the east side in gorgeous town called Kailua. Here's a map:


As you can see Kailua is on the far right side and the town of Kapolei is on the left. They are at both ends of the freeway system on this island. That means that he had to shut down two of three freeways twice today. Tomorrow starts Christmas break for kids, but everyone is getting home late tonight. Everyone.

Now, on the map, right next to Kailua is Kaneohe. That where Marine Corps Base Hawaii is located. It has several detachments of fixed wing aircraft. The pilots have all been in combat and can landntheir shit at camp rhino.

There is no reason Barack Obama could not have taken helicopters across Oahu.

I'm very upset about this.

Aloha!

Post: #356

I guess next month it's going to be back to the Choom Gang for Barry O.

Post: #357

Post: #358

Post: #359

Post: #360

https://www.rt.com/usa/371542-obama-ndaa...-military/

Quote:US and anti-US propaganda

Without naming the controversial “Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act,” which was introduced by Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio) before being placed in the 2017 NDAA, Obama mentioned it in generally favorable terms. Critics point to the law authorizing grants in order to track anti-US propaganda as a form of the US government itself pushing propaganda on its own domestic population, in the guise of highlighting so-called fake news.

"My Administration," Obama wrote, "strongly supports the bill's structural reform of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), which streamlines BBG operations and reduces inefficiencies, while retaining the longstanding statutory firewall, protecting against interference with and maintaining the professional independence of the agency's journalists and broadcasters and thus their credibility as sources of independent news and information."

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/12...nda-agency

Quote:n the final hours before the Christmas holiday weekend, U.S. President Barack Obama on Friday quietly signed the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law—and buried within the $619 billion military budget (pdf) is a controversial provision that establishes a national anti-propaganda center that critics warn could be dangerous for press freedoms.

The Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act, introduced by Republican Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, establishes the Global Engagement Center under the State Department which coordinates efforts to "recognize, understand, expose, and counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining United Sates national security interests."

Further, the law authorizes grants to non-governmental agencies to help "collect and store examples in print, online, and social media, disinformation, misinformation, and propaganda" directed at the U.S. and its allies, as well as "counter efforts by foreign entities to use disinformation, misinformation, and propaganda to influence the policies and social and political stability" of the U.S. and allied nations.

The head of the center will be appointed by the president, which likely means the first director will be chosen by President-elect Donald Trump.

The new law comes weeks before the New York billionaire assumes the presidency, amid national outrage over the spread of fake news and what many say is foreign interference in the election, both which are accused of enabling Trump's victory.

Those combined forces have already contributed to the overt policing of media critical of U.S. foreign policy, such as the problematic "fake news blacklist" recently disseminated by the Washington Post.

And for those paying attention over the holiday weekend, the creation of the a new information agency under the Propaganda Act appears to be another worrisome development.

Sneaky... (assuming it's real)

Post: #361

The two good things that came out of his presidency was getting Bin Laden killed (which made me vote for him in 2012) and passing the 21st Century Cures Act just now.

Otherwise, he is quite divisive. The economic recovery that he and his party talk about, it only benefits Democratic constituencies (like cities) and cuts off everything for Republican constituencies. Sure, jobs are added but not every area in the country has recovered. Some places are practically ghost towns and some people are still struggling. Most of the wealth and money made went to the 1%. He's a great speaker and all, but sometimes the cynic in me thought they nominated him to end political competition for Black America's vote after the Democrats took their vote for granted for decades after 1964 (Bush Jr. was close to making roads for Republicans to win black voters, but Katrina and the 2006 midterm elections stopped that).

I just knew from watching his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, they were going to make him president.

He only supported gay and trans rights just because they were getting popular in terms of support and only lifted the bans in the military and supported gay marriage because the public was becoming more accepting of the LGBT community. Then again, the Democrats only support equality when it's get more than 50% support of the public, otherwise they cower in a corner.

In case you're wondering, I read some local alt-left newspapers (read: actual progressives they call themselves) and they don't like the Democrats at all. Most of the time, they see them under the "New Democrat" ideology which means social acceptance and open market forces (read: corporate-friendly) from the Democratic Leadership Council, a dissolved organization that helped Bill Clinton get elected

Post: #362

The Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act is real, as far as I can tell.

These bill riders need to fucking end. I'm sick of that shit. Bills should be about a single topic, no riders, no earmarks.

Post: #363

I don't think there's ever been a president who openly sabotages the country before leaving the way Obama is. He's trying to start a conflict with Russia. The same dems who hated Bush and Iraq are now demanding WW3.

Post: #364

Obama expels 35 Russian diplomats from US soil, says they're "intelligence operatives". Washington's Russophobia just hit a whole new level.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-29...tion-hacki


He's trying to start WW3 before he leaves office instead of helping Trump transition into the White House. This guy is a treasonous scumbag. There's no other explanation.

Post: #365

Obama is Putin's bitch

Post: #366

(12-30-2016 10:40 AM)SunW Wrote:  Obama is Putin's bitch

Quote: Although we have the right to retaliate, we will not resort to irresponsible ‘kitchen’ diplomacy but will plan our further steps to restore Russian-US relations based on the policies of the Trump Administration.

Michelle be like: My dick is THIS BIG.

Post: #367

The guys is irrelevant. He needs to go. Out out out

Post: #368

He's going to stick around, because there is a power vacuum in the Democrat realm, there is no one else there right now. They went all in with Hillary and that blew up in their face, so now they have to regroup, she's damaged goods (literally, when you consider her health), there's no heir apparent yet. They might build up Michelle, or someone like Gavin Newsom, who is the SF version of Trudeau.

Post: #369

Obama is not the first secretly gay president, but he is the first Muslim one:





Wears the ring forever with the inscription - "there is no god but allah" - by the way that text is found on the Saudi as well as the ISIS flag.

Ah well - he is just a globalist puppet. Still - his personal nuance is certainly very specific.

Now all the US needs is the first female, then the first openly gay, then the first transgender genderfluid one. Afterwards it won't matter because WWIII will be upon us and some kind of grizzly general will take over.

Post: #370

Obama deployed US Special Forces to Lithuania because Russia put nukes in Kaliningrad. Or rather, "nuclear capable" missiles. Nuclear capable isn't the same thing as actually nuclear.

Kaliningrad is Russian territory.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2531054/am...ama-putin/

Quote:US sends special forces to RUSSIAN BORDER as Nato is poised to strike back against Vladimir Putin’s ‘aggression’

Russia is reportedly deploying nuke-ready missiles in the province of Kaliningrad which borders Lithuania

PRESIDENT Obama has deployed US special forces troops along Lithuania’s border with “aggressive” Russia.

Tensions between Washington and the Kremlin have reached Cold War levels amid reports Vladimir Putin is deploying nuke-ready missiles in the Russian province of Kaliningrad – which borders Poland, Belarus and Lithuania.

And Lithuanian Defence Ministry spokeswoman Asta Galdikaite confirmed America has offered additional military support following Russia’s annexation of Crimea.

She said: “The United States was the first to offer additional safety assurance measures to the Baltic countries following the deterioration of the security situation in the region after the annexation of the Crimea.”

She added: “US Special Operations Forces presence in Lithuania is one of the deterrents” against military threats by Putin’s aggressive regime, reports the Express.

US military chief General Raymond T Thomas told the New York Times that America has a “persistent” presence in the Baltic states bordering Russia.

He added that many former Eastern Bloc countries are “scared to death” of Russia and the vulnerable states are “desperate” for America’s leadership.

The US and its Nato allies will send battalions of up to 1,200 to each of the three Baltic states – Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia – and Poland by spring this year, reports the New York Times.

Lithuania’s foreign minister Linas Linkevicius confirmed Russia’s military activity in Kaliningrad is terrifying the region.

He said: “Iskander missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads have been deployed. There are S-400 missiles and modernised jets.”

Linkevicius branded Russian behaviour in the region “military hooliganism” and called on Nato to take action and offer more support to beleaguered Ukraine.

He said: “Russia likes to create problems, conflict and then suggest some ideas how to mitigate, how to mediate - and some of our colleagues say ‘look they are cooperating’.”

In November, Putin’s naval forces unveiled their latest super-stealth submarine which has been deployed in the Black Sea as a shocking new report revealed Russia is "taking over" the region.

Kremlin bosses promised Russia would never allow the sea to become a “Nato lake” and they firmly believe the military alliance would crumble if, as feared, the Americans pull out.

Relations between the outgoing Obama administration and Russia have soured following allegations that Putin ordered the email hack which helped scupper Hillary Clinton's presidential bid.

The White House has since expelled 35 Russian diplomats and has shut down two "spy" compounds in New York and Maryland in response to what it claims is a campaign of harassment by Russia against American diplomats in Moscow.

Pretty much everything is nuclear capable, so that's just fearmongering. The US had nuclear 155mm artillery shells and a heavy infantry-portable nuclear recoilless gun during the cold war.

I'm not sure what two companies of SF guys are going to do if Russia gets froggy. It would be a lot more impressive to deploy... uh... apparently we don't have any armor left in Europe, so... the 2nd Cavalry Regiment I guess. They're a Stryker BCT which is fucking retarded in Europe but hey, whatever. There's at least a little bit of anti-tank capability in 2nd Cav and they do have artillery and whatnot.

I'm off on a tangent now but this is a perfect example of always fighting the last war. Strykers make sense over Bradleys when you're fighting dumbass insurgents in Iraq. But they're idiotic if you're planning on fighting a technologically more or less equal opponent who has fucking tanks!

Anyway, Obama sucks for trying to poke the bear even more. Any excuse to try to start WWIII I guess.

But wait... isn't this old news? Russia said way back in November that they were going to move Iskander and S-400 systems to Kaliningrad.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia...SKBN13G0W9

Quote:Moscow will deploy S-400 surface-to-air missiles and nuclear-capable Iskander systems in the exclave of Kaliningrad in retaliation for NATO deployments, a senior pro-Kremlin lawmaker was quoted as saying on Monday.

Russia has previously said it periodically sends Iskanders to Kaliningrad, but until now it has said these were routine drills. Moscow has not linked the moves explicitly with what it says is a NATO military build-up on Russia's western borders.

After the election as U.S. president of Donald Trump, who has said he wants closer ties with the Kremlin and has questioned the cost of protecting NATO allies, some analysts predict an emboldened Moscow could become more assertive in eastern Europe.

Viktor Ozerov, chairman of the defense committee in the Federation Council, Russia's upper house of parliament, said in remarks reported by RIA news agency that Russia was forced to react to the planned U.S. missile shield in eastern Europe.

"As response measures to such threats we will have... to deploy additional forces... This reinforcement includes deployment of S-400 and Iskander systems in Kaliningrad," the agency quoted Ozerov as saying.

The defense ministry did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment on Ozerov's remarks.

Also on Monday, Russian President Vladimir Putin was quoted talking about how Russia has to respond to what it perceives as a threat from U.S.-led forces in eastern Europe.

"Why are we reacting to NATO expansion so emotionally? We are concerned by NATO's decision making," RIA quoted him as saying in an interview for a documentary that will be broadcast by Russian TV later on Monday.

"What should we do? We have, therefore, to take countermeasures, which means to target with our missile systems the facilities, that, in our opinion, start posing a threat to us," Putin said.

...And now I'm finding articles from October talking about the Kaliningrad Iskander deployment, calling it "Obama's Cuban Missile Crisis".

So why is Obama just now reacting? The man is truly an enigma.

Post: #371

^^
There's no way the West could stop Russia if it wanted to invade the Baltics. This move is another impotent hand gesture by Obama to create trouble that Trump will have to deal with.

Of all the Presidents in my lifetime, I disagreed with some on their policies, but I presumed they would be interesting to know personally. Not Obama. I've always been repulsed by the way he pouts like a bitch when he doesn't get his way.

Post: #372

He doesn't have quite enough political capital to start war with Russia, even though he wants to. It's hard to start a war if the opponent isn't escalating like you are. At this point a huge false flag against a NATO or western plane is their only chance to blame Russia and attack them.

Post: #373

I'm pretty sure Obama only values our units in Europe as pawns to get killed for a solid casus belli with Russia.

I hope we don't see a "Russian attack" that kills a few SF teams in the next couple weeks.

Post: #374

Did Obama lie about his time in college while he was in Pakistan supporting the Mujhadeen?

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/201...and-obama/



Obama goes to Pakistan in the summer of 1981 and then for some reason there is a gap in his historical references and timeline. He does not reappear until the fall of 1982 attending Columbia (?) – or so the story is told, where he graduated in May of 1983. (This timeline has always been a thorn in my psyche of reconciliation).

The trip to Pakistan was unexpectedly noted in an April 2008 fundraiser . We wrote about it HERE. Just two weeks before this speech and surprise announcement of his 1981 visit to Pakistan, employees of John Brennan (who would become Obama’s terror chief) were caught tampering with Obama’s passport files. It should be noted that “Obama’s top terrorism and intelligence adviser, John O. Brennan, heads a firm that was cited in March 2008 (just before this April fundraiser) for breaching sensitive files in the State Department’s passport office, according to a State Department Inspector General’s report released July 2009. On April 19th the key figure Lt. Quarles Harris Jr., 24, who had been cooperating with a federal investigators, was found slumped dead inside a car.

However, against the backdrop of events at the time in 1981 Pakistan/Afghanistan, and against the backdrop of both Brennan and Brzezinski being in the same area, at exactly the same time, things are adding up.

Again, consider Obama reportedly walked away from a full ride scholarship at Occidental the summer of 81′ never to return. Instead he turns up, on paper only, at Columbia University the fall of 82′. But no-one, I mean NO-ONE has ever noted him ever having attended there – Consider:

1) “Columbia University will not divulge whether the “alleged” diploma issued was in the name of Barry Soetoro or Barack Hussein Obama. No public record exists regarding the diploma.”

2) “Obama alleges he attended Columbia in 1982, 1983. But, the investigators have been UNABLE to turn up a single shred of written documentation for the years 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984 that show where Obama appeared on a school roster, register, faculty memo, bulletin board, school awards, dean’s list; where Obama’s name appeared in a yearbook, club record, fraternity record, extra curricular activity member roster, student newspaper, student radio or TV activity; where Obama appeared in any records as a worker, employee, laborer in or about Columbia University; where Obama enrolled in any sports activity or program.”

3) “As a graduating senior in 1983 he does not appear in any Political Science (his major) or Graduating Class yearbook or invitation records.”

4) “There is absolutely no documentation of any kind to show Obama attended, lived, worked or played at Columbia University during the investigated 4 years.”

5) “Interviewed professors, college employees, students (who were at Columbia during the years in question) have failed to turn up a single person that can remember Obama. This is irrefutable evidence. Think about your own situation if Obama had attended your college? A “now-famous” person went to your school? Many would be able to say, “Of course I remember.” At Columbia, not a single person has been able to say he or she remembers Obama.” (link)

Obama meets CIA Brzezinski, who is exiting the term of Jimmy Carter, and is frequenting Afghanistan. Brzezinski is a mentor to Obama. John Brennan is in Afghanistan too. The support of the Mujahadeen against Russia is job #1.

Obama takes a trip to Pakistan/Afghanistan with Pakistani friends who happen to be from government families, and are also not aligned with sympathies to Russia, and supportive ideologically, of the Mujahadeen. Go figure?

And, um, well, additionally…. how did young ‘impoverished’ Barack afford such global travel? Those ain’t exactly cheap airline tickets, no? Or was someone else covering the costs and subsequent expenses?

Is this where Brzezinski, Brennan and Obama’s paths cross? Using the connections of Obama who is travelling with Wahid Hamid and staying in Karachi with Mohammed Hasan Chandoo’s family, and visiting Hyderabad as well.

We know Obama also made friends with Chairman of Senate, Muhammadmian Soomro, who said that in Pakistan he [Obama] came to know about Sunni and Shia sects. According to the report of Larry Rohter of April 10, 2008, in The New York Times, the Obama campaign staff, when questioned about the revelation of Obama’s 1981 trip to Karachi, stated:

“Mr. Obama visited Pakistan in 1981, on the way back from Indonesia, where his mother and half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, were living. He spent ‘about three weeks’ there, Mr. Obama’s press secretary, Bill Burton, said, staying in Karachi with the family of a college friend, Mohammed Hasan Chandoo, but also traveling to Hyderabad, in India.”

We know the three week story was BS. We know because it was perhaps the most important revelation never discussed by the media:

Where was Obama from the time he left Occidental to travel to Pakistan via Indonesia, to the time he entered Columbia – Which is Documented and Verified to be September 1982? Where was he? By his own admission this is the year he traveled to Pakistan. The historical claim is he attended Columbia University after Occidental, but amid the discovery evidence in the Dr. Orly Taitz v. Obama lawsuit we find Exhibit #3 Columbia official records show him attending Columbia university only for nine months September 1982-till May 1983. One complete School Fall/Winter – Winter/Spring year.

And then there’s the matter of how did Barack Obama gain entry into, and afford, Harvard Law School? Mr. John O Brennan spent most of his C.I.A. career as an analyst, but during the 1990s served a tour as the chief of the station in Saudi Arabia.

[…] In late March 2008, a former Manhattan Borough president Percy Sutton told a New York cable channel that a former business partner who was “raising money” for Obama had approached him in 1988 to help Obama get into Harvard Law School.

In this video interview, Sutton says he first heard of Obama about twenty years ago from Khalid Al-Mansour, who Sutton described as advisor to “one of the world’s richest men,” Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal. Sutton knew Al-Mansour well, since the two men had been business partners and served on several corporate boards together.

As Sutton remembered, Al-Mansour was raising money for Obama’s education and seeking recommendations for him to attend Harvard Law School.

“I was introduced to (Obama) by a friend who was raising money for him,” Sutton told NY1 city hall reporter Dominic Carter. “The friend’s name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas.”

Apparently, al-Mansour serves on the Board of, among others, Saudi African Bank and was responsible for the Africa investment activities of Kingdom Holdings, Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal’s investment company.

Is this how it all finally ties together? I mean what are the odds that both CIA operatives Brennan and Brezinski would be in Pakistan at the same time young Obama was there, and then both men end up on his advisory team in 2008, 26 years later – at the same time the State Dept Passport records are breached by John Brennan’s company specifically regarding Obama? The same guy who Obama just nominated to be CIA Director.

Seriously, give me odds?

Was the Columbia University angle just a CIA cover story, replete with faux documents, just to cover for Obama’s time in Pakistan as a liason between affiliated political interests, the circles of his friends parents, in support of the Mujahadeen/U.S. objectives?

The odd thing is, this outline explains every single disconnected theory, reconciles all the fragmented narratives, and actually solves all the disjointed narratives simultaneously.

Post: #375

< Obama's white grandmother was already in the CIA. Obama was likely recruited somewhere in his late teens or early college days. What he did for the globalists does not matter much. But obviously his real biography does not fit a presidential candidate, so it was amended.

The picture above by the way is of his supposed gay sugardaddy - a girl's gotta have some cash for pepper clothes and shit.