Obama trying to find a way to avoid having to repay the looted Social Security money…

The Forgotten Ones

The orgotten Ones

…by:Dr. Allen Smith

When Obama said that he cannot guarantee that Social Security checks will go out if the debt ceiling doesn’t get raised, it’s time to take a closer look at why politicians are pushing to cut this vital program.

The Social Security Trust Fund should currently have $2.5 trillion in surplus. So how is it that these checks could stop being issued if the debt ceiling isn’t raised? Economics professor Dr. Allen Smith, author of The Looting of Social Security: How The Government is Draining America’s Retirement Account, has been reporting on the theft of Social Security funds for years. As he sums it up:

“The government’s $2.5 trillion debt to Social Security is the real reason that so many politicians want to cut benefits. They are trying to find a way to avoid having to repay the looted money…

I: It’s Time to Tap the Empty Social Security Trust Fund

AP writer, Stephen Ohlemacher, sent shock waves throughout the nation with his story, “Social Security to start cashing Uncle Sam’s IOUs.” Social Security has been running large surpluses ever since the enactment of the 1983 payroll tax hike, and was projected to continue running surpluses until at least 2016. Instead, Ohlemacher reports that the cost of Social Security benefits will exceed payroll tax revenue by approximately $29 billion this year, because of the severe recession which has reduced payroll tax revenue at the very time that many unemployed Americans have been forced to retire early. (severe recession?? Did not obama give a payroll tax cut which reduces SS income from payrolls?????)

What it all boils down to is that, in order to pay full benefits, Social Security will have to come up with an extra $29 billion to supplement the inadequate payroll tax revenue. Where will that money come from? It will have to come from increased taxes or from borrowed money. “Wait a minute!” some readers will say. Hasn’t Social Security been receiving surplus revenue ever since the 1983 payroll tax hike? Isn’t there supposed to be approximately $2.5 trillion in the Social Security trust fund? The answer to both questions is yes. But there is a problem. Every dollar of that surplus Social Security revenue has already been spent by the government. Much of it went to fund wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The rest has been spent on other government programs.

The American people were not supposed to find out about the great Social Security scam for another six years, and the government was hoping to continue to receive surplus money from the Social Security contributions of working Americans for at least that long. But the inevitable day of reckoning has come, six years sooner than anybody expected. And the government of the United States has been caught with its hand still in the empty Social Security cookie jar.

For more than a decade, I have been trying to expose the Social Security scam just like Harry Markopolos was trying to expose the Bernie Madoff scam. But nobody would listen. If anyone deserves credit for helping the government to keep its dirty secret for so long, that honor should go to the AARP and the NCPSSM. I have been members of both organizations for years and I have tried very hard to get their cooperation in exposing the fraud. But they have refused to have anything to do with me. Instead, they have continued to bombard their members and the public with misinformation. They have argued that the trust fund is full of “good-as-gold” U.S. Treasury Bonds that could be used to pay full Social Security benefits until at least 2037 without any changes. In reaction to Olemacher’s AP story, Barbara Kennelly, president of the NCPSSM, responded with the following words, “Good luck to the politician who reneges on that debt. Those bonds are protected by the full faith and credit of the United States of America. They’re as solid as what we owe China and Japan.”

It has been clear for quite some time that the trust fund contained no real assets. David Walker, Comptroller General of the GAO, stated on January 21, 2005, “There are no stocks or bonds or real estate in the trust fund. It has nothing of real value to draw down.” On April 5, 2005, President George W. Bush finally acknowledged the empty trust fund by saying, “There is no trust fund, just IOUs that I saw firsthand that future generations will pay—will pay for either in higher taxes, or reduced benefits, or cuts to other critical government programs.”

If there was any doubt remaining, with regard to whether or not the trust fund contains any real assets, that doubt should have been removed by the following words in the 2009 Social Security Trustees Report:

Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury, which must finance redemptions and interest payments through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public.

There is nothing ambiguous about the above words. They make it clear that the government does not receive any cash income from the alleged interest payments on the trust fund IOUs. The interest payments are made in the form of additional worthless IOUs. The government cannot sell the IOUs because they are not marketable and have no cash value. The IOUs simply represent a debt of one branch of the government (the Treasury Department) to another branch of government (Social Security). They cancel each other out.

The Social Security surplus revenue should have been saved and invested in public-issue, marketable Treasury bonds. These bonds are “good as gold” and default-proof. They are the kind of U.S. Treasury bonds that are owned by China and Japan, Bill Gates, pension funds, and every other serious investor that owns Treasuries. If the Social Security surplus had been invested in public-issue marketable Treasury bonds, as it could have been, and should have been, Barbara Kennelly would be correct in saying that the Social Security holdings are “as solid as what we owe China and Japan.” Unfortunately not a single dollar of the surplus Social Security revenue was saved or invested in anything. It was all spent, and, once money is spent, there is nothing left to invest.

The government cannot, and will not, ever default on any of its public issue, marketable Treasury bonds because of the panic it would create in world markets and the damage it would do to the nation’s worldwide credibility. But Congress has the legal authority to default on its debt to Social Security, and, if it should do so, the outside world would probably view it primarily as an internal matter between the United States Government and its citizens. One of the least known facts about Social Security is that, although the government does have a moral obligation to pay Social Security benefits to those who have earned them, the government does not have a legal obligation to do so.

In a 1960 ruling by the United States Supreme Court, the court ruled that nobody has a “contractual earned right” to Social Security benefits. Section 1104 of the 1935 Social Security Act specifically states, “The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress.” According to the above strong language, Congress could do whatever it wanted to do with regard to changing or even eliminating Social Security.

Early on, some did not take the language seriously because they thought it was probably unconstitutional. However, in 1960, in the case of Fleming v. Nestor, the Supreme Court upheld the denial of benefits to Nestor, even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits In its ruling, the Supreme Court established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits “is not a contractual right.” As a result of the 1960 Supreme Court ruling, the future of Social Security is totally in the hands of Congress and the President. They have the legal authority to amend any and all parts of the Social Security Act, as well as the authority to either increase or decrease Social Security benefits.

II: The Social Security Fraud Has Finally Been Exposed

On December 13, 2010, the highly respected Kansas City Star, winner of eight Pulitzer Prizes, published an editorial entitled, “The myth of the Social Security trust fund,” which included the following statement:

A lot of people speak of those IOUs as if they can be pulled out and exchanged for money to pay benefit checks. They can’t. As the Clinton administration budget of 2000 explained, the securities in the Trust Fund ‘do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Those special-issue bonds can only be redeemed by raising taxes, cutting spending elsewhere, or borrowing — exactly what the government would have to do if the Trust Fund didn’t exist. The Trust Fund, said the Clinton budget message, ‘does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits.

On December 20, distinguished business columnist, Allan Sloan, seven-time winner of the prestigious Loeb award, business journalism’s highest honor, called the trust fund “a mirage” in his Washington Post column. In the column, titled, “New tax law reveals the mirage of the Social Security trust fund,” Sloan wrote:

My problem with the trust fund is that it’s a snare and a delusion for people who think that it makes Social Security financially sound. It doesn’t do that, because having government IOUs in a government trust fund doesn’t make it any easier for the government to cover Social Security’s cash shortfalls than it would be if there were no trust fund.

These are not new revelations. I have spent the past decade relentlessly trying to expose the Social Security fraud, and prominent government officials were screaming out the warnings two decades ago.

On October 13, 1989, Senator Ernest Hollings of SC stood on the Senate floor and warned, “…the most reprehensible fraud in this great jambalaya of frauds is the systematic and total ransacking of the Social Security trust fund…in the next century…the American people will wake up to the reality that those IOUs in the trust fund vault are a 21st century version of Confederate bank notes.”

The Kansas City Star editorial and Allan Sloan’s Washington Post column seem to have stunned the AARP and the NCPSSM into silence. These organization have repeatedly claimed that the Social Security surplus is invested in U.S. Treasury bonds just like those held by the Chinese government. They have battled my efforts to get this same message out for a decade, but they seem to have had the wind knocked out of them by the Star and Allan Sloan. So far, they have made no attempt to rebut either of the two articles. The AARP and the NCPSSM have been claiming for years that the trust fund holds enough assets to pay full Social Security benefits until at least 2037, when, in fact, in the words of the Kansas City Star, it has no “real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits.”

The Kansas City Star and Allan Sloan have exposed the trust fund myth so clearly that I think the national debate will now turn to how and why the United States government violated both the public trust and federal law for a quarter-century in a way that caused a major transfer of income from the lower and middle class to the richest of all Americans. By imposing a hefty increase in the regressive payroll tax in 1983, and then using a large portion of the new revenue to offset the lost revenue resulting from the unaffordable income tax cuts that went primarily to the richest Americans, the United States government engineered a major transfer of income from the lower and middle classes to the richest of all Americans. NOT TRUE!!!

So where does that leave Social Security? The approximately $2.5 trillion in surplus revenue, generated by the 1983 payroll tax hike, rightly belongs to the Social Security trust fund and to American workers who paid the extra taxes. But the money is all gone — “borrowed” or “stolen” by the federal government and spent for general government operations. None of the money was saved or invested in anything, so the trust fund contains no real economic assets with which to supplement the payroll tax which will become inadequate to pay full benefits after 2015.

I believe it is time for the public to demand, in a very strong way, that the government make arrangements to repay its debt to Social Security. It is futile for the AARP and the NCPSSM to continue to insist that Social Security is in fine shape and has enough assets to pay full benefits until 2037. This just isn’t true. What the organizations need to do now is put political pressure on the government to move quickly to enact legislation that would require the repayment of the looted money, as it is needed, over the next 27 years. There is no way that the government could possibly come up with the $2.5 trillion in the near future, given the budget crisis. But it can make a legal commitment to repay the money in installments. Will that happen? Not without major political pressure from the majority of Americans. The AARP and the NCPSSM have frittered away the past ten years when the problem could have been resolved. If the looting could have been stopped when I first began actively urging such action in 2000, the trust fund would today hold approximately $1.5 trillion (the amount looted during the past 10 years) in “good-as-gold” real assets. Instead, it holds no real economic assets.

The reason I don’t believe the government will honor its debt to Social Security without major political pressure is that it does not legally have to repay the money. The government certainly has a moral obligation to do so, but, because of a 1960 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, it has an out. In the case of Fleming v. Nestor, the Court ruled that nobody has a “contractual earned right” to Social Security benefits. This ruling was based on Section 1104 of the 1935 Social Security Act which specifically states, “The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this ACT is hereby reserved to the Congress.” Based on this strong language, Congress could do whatever it wanted to do with regard to changing or even eliminating Social Security.

Many people argue that the government could not default on its debt to Social Security because of the effect such action would have on financial markets and the nation’s public image. If the government held the same kind of real bonds that are traded on world markets, this would be true. Public-issue, marketable U.S. Treasury bonds are default-proof, and that is the kind of bonds that the Social Security surplus revenue was supposed to be invested in. If this had been done, Social Security would be in fine shape today. But, instead of using the surplus Social Security revenue to buy such bonds in the open market, the government chose to spend the money and issue IOUs to replace the spent money.*** These IOUs are non-marketable and could not be sold to anyone, even for a penny on the dollar. The government has the legal authority to declare these IOUs null and void. Since these IOUs are not traded, such action would have little effect on financial markets, and foreign governments would probably consider such action as an internal matter between the American government and its citizens.

The Social Security trust fund does not hold any real economic assets that can be drawn down to pay future benefits. That is an indisputable fact today, and it has been true ever since the 1983 payroll tax hike was enacted. Every dollar of the $2.5 trillion in surplus revenue, generated by the payroll tax hike, has been spent on programs unrelated to Social Security, leaving nothing to save or invest.

A few United States Senators tried to sound the alarm two decades ago, and I have dedicated the past ten years of my life to trying to alert the public to the awful truth about the Social Security trust fund. For more than a quarter of a century, the United States government, under five presidents, has hoodwinked the American public into believing their Social Security contributions would be used for future Social Security benefitsToday, thanks to the efforts of the editorial board of the Kansas City Star, and thanks to the courage and competence of Allan Sloan and a few other journalists, the big bad secret is finally out, and I think it is too late to get this cat back in the bag.

President Obama is the fifth president to participate in the great Social Security scam, but he has the dubious distinction of being the president, on whose watch, the Social Security time bomb, activated 25 years ago by President Reagan, will run out of time. All of the previous administrations knew that spending Social Security revenue, as if it were general revenue, was wrong and was a violation of both federal law and the public trust. But, they all had the luxury of knowing that the raided Social Security money would not be needed to pay benefits while they were still in office. However, President Obama learned early in his presidency that, unless the government ended the raiding and began repaying the money that had already been raided, Social Security would face a major financial crisis during his presidency.

Beginning in 2015, and every year after that, payroll tax revenue will be insufficient to pay full benefits. This was known in 1983 when the Social Security “fix” was enacted. The plan was to draw down the large reserve that is supposed to be in the trust fund and use that money to supplement payroll tax revenue so that full benefits could be paid until 2037. But that money has already been spent, so the government will have to come up with the money again to repay the $2.54 trillion that it embezzled. This might be manageable in the early years, when the difference between benefit costs and payroll tax revenue is minimal. But, each year, the amount of money needed to replace the looted money gets bigger and bigger. For example, Social Security will run a deficit of approximately $41.4 billion in 2010. But in 2020, the Social Security deficit will have grown to $101.4 billion. Five years later, in 2025, the Social Security shortfall will be $274.6 billion. In 2035, the government would have to come up with an astronomical $621.9 billion in order to pay full Social Security benefits.

When President Obama first saw these numbers, he must have almost gone into a state of shock. ( NO he found it Joyfull as he could cause the caouse he planned on even faster.)His predecessors left him with a lot of problems that can plainly be seen by the public—two wars, a collapsed economy, and a gigantic deficit and debt. But the embezzlement of the Social Security trust fund money was done without public knowledge, President Obama cannot just kick the can farther down the road as his four predecessors have done. He must find a way to raise the money to repay the government’s debt to Social Security, or cut Social Security benefits so the money will not have to be repaid.

Embezzlement is a crime, and every participant (all the presidents and members of Congress who supported the practice) knew they were committing a crime against the American peopleTie to 4 more years and the obama puppet will bring republican rivals to court or just use it as threats as they used the people’s Social Security money as general revenue over the past 25 years. Some individuals, such as the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, attempted to end the raiding 20 years ago. On September 27, 2000, I launched my decade-long campaign to expose the Social Security scam with an appearance on CNN News to discuss my then newly-published book, The Alleged Budget Surplus, Social Security, and Voodoo Economics. For the past 10 years, I have been warning, as forcefully as I could, that a day of reckoning would come, at which time the government might consider defaulting on its huge Social Security debt. But nobody wanted to listen. That day of reckoning is now upon us.

V: Censored Social Security Book Back in Print

When my book, The Looting of Social Security: How The Government is Draining America’s Retirement Account, was published by a New York publisher in 2004, I thought my long battle to expose the truth about the Social Security trust fund was almost won. But that book met with foul play, and was removed from the market before many people had the opportunity to read it.

Early reviews revealed just how provocative the book was going to be. The Boston Globe reported, “… With dismal clarity, Smith lays out the step-by-step history of how a national pension plan was transformed into an outright shakedown of working people” and ALA Booklist said, “Smith has written a scathing account of massive fraud on the part of our nation’s leaders, who have plundered every cent of the Social Security Trust Fund surplus that was specifically earmarked by Regan for the retirement of the baby boomers.”

On February 26, 2004, I appeared on CNBC, to respond to Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan, who had called for Social Security benefit cuts the previous day. I held my book in front of the camera and said, as forcefully as I could, “Alan Greenspan should be ashamed of himself for what he is not telling the American people.” I now believe that this public criticism of the Fed chairman may have been the final nail in the coffin of The Looting of Social Security, which was very critical of Greenspan’s role in making the looting of the trust fund possible.

A few weeks after my controversial appearance on CNBC, the book mysteriously disappeared from bookstores, nationwide, and was listed as “unavailable” by Amazon.com. I tried to get the rights to the book reverted back to me so I could publish my message elsewhere, but my publisher refused to surrender the rights. Thus the book was effectively killed off, and there was nothing I could do about it. I was unable to pinpoint exactly who was responsible for rendering the book “unavailable,” but a lot of people did not want the contents of the book to become public. Certainly, people in government, such as Alan Greenspan

Although the public knew nothing about it at the time, Greenspan’s February 25, 2004 call for Social Security benefit cuts was the opening salvo in an organized campaign to dismantle Social Security, as we now know it, once George W. Bush was safely elected to a second term. On August 27, 2004, Greenspan again spoke of cutting Social Security benefits during remarks at a symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyoming.

“As a nation, we owe it to our retirees to promise only the benefits that can be delivered,” Greenspan said. “If we have promised more than our economy has the power to deliver to retirees without unduly diminishing real income gains of workers, as I fear we may have, we must recalibrate our public programs so that pending retirees have time to adjust through other channels.”

Almost immediately upon his re-election, President George W. Bush made public his plan to partially privatize Social Security. On November 4, 2004, Bush said, “Let me put it this way: I earned capital, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style…I’ve earned capital in this election— and I’m going to spend it for what I told the people I’d spend it on, which is — you’ve heard the agenda: Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror.”

Like other Americans, there is no way I could have known about the standby plan to privatize Social Security, which was already formulated at the time I appeared on CNBC and publicly challenged Alan Greenspan on Social Security. Therefore, I didn’t realize just how big the potential impact of widespread readership of my book could be on the future plans of the Bush administration. From the administration’s point of view, I’m sure that they were not going to allow my book, or a book by any other author, to sabotage their plan to privatize Social Security. The book was a threat, and the threat had to be dealt with.

What is far more puzzling to me, than the opposition to my book in 2004, is the current effort to discredit me, and the book. I was almost flabbergasted when I learned, just a few weeks ago, that a website that goes by the name of “Medicare and Medicare Programs” launched a smear campaign on September 22, 2010 against me and the book that has been off the market since 2004. You don’t believe me? Click on the following link and it will take you to that website. I tried to find out who owns this website and who is behind this effort, but I was unable to do so. Who is sponsoring this website, and what is their agenda? These things don’t just happen by chance. The five negative reviews, alleged by the website to have been submitted on September 22, 2010, are exact duplicates of “customer reviews” from Amazon.com that were posted in 2004 and 2005.

If the intent of this internet campaign was to stomp out the message of my book, now and forever, their actions have backfired on them. It was in reaction to this campaign that I decided not to allow them to kick a dead book without bringing the book back to life. When I finally regained the rights to “The Looting of Social Security” in 2008, I vowed to re-publish the book, when the time was right, under an arrangement that would guarantee that the book remained in print for as long as anyone wanted to read it.

The smear campaign on the internet has convinced me that the time is now right for the book to be resurrected. Therefore, I am pleased to announce that the book has just been published by Ironwood Publications, under the title, The Looting of Social Security, New release of the book they didn’t want you to read. The new book includes all of the content of the original book, along with a new forward written by Dr. Victor Stoltzfus, President Emeritus, Goshen College, and an afterword written by me that brings the book up to date. The book was officially released yesterday, November 1, 2010.

(I guess to the times the author makes inane claims about tax cuts for the rich was added to keep the progressives at bay.) as he contradicts his facts with the liberal mantra just thrown into a line with no real charge).OH! I forgot theres also a few blame Bush and the rich lines thrown in for good measure. Otherwise the article is excellent.

For an extensive archive of Dr. Allen Smith’s work, visit Dissident Voice.

really you still trust the government

Federal Judge Rules With Grassfire and millions of other law-abiding citizens by ruling President Obama’s “Executive Amnesty” decree is unconstitutional and illegal


immigrant children Is it legal for Obama to bring Children across the Mexican Border and scatter them all over the United States? Does anyone know what has become of every child? Who has taken responsibility for their well being?

central american obama children gang members Obama’s Recent so called children immigrant’s Some are young gang members.

Mexican killers cross our borders every day. Our Government knows this and will not stop the illegal flow. It is Congress who could stop it but many  are threatened by Valerie Jarrett who is reported to have said.    

“After we win this election, it’s our turn. Payback time.
Everyone not with us is against us and they better be ready because we don’t forget. The ones who helped us will be rewarded, the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve.”Jarrett, who is considered the single-most influential person in Obama’s White House, says of her relationship with the President that the two think alike. “We have kind of a mind meld… what he wants to do is what I’d want to do.”
 Jarrett’s alarming rant continued…
 There is going to be hell to pay. Congress won’t be a problem for us this time. No election to worry about after this is over and we have two judges ready to go.Valerie Jarrett’s comments are a chilling forecast of things to come for conservatives and people of faith.

Obama is given another four years in the White House!

WHAT ELSE HAS TO BE SAID TO ALERT AMERICANS TO THE REAL STATE OF AMERICA ! ! !

    Mexican origin gang and one of the most powerful drug cartels in the world. Killing people is daily routie for Los Zetas members. As of 2012, Los Zetas has control over 11 states in Mexico, making it the drug cartel with the largest territory in the country


islam wants world sharia

Muslim Immigration To U.S. Staggering — More Evidence Obama Is Attempting To Change America Read more below http://www.westernjournalism.com/muslim-immigration-u-s-staggering-evidence-obama-attempting-change-america/#qZrIxZH05ip05oEJ.99

Between 2010 and 2013, the Obama administration imported almost 300,000 new immigrants from Muslim nations — more immigrants than the U.S. let in from Central America and Mexico combined over that period… Many of the recent Muslim immigrants are from terrorist hot spots like Iraq, where the Islamic State operates. From 2010-2013, Obama ushered in 41,094 Iraqi nationals from there… House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mike McCaul called the new policy “a federally sanctioned welcome party to potential terrorists.”
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/muslim-immigration-u-s-staggering-evidence-obama-attempting-change-america/#qZrIxZH05ip05oEJ.99

 

 Federal Judge Rules With Grassfire

A federal judge agrees with Grassfire and millions of other law-abiding citizens by ruling President Obama’s “Executive Amnesty” decree is unconstitutional and illegal!Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell said of the ruling, “it underscores what the President has already acknowledged publicly 22 times: He doesn’t have the authority to take the kinds of actions he once referred to as ‘ignoring the law’ and ‘unwise and unfair.’

In that same breathe, McConnell also had a message for Senate Democrats who voiced opposition to the President’s lawless actions, urging them to “end their partisan filibuster and fully fund the Department of Homeland Security.”Prior to the Southern Court ruling, Democrats were filibustering House legislation that funded DHS, but prevented taxpayer dollars from being used on executive amnesty. With Obama’s “Executive Amnesty” plan now suspended, Senate Republicans like John Thune (R-SD) are calling for Democrats to “lay down their arms and drop their filibuster of the House-passed DHS funding bill.”

+ + Message To Senate Democrats: “Stop Obama’s Executive Amnesty”!

Despite the ruling, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), says Democrats are still “united” and plan to continue blocking the DHS funding bill that would stop Obama’s executive amnesty, adding, DHS funding “should not be used as ransom by Republicans, period.”In other words, Democrats will continue to aid and abet Obama’s criminal activity.

That doesn’t sit well with Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), who says filibustering Democrats need to take a hard look at what they are doing and who they are affecting. “At a time when we face grave national security threats, at home and abroad, it is the height of irresponsibility for the Democrats to block this funding in an extreme attempt to save Obama’s amnesty, which a federal judge has just declared illegal.”

If you are outraged at the dangerous lengths Senate Democrats are willing go to save Obama’s illegal amnesty plan, email and call your senator and congressman and tell them to stop illegal immigration.

 

 

.

The Obama administration is once again demonstrating its contempt for our fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms,”

government by deceptionIs the Obama administration secretly negotiating treaties with globalist bodies, in violation of the Unites States Constitution? That’s the question on the minds of a number of political watchdogs, who argue that the White House is doing an end run around Congress and the American people in order to lock the country into agreements on the environment, fishing rights and even gun ownership with the United Nations (UN).

On February 7, former Bill Clinton campaign manager Dick Morris dissected a host of international “sneaky treaties” that, he says, “Once signed and ratified, have the same status as constitutional law and cannot be altered or eclipsed by Congress or state legislatures. And their provisions must be enforced by U.S. courts.”

The most egregious of these would be U.S. membership in the International Criminal Court (ICC). This tribunal that has jurisdiction across the globe could prosecute elected U.S. leaders for entering into a war without UN approval. These “crimes of aggression”—even if approved by Congress under an official declaration of war—could still land the president or cabinet members in prison.

The ICC’s reach supersedes the rulings of any U.S. court, thereby posing a serious threat to constitutionally-guaranteed trials by a jury of our peers. A lesser-known aspect of this treaty involves, ironically, the use of America’s military to wage aggressions against those deemed war criminals by the ICC.

Already, Barack Obama has buckled to this ruling body by sending armed forces into Africa to execute an arrest warrant for alleged war criminal Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda. Yet rather than having Congress authorize sending U.S. men and women into action overseas, Obama bypassed them and opted to exert his “executive power.” He justified this decision as an “international obligation.”

Who is our president obligated to: American citizens or the New World Order? Another treaty, one advocating children’s rights, would—at least superficially—protect youths from kidnapping, prostitution and human trafficking. However, if a 14-member panel determines that certain countries like the U.S. aren’t providing enough funding for food, education or clothing to underdeveloped nations, the UN could levy a tax on American citizens and then redistribute this money to Third World countries. Not surprisingly,

A leading proponent for the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is Hillary Clinton. In her book It Takes a Village, she wrote: “The village must act in the place of parents. It accepts these responsibilities in all our names through the authority we vest in the government.” These 14-member overlords could also weigh in on what religious teachings, educational material and social attitudes are acceptable.

Interestingly, Hillary’s views on child-rearing dovetail with those of the UNCRC. “They [parents] have to be shown how to do it,” wrote Hillary. “They have to be, in a sense, re-parented to be able to be a good parent.” Hillary is so distrustful of traditional families that she further elaborated.: “Decisions about motherhood and abortion, schooling, cosmetic surgery, treatment of venereal diseases or employment and others where the decision—or lack of one—will significantly reflect the child’s future should not be made unilaterally by the parent.”

If these social-engineering thoughts aren’t horrifying enough, Hillary remarked at the University of Texas in 1993, “Let us be willing to remold society by redefining what it means to be a human being in the 20th century, moving into the new millennium.” A third troublesome treaty is known as the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST. Over 162 nations have signed or ratified it. Many other nations, such as Turkey and Israel, have stayed out of it. Obama sidesteps the Constitution yet again via executive order

. LOST is being promoted by another Clinton crony, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who seeks to surrender seas off the coasts of the United States to UN overseers. Although the complexities of this treaty are far too vast to elaborate on here, in a nutshell LOST will acquiesce to a UN council where U.S. companies can drill for oil or fish and which technologies must become global property via a form of intellectual eminent domain. The UN could tax up to 50% of royalties from offshore drilling and redistribute these proceeds to poorer nations.

In another example, the Outer Space Code of Conduct could seriously interfere with the U.S. implementing any type of anti-missile shield to protect itself. Using the feel-good premise of decreasing space debris, in actuality this treaty would jeopardize the U.S. military’s ability to deploy platform-based weapons in space

When it comes to China and India’s rapid development of their space programs and offensive weaponry, are Americans willing to forfeit their safety to the edicts of UN bureaucrats that already view us with such outright enmity?

Obama and Hillary are also targeting Americans’ firearms ownership.

In early April, Sen. Rand Paul issued a statement on this: “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently announced the Obama administration will be working hand in glove with the United Nations to pass a new ‘UN Small Arms Treaty.’ ” The UN Small Arms Treaty is designed to “register, ban and confiscate firearms owned by private citizens like you,” wrote Paul.

Hillary more of the sameSecretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday signed a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation,

If Washington signs onto this, added Paul, the U.S. would be forced to “enact tougher licensing requirements . . . confiscate and destroy all ‘unauthorized’ civilian firearms . . . ban the trade, sale and private ownership of semiautomatic weapons . . .[and] create an international gun registry.” – See more at: http://americanfreepress.net/?p=4207#sthash.KWS4wdOi.dpuf

update:The Obama administration is once again demonstrating its contempt for our fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms,”

The Obama administration is once again demonstrating its contemptLaughing at us not with us.

when your country is telling you no

Obama’s shariah czar Mohamed Magid hands diversity award to Jew-hater Dawud Walid

Originally posted on Florida Seniors Government Watch:

Obamas sharia czar WASHINGTON PLANS FAVOR FOR SHARIAH-RUN SOCIETY Latest from Brunei’s Muslim regime: Banishing Christmas decorations

via Washington plans favor for Shariah-run society.

UNITED NATIONS – On Christmas Eve, religious police in the capital city of the Islamic Sultanate of Brunei ordered business owners to remove Christmas decorations or face arrest.

When Brunei, a tiny oil-rich fiefdom that shares the island of Borneo with Malaysia and Indonesia, adopted Shariah law earlier this year, some questioned whether the harsh penal code that includes amputation and stoning for blasphemy and other crimes would actually be enforced since a third of Brunei’s population is not Muslim. The crackdown on Christmas this year answers the question.

Restaurant and café owners in Brunei’s capital city of Bandar Seri Begawan told reporters they were ordered to remove Christmas decorations from their establishments by authorities who cited Shariah Penal Code Order 2013 prohibiting exhibits of decorations that are…

View original 510 more words

Obama’s FCC Internet Takeover Will Radically Change America

obama and vallery“Net Neutrality” is the first major step of federal control over the Internet.

With the FCC’s decision Thursday to give the federal government massive control over the regulation of the Internet, this has now happened.

As Dick Morris explains in “Power Grab,” this is truly a pivotal move.

Major Internet companies are now subservient to an FCC controlled by Obama and his most liberal minions.

Even after decisive victories for the GOP in the midterm elections, the radical agenda of Obama is being advanced daily.

Morris predicted all of this in “Power Grab.”

Morris’ powerful exposé of Barack Obama — Power Grab: Obama’s Dangerous Plan for a One-Party Nation — rips the lid off of Obama’s scary plan to re-create our nation with a “ruling” single party: the Democratic Party and its most liberal wing!

Obama was not concerned about the congressional elections. He is concerned about the levers of Democratic power, such as getting illegal aliens to vote, increasing entitlements and dependency, intimidating political enemies, and controlling the very circuits of a free society. . . such as the Internet!

This is why Dr. Ben Carson is joining with Dick Morris and warning Americans about this new threat.

Ben Carson said: “I read ‘Power Grab’ and couldn’t put it down. It thoroughly reveals President Obama’s hidden agenda.”

Many believe that Barack Obama is a lame duck in his last two years.

As Dick Morris reveals, these last two years are absolute critical for Obama’s master plan. . . which is to lock out the Republicans permanently from the White House!

“Power Grab” has become a #1 best-seller and was instantly sold out at Barnes & Noble and other booksellers its first week out.

Get your copy of this best-seller with this offer.

Keep reading below or Go Here Now!

In this blockbuster book, Morris exposes Obama’s ultimate agenda — to turn America into a banana republic ruled by one party.

Ben Carson says it bluntly: “‘Power Grab’ is a must-read for all Americans.”

Dire Warning: Obama Close to Goal

Dick Morris and his co-author, Eileen McGann, say their book is a dire warning to the nation about Obama’s real intentions.

“Power Grab” makes a convincing case that Obama has an overarching strategy in pushing his liberal agenda — one that grabs power from our traditional and bipartisan institutions in favor of a single party: his Democratic Party.

According to Morris and McGann, Obama has promulgated his plan by:

Implementing the biggest power grab of all, Obamacare — one that creates a new, permanent dependency class

Pushing for “immigration reform” that will quickly tip the delicate balance of power in favor of Democrats, giving them a permanent lock on the White House

Pushing “red” states aside by gaining federal control over state-run education systems using the Common Core curriculum

Asserting more control over private business by granting the EPA global governance in the name of climate change, affecting every aspect of our lives

Obama vetoed the Keystone XL bill, effectively blocking energy independence — thereby slowing economic growth and breeding more dependency. And it was predicted in “Power Grab.”

Gutting welfare reform and keeping millions on the dole

Silencing critics by turning over regulation of the Internet to the FCC and eventually the United Nations

The authors write: “Obama is a left-wing president who is desperately determined to impose his radical agenda to transform our democratic government and free market economy into his socialist-style ideal before leaving office in 2016.”

“He’s a president who is obsessively fixated on keeping the left in permanent power by turning our two-party system into a one-party monopoly.”

Obama is close to achieving his goal, Morris and McGann warn. Only you can stop him.

by: Dick Morris and Ben Carson

when your country is telling you no

Patient’s Merely “product” to be Manipulated by Law to Produce Profits for all of the Special Interests.

 

large group we wont take it any more

Eblen Carol · Commented on the Center for the Public Integrity

Unfortunately, the elderly/disabled on Medicare/Medicaid have no idea that their social safety net is managed to provide profit for all of the special interests involved —and we, the patients, are on the bottom of the pile and merely “product” to be manipulated by law to produce profits for all of the special interests.

Unless some of the responsible reporters in Big Media and Big Newspapers tell the American people what is going on, we aren’t going to have this discussion about the constitutionality of unilaterally hastening the dealth of the elderly/disabled on Medicare/Medicaid for the fiscal expediency of the special interests, are we?

When both political parties are complicit, the Executive becomes complicit, and nobody wants to rock the boat If we stopped the unsuccessful spending of our Tax dollars. would the under-the-radar involuntary euthanasia of American elderly/disabled citizens on Medicare/Medicaid be necessary?

The Forgotten Ones

The Forgotten Ones

Because The Congress never clarified the provisions of the 1991 Patient Self Determination Act and the States interpreted it in many different ways, the old folks were left hanging out there on a limb.
Within the past few years, several states have passed legislation to prevent unilateral DNR policies but we see Massachusetts General has had a unilateral DNR Code Policy since 2006 that has, of course, never been tested in the courts. Apparently the concept of “managed medical care” and “managed death” for profit is the new vision of the for-profit sector of our health care industry

DNR “Do Not Resuscitate”, Advance Directives, Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment & End-Of-Life Decision-Making Process, Clin 08.01 Effective Date: March 05, 2009

on of the for-profit sector of our health care industry.

If unilateral DNRs are legal under our Medicare Contract, and this is a contract we can’t refuse, shouldn’t we, the patients be informed when life-saving and life-extending treatments will not be paid for by Medicare and their partner, Big Insurance so that we can pay privately to live as long as is medically possible if this is our desire?

The shame is that there are NO Whistle Blowers who will blow the whistle for the people. We need to get Big Insurance out of our social safety net —-but how?

 

Hillary more of the same

The same framework for the federal regulation that now requires hospitals and other medical care facilities to pressure patients—particularly elderly patients—to sign Living Wills (i.e., euthanasia provisions).That was in Hillary Care ,Today is in ObamaCare .

In violation of the Hippocratic Oath, doctors regularly euthannize patients deemed to be terminally-ill. Among the list of terminal illnesses that can trigger the Living Will death-with-dignity provision is old-age.

Threats, deals got drug companies on board with Obama

By Paige Winfield Cunningham – The Washington Times – Thursday, May 31, 2012

Top administration officials cut backroom deals with the nation’s top drug companies to win support for President Obama’s health care overhaul, threatening them with steeper taxes if they resisted and promising a better financialHYPERLINK \l “” deal for the industry if they acquiesced, according to internal documents released by The House.In some of the key deals, Mr. Obama agreed to drop his long-standing support for letting Americans buy cheaper foreign prescription drugs — something the pharmaceutical industry vehemently opposed — and the drugmakers promised to mount a public campaign to sell the public on the healthHYPERLINK \l “” care legislation.

The material released by House members provides a rare insider look at the wheeling and dealing on Capitol Hill as Mr. Obama tried to shepherd his bill through Congress, in the face of near-unanimous GOP opposition.

The details emerged as House Republicans released emailsHYPERLINK \l “” it obtained during a yearlong investigation into the closed-door negotiations between the White House and lobbyists for drug companies. House Republicans said those negotiations violated the promises of transparency Mr. Obama made during his 2008 campaign.

“We really have now been able to build a case that there was a sequential, planned, organized strategyHYPERLINK \l “” for the White House to trade policy for politics, if you will,” said Rep. Michael C. Burgess, Texas Republican. “They were willing to give up on things they thought were sound principles.”

The documents show that former White House Chief of Staff Jim Messina and health care reform point woman Nancy-Ann DeParle told drug company representatives in June 2009 that if they didn’t cooperate on the initiative, Mr. Obama would demand a 15 percent rebate on Medicare drugs and push to remove the tax deduction for direct consumer advertising — items that could cost the industry $100 billion over the next decade.

The threats appeared to work, and the parties met the next month to hammer out a final deal. The drug companiesHYPERLINK \l “” agreed to pay higher Medicaid rebates and a new health care reform fee to raise $80 billion for the legislation, and promised to run positive television ads about it.

In exchange, the White House gave them direct input into the new policies and promised to let them continue to set their own drug prices.

Ms. DeParle threw in an extra prize HYPERLINK \l “” to reward pharmaceutical companies for their cooperation, saying she and other officials decided to reverse the administration’s position on drug importation, which Mr. Obama supported while running for president.

“I made the decision, based on how constructive you guys have been, to oppose importation on this bill,” she wrote to Bryant Hall, chief lobbyist for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA).

 

 

 

 

Is This President Mentally ILL ?

obama mentally illObama’s disturbing message to Governors: “If I hear any of you pushing back…making statements about Washington spends too much money, you’ll hear from me.’ I’m highly offended by that.” 

Dr Lyle H. Rossiter

The kind of liberalism being displayed by both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton can only be understood as a psychological disorder.

Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;

augmenting primitive feelings of envy;

rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.

“The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind,” he says. “When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives,rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious.”

 ob finger 2 OBAMA MIDDLE FINGER OBAMA MAN CHILD IN OFFICE

Obama give’s America the finger crowd cheers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlQePcvisCE

US-POLITICS-OBAMA-GOLF

cartoon al qadaI can make obama sing talk and destroy economies BEST.jpg 4x4when your country is telling you no

evil-angry-obamafema corp brown shirts america

This guy is cracking up, he’s gone. He’s not qualified to be President. He must be removed for the sake of the nation, and we have the Constitutional Amendment, which prepares exactly this. And he is exactly the mental type, described in detail, the narcissist syndrome, and there is no question about it. I diagnosed this, of course, on April 11, of last year, and I was right then, and I’m more right than ever today. So, this man has to go.”If he doesn’t go, the nation itself is in danger, by virtue of his intrinsic incompetence. Lyndon LaRouche announced that he has called for President Barack Obama’s immediate removal from office, because he is clearly no longer mentallycompetent to remain in the Presidency. ROTHSCHILD BANKING CABAL MET TO DISCUSS DEPOPULATIONsoldiers 2.jpg 3Barack Obama, Michelle Obama My wife’s anger towards me seems barely contained.

Hillary more of the same

blood on their hands benghazi

When you choose security over freedom you get neither

When you choose security over freedom you get neither

blogger “Ulsterman” returned to his anonymous source, and reported from a still-active White House official that the President was being medically treated for severe depression. The source elaborated: “The infighting among the staff is off the charts. More recently, the president has increasingly withdrawn emotionally from the day to day demands of his job—he has become what was described to me as ‘empty’…. His natural detachment has become almost chronic to the point of being disconcerting to staff around him. It appears President Obama is suffering from severe depression.”

Asked why this was happening, the White House source said, “Well, for one, he was completely unprepared for the job of being President of the United States.

leading Democratic Party officials said that the “Ulsterman” source is genuine, and that the picture of the President’s psychological meltdown is accurate. Several senior U.S. intelligence officials, with close access to the White House, have further corroborated these reports, and have expressed growing alarm about the collapse of Presidential leadership at a moment of great crisis.

It was precisely out of concern for such a future Presidential crisis that the framers of the 25th Amendment acted.

Hillary Restructure the Family Through Daycare Your child belongs to us.

hillary restructure the family Hillary Restructure the Family Through Daycare Your child belongs to us.

27421988-sad-children-hugging-his-mother Hillary A planned, step-by-step attempt to “wash” family-taught beliefs from the minds of those who oppose government ideology. In America, it would mean replacing the old values and world view with a new way of thinking that would support a totalitarian agenda. In other words, every child must become a peace child, a willing and active servant of a new world order.

Ever since public education was introduced, the state and the family have competed to control childhood conditioning – and it is in childhood that culture is transmitted to the next generation.

In the micromanaged future, we’ll most likely see the ‘final solution’ of social control, which is for the state to monopolise child raising. This would eliminate from society the parent-child bond, and hence family-related bonds in general. No longer is there a concept of relatives, just fellow members of the hive. The family must be demonized.

21173867-finger-pointing-to-angry-and-tired-little-girl-studying

Between required lessons of gay history- which Governor Brown just signed into California Law, lessons of “fluid gender” (with guest lecturers!) , along with instruction on green energy, saving whales and polar bears, anti-bullying, and lessons on multiculturalism and diversity, there are simply not enough hours in the school day for a teacher to devote to complex math problems. Gone are the days of diagramming a sentence; gone are the days of learning the basics of economics.

Learning has taken a back seat to environmentalism. And sexuality. And collective bargaining

The curriculum suggests that schools bring in “coaches” to guide the students. Where do you suppose they get the coaches? Well at teachers unions, the local AFL-CIO labor council, or labor centers at local colleges, of course. Having been taught by the “masters”, students can then regurgitate how to collectively bargain for higher wages, better health care, and the maximum number of vacation and “sick” days possible.

 

 

Anywhere from $7000 to $18000 per year is spent on every student in public school throughout the country, yet despite an increase in per-pupil funding, test scores have plummeted

 

 

. As parents are beginning to wake up and question the quality of their children’s education, the unions are rallying teachers to take to the streets and claim “victim” status, encouraging them to protest with intimidating signs reminiscent of the days of Marx and Stalin. In Wisconsin, teachers were blatantly getting “sick notes” from “doctors” on the streets while they were protesting for MORE pay, MORE benefits, MORE pension. The heartfelt stories we hear from these teachers, the ones which usually begin with “it’s all about my kids” and “I love children”, always seem to end with cries of “teachers need more money”.

Remember, a public school teacher has a 9 month job. They get summers, weekends, holidays, and school vacation days off. They have job security unmatched in the private sector, health care benefits, and a pension that they will receive long after they retire. Not only that–these teachers are not locked into teaching. If they are not happy with the profession THEY’VE chosen, they have the ability to walk away and get another job.

If teachers are sincere about their concern for children and the quality of education, they would band together and demand that the classroom once again become a place where children learn the basics. They would collectively reject the new lessons in political correctness, gay sexuality, green energy, diversity, and collective bargaining and use their voices to fight for a stronger curriculum that will benefit, not only their students, but society as a whole.

We need to quit idolizing this profession and start demanding that they stand up and fight for our children’s education. I’m tired of hearing the mantra that teachers are under-appreciated and under paid.

Most are simply cowards, fighting for their own skin instead of teaching our children.

 

Obama Regime Lost Big Time In Egypt When The People Overthrew His Muslim Brotherhood Coup

I WILL STAND BY MUSLIMS

And The Democrats did not believe him ?????  or WHAT !

July 2013 Citizens of Egypt Depose Installed Rothschild NWO Czar Mohammed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood. Rothschild’s Obama Regime Lost Big Time In Egypt When The People Overthrew Muslim Brotherhood President Of Egypt And Placed Him In Jail For Inciting Murder!

An Egyptian court sentenced 529 supporters of ousted [Muslim Brotherhood] president Mohammad Morsi to death after a mass trial.

obama lies7.jpg 2 America continues Obama’s march to the NWO . Re-elected for a 2nd term by an illiterate society he is ready to continue his lies of less taxes while he raises them. He gives speeches of peace and love in the world while he promotes wars as he did in Egypt, Libya and Syria. He plans his next war as he fires or demotes his generals who get in the way.

Obama rallied blood thirsty Muslims while a U.S. paid Senator for cousin oObama rallied blood thirsty Muslims while a U.S. paid Senator. Christians were slaughtered and burnt alive in their Christian Churches ~ all for his Sharia Cousin Odinga!

Obama rallied blood thirsty Muslims while a U.S. paid Senator for his Sharia Cousin Odinga All for his Sharia Cousin Odinga!

Published: 08/03/2008 world net daily

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama has continued to support Kenya’s Raila Odinga, even after Odinga has been blamed for inciting tribal violence and slaughtering Christians

Ousted Obama Backed Muslim Brotherhood Of Egypt Was To Attack Syria

Kenya Obama's Brother Obama’s Brother Malik Obama: Investor For Muslim Brotherhood’s Money!

President Obama’s half-brother in Kenya could cause the White House more headaches over new evidence linking him to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and establishing that controversial IRS supervisor Lois Lerner signed his tax-exempt approval letter.

putting yheir life on the line for bankster RI want to thank you for putting your life on the line for Banksters.

soldiers 2.jpg 3

President Mubarak Of Egypt Befriended By Obama Before Ousting Him President Mubarak Of Egypt Befriended By Obama Before Ousting Him And Installing Mohammed Morsi Muslim Brotherhood As President Of Egypt.

In The Summer Of 2013 The Egyptian People With Their Military Overthrew Morsi And He Is Now In Prison For Inciting Murder Against Against The People.

no-obama-egypt-flag

Yes to America-No to Obama and Hillary

hillary-clinton-you-are-not-welcome-in-egypt

McCain’s Syrian Rebels Responsible For ‘Biggest Massacre’ Of Christians In Syria As Population Continues To Be Targeted.

Obama Arms Syrian Jihadists Using American Tax Payer’s Money ~ While Jihadists Behead Christian & Feed His Body To Dogs!

Obama Illegally Escalates Syrian False Flag War: 100,000 Killed By Fomented Violence 2011 – 2013 ~ Experts Don’t See Evidence Of Sarin Gas!

NWO in progress – UKRAINE – blowback occurring simultaneously!

McCain with Svaboda Nazi's McCaine with Svoboda leadercartoon your all good people right

Will Obama’s Mental Illnesses Justify His Removal From Office Under the 25th Amendment

 

obama mentally ill

Obama’s Mental Illnesses Justify His Removal From Office Under the 25th Amendment

Posted on December 3, 2014 by Dave Hodges

History has shown that most of the brutal dictators of the past have share two, or three mental illnesses. These illnesses include Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), Paranoid Personality Disorder (PPD) and Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD).

Given the direction of the country, it is legitimate to ask whether or not this President is indeed mentally ill. In my professional opinion, any combination of two of these mental illnesses would prevent a President from discharging his duties as prescribed by the Constitution of the United States.

The Twenty Fifth Amendment-Section Four

“Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President…”

If the President could be shown to mentally ill, under the 25th Amendment he could be removed from office. With the publicly available information, and based upon my training and experience in mental health diagnostics, I have conducted a mental health status exam of this President.

The Mental Illnesses of Dictators

Before analyzing President Obama according to these criteria, based upon observed public behaviors, please allow me to make a few general observations with regard to three conditions. Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) sufferers believe that they are entitled to special privilege and that the rules of society apply to others but not to them.

Paranoid Personality Disorder (PPD) individuals are people who are unusually suspicious in situations in which most people would not be concerned. They frequently change allies and lack stable relationships in their lives. Finally, Anti-Social Personality Disorder (ASPD) people are a combination of what we used to call a sociopath and a psychopath. These people are capable to doing great harm to another human being without feeling any empathy and remorse. This is the central element in the personality structure of a person who would commit genocide against their own people.

martin luther quote on legal hitler

The remainder of this article explores if the current President is indeed mentally ill based upon the universally agreed upon diagnostic criteria as set forth by The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM).

Narcissistic Personality Disorder

Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

obama-immelt Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

obama brown shirtsRequires excessive admiration

Has a very strong sense of entitlement, e.g., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations

soldiers  Is exploitative of others, e.g., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends

large group we wont take it any more Lacks empathy, e.g., is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others

Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her

obama FLAGRegularly shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes Five out eight of these symptoms are sufficient cause to warrant a positive diagnosis. Obama is one of the most self-righteous people on the planet and we have numerous quotes which exemplify this point.

images  “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming America”. Very few Americans had any idea what Obama meant by that quote. Six years into his presidency, it is clear that Obama meant to turn this country into an impoverished nation devoid of civil liberties. This is the ultimate expression of the communist legacy that he is trying to build.

This president does not tolerate normal criticism which comes with the territory of being a president. He has consistently sponsored legislation which inhibits the constitutionally guaranteed rights of legitimate protest with his support of the NDAA. This is the ultimate in haughtiness.

Obama exhibits extreme signs of feeling a sense of entitlement. His incessant misuse of the power of executive orders provides prima fascia evidence that “his will be done” and that he is above the law with regard to violating the constitutional rights of the American people.

Obama is an extremely exploitative person. However, in the grand scheme of politics, it is a needed survival skill to take advantage of people in one’s climb to the top of the political world. Therefore, is Obama exploitative by nature, or, do the political realities of his position dictate the emergence of this trait as a survival skill? The jury is out on this one.

“You did not build that business”. Remember that insulting and impersonal slap in the face of every small business owner in America? This statement is reflective of Obama’s view that nobody is bigger than “my” government.

ukrain burning trade union The President’s statement in which he bragged he was really good at killing people by using drones speaks to his extreme level of insensitivity.

Of the eight traits associated with this disorder, I see seven of the eight with the eighth trait not being supported due to a lack of evidence.

President Obama clearly suffers from NPD. People with NPD can indeed function to some degree in society. However, they often make very ineffective leaders because they almost always put their needs ahead of the needs of the people they purport to serve.

obama arms alQada and the behead priest

Paranoid Personality Disorder

 To make a positive diagnosis for this disorder, I would have to possess intimate details about the life of Obama. Unfortunately, that information is not readily available. Here are the traits of PPD.

Suspects, without sufficient basis, that others are exploiting, harming, or deceiving him or her

Is preoccupied with unjustified doubts about the loyalty or trustworthiness of friends or associates

Is reluctant to confide in others because of unwarranted fear that the information will be used maliciously against him or her

Reads hidden demeaning or threatening meanings into benign remarks or events

Persistently bears grudges (i.e., is unforgiving of insults, injuries, or slights)

Perceives attacks on his or her character or reputation that are not apparent to others, and is quick to react angrily or to counterattack

Has recurrent suspicions, without justification, regarding fidelity of spouse or sexual partner

Certainly Obama’s known childhood experiences could be explored as a baseline of this part of the examination; what childhood experiences? Exactly! Who is his high school basketball coach? Do his teachers remember him? Who in the world is he? When you couple this hidden childhood with that of living with Frank Marshall Davis, undoubtedly scarred him and left him with feelings of extreme abandonment. This factor, alone, could prove to be the breeding ground for PPD.

As I have previously covered, I know that most of his first degree relatives were involved in MK Ultra. Certainly the breeding ground for PPD is in place given his unstable background.

brezinskie and  pal. 6x6

 Dr. Thomas Sowell Obama Mentored By Radicals.

: Dr. Thomas Sowell To Sean Hannity;

Why So Surprised Obama Hangs With Radicals

Dr. Thomas Sowell on Obama’s Ferguson response and radical associates, Al Sharpton, et al.:

” If you go back through the man’s life. These are the kinds of people he has chosen to be aligned with and have mentoring him. From the time he was a child, right on through graduate school. Law school. I don’t know why people are so surprised these are the kind of people he has now. … … What amazes me is how long it has taken so many people to see through this man. And there are many at this moment who have not seen through him…. “

Dr. Sowell on congressmembers propagating the ‘Hands Up, Don’t Shoot’ lie on the House floor:

” I thought of Joseph Goebbels’ doctrine, people will believe any lie if it’s repeated often enough and loud enough. They’re repeating it often enough and loud enough. And it will pay off for them personally and politically. People who are out to forward their political careers say and do things that have no relationship whatever to reality or to anybody else’s interests but their own. I think what happened in Ferguson, Missouri, it is going to adversely affect blacks yet unborn who will still be paying the price for it 10, 20 years from now because you’re not going to have businesses there that you had before. I’ve seen this happen in other cities. Detroit, is a classic example. Harlem. You run through the whole list of them. A city doesn’t get over this kind of stuff in a few years.”

 

 

Antisocial Personality Disorder

Of all the mental illnesses we could examine with regard to a leader’s propensity to commit extreme violence against his people, this would be the most concerning of all the mental illnesses. This disorder also happens to be where Obama has exhibited extreme pathological behavior with regard to this affliction. The traits of ASPD are as follows:

  • Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest

  • Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure

  • Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead

  • Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults

  • Reckless disregard for safety of self or others

  • Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations

  • Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt an individual. They may display a glib, superficial charm and can be quite voluble and verbally facile (e.g., using technical terms or jargon that might impress someone who is unfamiliar with the topic). Lack of empathy, inflated self-appraisal, and superficial charm are features that have been commonly included in traditional conceptions of psychopathy and may be particularly distinguishing of Antisocial Personality Disorder in prison or forensic settings where criminal, delinquent, or aggressive acts are likely to be nonspecific. These individuals may also be irresponsible and exploitative in their sexual relationships (see the work of Jerome Corsi in this regard).

     

    ob finger 2We know that this administration fired two senior command officers and prevented them from attempting to rescue Ambassador Stevens and his bodyguards, at Benghazi, while the attack was in progress. We also know that he and other senior level members of his administration watched by drone as the events unfolded and culminated in the deaths of Stevens and his team. As I have documented on this website, the evidence points to the fact that Stevens was the conduit which connected Obama to the arming of al-Qaeda in support of the Libyan and Syrian rebels.

fema corp brown shirts america

Obama’s use of drones to kill not only foreign nationals, but three American citizens, speaks to his depraved indifference to human life. The fact that he is continuing the war in Afghanistan, despite his campaign promises to the contrary, speaks to his absolutely reckless disregard for human life. People have been killed by drones as they attend weddings, babies die in their mother’s arms and children are maimed and killed by these machines and Obama brags that he is good at killing people with drones.

US-POLITICS-OBAMA-GOLF Obama has extreme superficial charm. After all, he twice fooled a nation of sheep with his manufactured demeanor. Obama is highly impulsive. His assistants do not know if he will attend an intelligence briefing or will he be on the golf course.

President Obama has never held a real job. He has served as a community agitator (err community activist), a state senator, a less than a one-term US Senator and then of course, a President. Where is his employment history? The bottom line is that this President has never held a regular job.

The President has engaged in repeated acts of lying and breaking the law as witnessed by the events at Benghazi, the NSA spy scandal, the IRS harassment scandal, Obama’s spying on AP reporters, Fast and Furious gun running to the Mexican drug cartels, etc. This administration has been little more than one great big criminal enterprise.

blood on their hands benghazi

President Obama’s conduct in the handling of the Michael Brown crisis in Ferguson in which he clearly and intentionally exacerbated the crisis by dwelling on the “communities of color and their strained relationships with law enforcement”. As true, or inaccurate as this statement was, it served to incite violence from those who were already upset.  Presidential speeches are measured and weighted for their psychological effect on the public. Obama knew exactly what he was doing.

The sum total of Obama’s actions demonstrate a willful disregard for the welfare of others. ASPD individuals frequently use aliases. Do you think that “Barry”, the student, attending Occidental College would ever do such a thing?

Of the seven traits listed above, one would have to claim the presence of four of the seven traits in order to justify a diagnosis of ASPD. I see six of seven traits being exhibited by President Obama. His superficial charm, his lack of remorse for his heinous acts and his inability to learn from his mistakes, unquestionably cast him in the role of being an ASPD individual.

Conclusion

Obama may or not be paranoid, although his treatment of the military would indicate that he is. Unquestionably, President Obama is suffering from NPD and ASPD. This is very concerning because a leader with NPD would not hesitate to put his needs ahead of the country that he is leading. This fact, combined with his definitive diagnosis, of an ASPD sufferer means that a person with the combination of these two traits would not hesitate to carry out acts of extreme violence against individuals and groups perceived as being a threat to the authority and position of President Obama.

We, indeed, have much to be concerned over and based upon the evidence, I would encourage the Cabinet to invoke Section Four of the Twenty Fifth Amendment. This President is not capable of discharging his duties under the disabilities clause.

against my mothers race