Barack Obama 2013

[PHARAOH]

Well that's how well it is working on you. See, they now have everyone excepting women on the front line of battle today. I guess this means you are right? Women are stronger? The manipulation is working well. Women will lead this charge, but who will defend them?
The male species will be transformed to resemble that of a transvestite. Male and Female have lost there rightful place and are being trans-genderized as to confuse and further systematically break down the family. Both are now pawns in the grand scheme of divide and conquer.
The questions is not will women lead, the question is will they lead like Men or Women?

[Arrowwind]

Posted by PHARAOH (here)
America has become so "FEMA-NIZED" since breeding the testosterone out of the male species, there is no fight in them anymore. It's much easier for everyone to pretend this is not going on and cower, looking for mommy. As I've stated in many posts, the only sure thing I see coming and getting stronger and stronger is the "NWO" period! For this reason, I have no pity.

Although there seems to be more gays than ever before I cannot account for why. I have known gay men who were in the military and they were equally strong and powerful, and from my perspective perhaps a bit more sensible, having an ingrained sense of what oppression is. Perhaps you can provide some documentation for why men are weaker.

[sirdipswitch]

Posted by Arrowwind (here)

Posted by PHARAOH (here)
America has become so "FEMA-NIZED" since breeding the testosterone out of the male species, there is no fight in them anymore. It's much easier for everyone to pretend this is not going on and cower, looking for mommy. As I've stated in many posts, the only sure thing I see coming and getting stronger and stronger is the "NWO" period! For this reason, I have no pity.

Although there seems to be more gays than ever before I cannot account for why. I have known gay men who were in the military and they were equally strong and powerful, and from my perspective perhaps a bit more sensible, having an ingrained sense of what oppression is. Perhaps you can provide some documentation for why men are weaker.

Several years ago, I heard an interview of Linda Moulton Howe, on Coast To Coast, talking about beef producers using very high Estrogen content in cattle feed, to speed their growth and help fatten them. And the result she said it was having on our population, is that it confuses, the adolesant male genes, into higher Estrogen production, than Testosterone. In families that are high beef eaters, the young boys, are turning more Feminine, than Masculine. She also said that the increase in gay male populations, can be traced right back to the start, of the massive use of Estrogen, in cattle feed.

Before you feed that grain to your home grown beef, check the ingredients.

[humanalien]

Posted by sirdipswitch (here)

Posted by Arrowwind (here)

Posted by PHARAOH (here)
America has become so "FEMA-NIZED" since breeding the testosterone out of the male species, there is no fight in them anymore. It's much easier for everyone to pretend this is not going on and cower, looking for mommy. As I've stated in many posts, the only sure thing I see coming and getting stronger and stronger is the "NWO" period! For this reason, I have no pity.

Although there seems to be more gays than ever before I cannot account for why. I have known gay men who were in the military and they were equally strong and powerful, and from my perspective perhaps a bit more sensible, having an ingrained sense of what oppression is. Perhaps you can provide some documentation for why men are weaker.

Several years ago, I heard an interview of Linda Moulton Howe, on Coast To Coast, talking about beef producers using very high Estrogen content in cattle feed, to speed their growth and help fatten them. And the result she said it was having on our population, is that it confuses, the adolesant male genes, into higher Estrogen production, than Testosterone. In families that are high beef eaters, the young boys, are turning more Feminine, than Masculine. She also said that the increase in gay male populations, can be traced right back to the start, of the massive use of Estrogen, in cattle feed.

Before you feed that grain to your home grown beef, check the ingredients.

I can believe that to be true. Just by looking at all
the gay men and boys coming out of the woodwork
should tell you that something is seriously wrong.

Another thing to point out, comes from watching tv.
There are more commercials now than ever before
about so called doctors, describing medical problems
that men face and the solution is for them to get male
hormone replacement therapy.

Alex jones has even done shows talking about high
level of estrogen in mens bodies which is one of the
main reasons for lower sperm counts. Are we men being
chemically neutered to stop us from reproducing?

I used to love watching home repair shows on tv but
here as of late, all those good shows are being replaced
by gay pillow fluffers that wine and cry if one color doesn't
quite measure up to them or if a pillow is set in the wrong
direction.

One show in particular that i watched once, a gay man was
asking a mexican that worked for him, why he had not broken
up the cement around a house they were working on.

The mexican said that he was waiting for a jackhammer to
arrive so that he could finish that job. The gay guy grabs his
crotch and says, "I got a jackhammer that you can use". I
was shocked that this was allowed to be on tv, but it was.

So yes, i do believe that estrogen is a big part of men being
so damn passive toward everything.

[Arrowwind]

I'd still like to see some studies on it. there is lots of hersay. i have my own opinions regarding the use of soy formula which is where much of the problem lies, creating havoc in the most early years.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by sirdipswitch (here)
[Before you feed that grain to your home grown beef, check the ingredients.

We only have grass fed organic meats here.

[Daughter of Time]

Well, FEMA-NIZED and feminized and two completely different things.

The drop in testosterone, as Arrowwind and sirdipswitch have mentioned, are the result of soy fed to babies and the hormones in beef.

Another culprit has to be the over-use of plastics, which is another form of synthetic estrogen which makes men grow breasts and gives women cancers of the breast and reproductive system. Cancerous breasts examined after mastectomies show to contain about 40% plastic, 40% heavy metals and the rest is a conglomeration of other toxins.

But I don't believe being gay is fully associated with estrogen. There are many macho gays out there who have a lot of testosterone running through their bodies. I believe that being gay since a young age is a remnant of past life experiences or sexual abuses in the present life whereby an adult subjected a child of the same sex to play their game. I know a number of gay men who were sexually abused by their uncles, neighbours, etc., and felt they could not perform with a woman once they became adults. This is a type of brain washing. Predators are often very good at making their victims integrate their (the predators) belief systems. It's much more complex than hormones even if hormones play a part.

We see a great increase of gay peole in the population, but homosexuality has always existed. It wasn't always safe to be gay. It is much safer now, which i believe is why they don't remain closeted, but they've always been there.

[Fellow Aspirant]

I hope this disclosure by Woodward doesn't hinder Hagel's acceptance:

http://www.businessinsider.com/hagel...d-order-2013-1

B.

[Tesla_WTC_Solution]

Thank God people with voice, if not power, are protesting this gross misplacement of the power of the people of America!!!

Thank you Fellow Aspirant, you are inspiring.

I actually overcame my ADD enough to go read that too.

...he told Obama: “We are at a time where there is a new world order.
"We don’t control it. You must question everything, every assumption, everything they” — the military and diplomats — “tell you. Any assumption 10 years old is out of date. You need to question our role. You need to question the military. You need to question what are we using the military for."


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/hagel...#ixzz2JOyqhig3

[KiwiElf]

Above link to Russian doco has been removed - new one is here:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=CrjXmDlAYzo

Published on Dec 18, 2012

On Friday, December 7, the current Russian Prime Minister and former President, Dmitry Medvedev, made some startling off-air comments to reporters while his microphone was still switched on. He was asked whether the President is given any secret files on extraterrestrials while in office. In his responses, Medvedev not only confided that extraterrestrials are visiting the Earth, but that some are actually living among us. He went even further to say that the Russian documentary, "Secrets about Men in Black", could give you more details about this issue.

[Rocky_Shorz]

very interesting so he isn't loved by Israel and is raising an alert on the NWO plans, this could get really interesting with him turning on the conservative Republicans...

The Post reports Hagel went so far as to say privately in 2011: “The president has not had commander-in-chief control of the Pentagon since Bush senior was president.”

Hagel is likely referring to Donald Rumsfeld's battle for control of the military, both against generals and the president. The perception was that Bush was less the decider, and more a person to be advised of decisions already made.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/hagel...#ixzz2JQdggaFk

[ghostrider]

it's time for the voice of the people to be heard by the government, No more silly laws taking freedom from the citizens... I say take all the wealth of the white house, senate, and congress and put it to the national debt... put them in boat with us ... they take our money while they are millionaires...hit them in the bank account just like they do us ... they are the employees, we are the owners, take their personal wealth and put it on the debt... then they might listen ...

[foreverfan]

On January 25th, 2013 , Mr. Lyndon Larouche, a well respected journalist and political activist recieved word from his sources within the United States government that President Barack Hussein Obama has been indicted by a Federal Court. Details of the indictment has been ommited by Larouche but he characterized them as probably the greatest indictment he has ever seen placed upon a standing president throughout history. Watch the first 5 minutes of the video to hear this explosive news. WOW!

http://larouchepac.com/node/25294


Friday Webcast Lyndon LaRouche, Founder of LaRouche PAC Executive Intelligence Review Begins: 2 February 2013 // 8 PM Eastern

[Bill Ryan]

-------

Video download (or streaming) link -- 263 Mb:

http://media.larouchepac.com/larouch...bcast-ipod.mp4

[Sidney]

Ok, so im curious as to why if this video was mada a week ago, why is it the only news source of this earth shattering event.?? I did just a quick google search and that one video is the only thing that comes up. Has anyone been able to find anything else on this matter.??

[humanalien]

I've been trying to find out more about this but
mostly i'm finding people saying that Mr. Larouche
is a lier, a nut case and a loser.

I did find one thing that said that the reason for
the indictments against obama and biden, is
because they release national security secrets
about osama and the raid that was going to happen.

This caused members of seal team six to get killed.

I don't believe osama was even alive when that occurred
though, so i assume this information is wrong also. But
maybe members of seal team six really did die though,
because sensitive information was released by obama.

I'd prefer it if obama got impeached, myself.... That might
nullify every bill and law that he signed...

[Arrowwind]

No comments or details of indictment? you've got to be kidding.

I'd like to know what court, who was the judge, where, when?!!
Since when are such rulings a big secret? and we only get to hear about it
though Lyndon Larouche?

Right now I think Obama is laughing.
Not one second of media coverage
might indicate that he can withstand all of it.

Seems like its going to be swept under the rug.
Im waiting to hear from someone other that Larouche
who although is very idealistic, is often frequently wrong.
Lots of conspiracy forums and blogs mention it but it all leads back to Larouche.

this isn't smelling very good to me. Was there not one other person in this court
willing to report on this?
or was this someone's wet dream?

So Im digging and I find this: Its an indictment that seems to also have gone nowhere, dated 10/2012
Here's the PDF of the Oct. Indictment: http://www.citizensgrandjury.com/pdf/121101-Citizens%20Grand%20Jury%20Indictment.pdf
this indictment was created by a nonlegal citizens jury that has no legal power nor authority and thats why all these citizeins indictments go absolutly nowhere in real legal terms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_grand_jury
so what about this new indictment?

Why is it that Larouche fails to give the details?
Sounds like a ploy to incite revolution to me...

not that I'd be very adverse to that.

Its just that stuff like this does little in the minds that are fixed
and the minds that are convinced that conspiracy theorists are fully nuts.

[GlassSteagallfan]

Here is the shorter version (LaRouche) of the news:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=lHAz3rdSYk0

https://youtube.com/watch?v=lHAz3rdSYk0


...and the article:

Court of Appeals Strikes Down Obama's Violation of Constitutional Separation of Powers

January 26, 2013 • 12:11PM

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a 47-page ruling today, Jan. 25, 2013, upholding the U.S. Constitution against Executive branch violation of the Constitutional separation of powers, in its ruling that President Obama violated the Constitution in making recess appointments when the Senate was, indeed, in session.

The import of the decision extends far beyond the specific case which engendered that decision, as the Court recognized when it stated from the outset, that "while the posture of the petition is routine, as it developed, our review is not." Its aggressive defense of the separation of powers and the constitutional right of the Courts to judge the legality of laws (citing, amongst others, the decisive case of Marbury v. Madison that "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is") bears implications for other immediate, grave cases of Constitutional violations by President Obama. Just two weeks from now, on Feb. 7th, a federal court in that same court circuit is scheduled to hear the Department of Justice's motion to dismiss the House of Representatives case against Attorney General Eric Holder's stonewalling of Congressional supoenas on "Fast and Furious."

The decision likewise bears upon the President's violations of the War Powers Act, and Sen. John Kerry's defense of that violation.

The specific case addressed was an appeal of a decision taken by the National Labor Relations Board (NRLB), filed on the grounds that the NLRB decision was illegal because three of its required five members had been appointed as alleged "recess appointments" by President Obama on Jan. 4, 2012, when the Senate had declared itself in pro forma session, thus subverting Constitutional requirements for Senate advice and consent on such appointments. Obama asserted that he could determine when the Senate was in session or not, and made the appointments.

The Court ruled the NLRB decision void, on the grounds that Obama making appointments when the Senate was in session violates the Constitution's Recess Appointment Clause. The decision centers on addressing the latter issue. It is clearly written, moreover, to uphold the Constitutional principle of the separation of powers as a whole, not merely in the case of recess appointments, delivering an implicit broadside against the recent assertions of the alleged powers of a so-called Unitary Executive. As the decision argues: "The Constitution's separation of powers features, of which the Appointments Clause is one, do not simply protect one branch from another. These structural provisions serve to protect the people, for it is ultimately the people's rights that suffer when one branch encroaches on another" [emphasis in original].

The Court cites a memorandum issued by the Office of Legal Council, which asserts that "the President therefore has discretion to conclude that the Senate is unavailable to perform its advise-and-consent function and to exercise his power to make recess appointments."

To which the Court replies:

"This will not do. Allowing the President to define the scope of his own appointments power would eviscerate the Constitution's separation of powers. The checks and balances that the Constitution placed on each branch of government serve as `self-executing safeguard[s] against the encroachment or aggrandizement of one branch at the expense of the other.' [citing a 1976 court decision]. An interpretation of `the Recess' that permits the President to decide when the Senate is in recess would demolish the checks and balances inherent in the advice-and-consent requirement, giving the President free rein to appoint his desired nominees at any time he pleases, whether that time be a weekend, lunch or even when the Senate is in session and he is merely displeased with its inaction. This cannot be the law."

And again: "The dearth of intrasession appointments in the years and decades following the ratification of the Constitution speaks far more impressively than the history of recent presidential exercise of a supposed power to make such appointments... Recent presidents are doing no more than interpreting the Constitution. While we recognize that all branches of government must of necessity exercise their understanding of the Constitution in order to perform their duties faithfully thereto, ultimately it is our role to discern the authoritative meaning of the supreme law."

Carl Schmitt-styled arguments asserted by the Obama White House, that it can violate the Constitution on grounds that "administrative efficiency" requires it to do so, are rejected out of hand. The court dismissed the NLRB's argument that the Court must uphold Obama's appointments, in order to avoid the "dire consequences" which could result from its overturning of his appointments, leaving "the President unable to fulfill his chief constitutional obligation to `take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed'."

The Court ruled: "We cannot accept an interpretation of the Constitution completely divorced from its original meaning in order to resolve exigencies created by -- and equally remediable by -- the executive and legislative branches. In any event, if some administrative inefficiency results from our construction of the original meaning of the Constitution, that does not empower us to change what the Constitution commands. As the Supreme Court observed in INS v. Chadha, `the fact that a given law or procedure is efficient, convenient, and useful in facilitating functions of government, standing alone, will not save it if it is contrary to the Constitution.' 4562 U.S. at 994. It bears emphasis that `[c]onvenience and efficiency are not the primary objectives or the hallmarks of democratic government. Idim."

http://larouchepac.com/node/25298

[GlassSteagallfan]

Here's more links - some are 6 and 7 days old, some with video

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...ent.htm?p=full

http://www.infowars.com/court-rules-...-appointments/

http://careers.ap.org/dynamic/storie...01-25-19-11-28

http://www.theledger.com/article/201...tics/130129474


...and they don't mention LaRouche!

[Rocky_Shorz]

well LaRouche is bought and paid for by the same person in charge of Chemtrails and fracking, our buddy Koch...

seems like those government contracts could be pulled and handed to another quite easily...

who is Lyn Marcus?

LaRouche was a presidential candidate eight times between 1976 to 2004, running once for his own U.S. Labor Party and campaigning seven times for the Democratic Party nomination. He was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment in 1988 for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and tax code violations...

Well Surprise Surprise, funding for the Koch Empire came from the same sources that got Marcus released from prison...

Imprisonment, release on parole, attempts at exoneration, visits to Russia

LaRouche began his jail sentence in 1989, serving it at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota. From there he ran for Congress in 1990, seeking to represent the 10th District of Virginia, but he received less than one percent of the vote. He ran for President again in 1992 with James Bevel as his running mate, a civil rights activist who had represented the LaRouche movement in its pursuit of the Franklin child prostitution ring allegations. It was only the second-ever campaign for president from prison.[126] He received 26,334 votes, standing again as the "Economic Recovery" party.[127] For a time he shared a cell with televangelist Jim Bakker. Bakker later wrote of his astonishment at LaRouche's detailed knowledge of the Bible. According to Bakker, LaRouche received a daily intelligence report by mail, and at times had information about news events days before they happened. Bakker also wrote that LaRouche believed their cell was bugged. In Bakker's view, "to say LaRouche was a little paranoid would be like saying that the Titanic had a little leak."[128]

Viktor Kuzin, a member of the Moscow City Council and a founder of the Democratic Union in Russia,[129] travelled to Minnesota in 1993 to meet LaRouche in prison, and afterwards participated in international campaigns to exonerate LaRouche.[130] An advertisement calling for exoneration was published in several US Newspapers, signed by Kuzin, Civil Rights attorney J.L. Chestnut, former Ugandan President Godfrey Binaisa, and others.[131] Chestnut was interviewed in the Tuscaloosa News saying that when he met LaRouche, "I told him that he might as well be black and in Alabama."

Wiki Bio on LaRouche

in charge of the Fusion foundation? and yet is backed by an oil conglomerate, wouldn't that be a slight conflict of interest?

A citizens grand jury indicted Obama which means the supreme court must look at it but they don't have to accept it. They can deny the claim...

a dozen guys get together in white sheets with eye holes, hold a mock trial, give it a fancy name and write up the paperwork to send to the Supreme court, it will be right behind the states wanting to break off from the country...

[humanalien]

Just when you think you got a ray of sunshine
in your face, it turns out to be bird crap.....

I'd like to know how a man in prison, that by law,
has no rights as an american citizen when imprisoned,
can run for president. Something doesn't add up there..