Barack Obama 2013

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by humanalien (here)
I don't doubt what this post is saying, could be true
but why is it coming from a homeland security web site?

The Northeast Intelligence Network of Hagmann & Hagmann is not a U.S. Department of Homeland Security site.

You seem to be confusing the URL of their site: homelandsecurityus.com. See their about page for more information on who they are.

Government sites end in .gov, not in .com.

[KiwiElf]

NRA's new ad - Obama 'elitist hypocrite'

Published on Jan 15, 2013

YouTube:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=W8crdWLgfDk

The National Rifle Association released a new video on its Web site Tuesday calling President Obama an "elitist hypocrite" for having Secret Service protection of his daughters at school but saying he was "skeptical" about installing armed guards in all schools.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/.../nra-obama-ad/

[buckminster fuller]

there is more to it than what people seems to believe...

[Operator]

Posted by Paul (here)

The Northeast Intelligence Network of Hagmann & Hagmann is not a U.S. Department of Homeland Security site.

You seem to be confusing the URL of their site: homelandsecurityus.com. See their about page for more information on who they are.

Government sites end in .gov, not in .com.

I have heard of Hagmann & Hagmann many times before. They appear on some radio shows every now and then.
Because of Bill's post I was on their website the first time ... What surprised me is that they prominently display this:


WE STAND WITH ISRAEL

(left column at the bottom)

There are plenty other researchers who take issue with Americans with dual citizenship (American/Israeli).
It doesn't have to mean anything ... but it appears as a kind of 'unconditional' statement to me.

[spiritguide]

Posted by buckminster fuller (here)
there is more to it than what people seems to believe...

What in your opinion is the more?

[DeBron]

Posted by Fred Steeves (here)

A quick question DeBron. Who is the responsible authority figure present, the wise old chief so to speak, to decide who needs what protection, and against whom? The same wise old chief which has ruled the seven seas through the use of brute physical force since the end of WW 2?

The responsible party was congress in 1913. That was the year they made permanent and formally mandated that one of the Secret Service's duties is to protect the President, then in 1917 Congress expanded that duty to the President's immediate family.

So to more precisely answer your question, the People of the United States, represented by their elected officials in the US Congress, decided that it was important to protect the President and his immediate family. This was not protested against by the general populace during the time it was enacted, supporting the assumption that the people agreed with that new policy.

Also you can see from the dates I listed that this was before World War I. (Well the part about protecting the immediate family was during WWI)


I know some of you do not like the current President but please know that the guarding of his children predates his birth. Using the fact that we as a citizenry had previously decided it was right and necessary to protect those who are closest to him is making sure he does his job without worrying if his family is safe.

[Fred Steeves]

Posted by DeBron (here)

Posted by Fred Steeves (here)

A quick question DeBron. Who is the responsible authority figure present, the wise old chief so to speak, to decide who needs what protection, and against whom? The same wise old chief which has ruled the seven seas through the use of brute physical force since the end of WW 2?

The responsible party was congress in 1913. That was the year they made permanent and formally mandated that one of the Secret Service's duties is to protect the President, then in 1917 Congress expanded that duty to the President's immediate family.

Yes, now where have I heard this story line before? Elites exempting each other from laws they themselves place on the commoners, all the while granting each other special privileges to boot?

[Hip Hipnotist]

Posted by DeBron (here)

Posted by Fred Steeves (here)

A quick question DeBron. Who is the responsible authority figure present, the wise old chief so to speak, to decide who needs what protection, and against whom? The same wise old chief which has ruled the seven seas through the use of brute physical force since the end of WW 2?

The responsible party was congress in 1913. That was the year they made permanent and formally mandated that one of the Secret Service's duties is to protect the President, then in 1917 Congress expanded that duty to the President's immediate family.

So to more precisely answer your question, the People of the United States, represented by their elected officials in the US Congress, decided that it was important to protect the President and his immediate family. This was not protested against by the general populace during the time it was enacted, supporting the assumption that the people agreed with that new policy.

Also you can see from the dates I listed that this was before World War I. (Well the part about protecting the immediate family was during WWI)


I know some of you do not like the current President but please know that the guarding of his children predates his birth. Using the fact that we as a citizenry had previously decided it was right and necessary to protect those who are closest to him is making sure he does his job without worrying if his family is safe.

Not questioning your facts just a few observations:

"The responsible party was congress in 1913. That was the year they made permanent and formally mandated that one of the Secret Service's duties is to protect the President, then in 1917 Congress expanded that duty to the President's immediate family."

Same year the infamous federal reserve was created. Gotta love those coincidences.

"I know some of you do not like the current President..."

Why stop there? There's a half dozen more I can think of that I didn't particularly care for.

"...to protect those who are closest to him is making sure he does his job without worrying if his family is safe."

I can't help but be reminded of all those whistle blower types, the ones that worked in government, not too far away from the president himself, that now fear for their lives, not to mention those closest to them, that also did their job -- until 'waking up' to the fact they had been serving a system that got US to where we are now. Where's their protection? Where do you think Obama's ( Soetoro's) protection would be if he decided to 'come clean'?

BTW: Our ( current ) president just signed a bill into law granting him protection ( the Mrs. too ), as well as former presidents lasting into perpetuity, or until they're dead, whichever comes first. How much more is that costing me, I wonder? ;-(

[sigma6]

True enough, obviously not to be taken literally, more a play on words... and yes there could be a hidden 'spin' on it... I like my Chinese astrological sign...

[heyokah]

Posted by observer (here)
Impeach this imposter before he has the chance to destroy the Second Amendment and thereby erode the Constitution of the United States.

http://www.petition2congress.com/234...states-americ/

Be careful my dear American friends.....Your doctor-patient confidentiality will be history!!

You have to stop this !


"Obama turns doctors into gun control snitches running health care spy network."

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038707_ex...ixzz2IKZmeUV5][/I][/B]
http://www.naturalnews.com/038707_ex...are_spies.html

[ahauocha]

I just happen to see your handle---that Sacred word. I hope you are well, your medicine speaks for itself. See ya at Sundance, pine ridge, 1st circle
Wopila's
orka

[jackovesk]

Published on Jan 16, 2013

http://www.infowars.com/other-tyrant...dren-as-props/

Obama's shameless exploitation of children as set pieces is hardly new or original. In fact, tyrants and dictators have used kids as props down through the ages.

http://www.infowars.com

Obama Responds To Alex Jones

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Kw7MvYFsQNY

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Kw7MvYFsQNY

Alex Jones segment on Nightline 1/15/13

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=NXys9cPBzQw

https://youtube.com/watch?v=NXys9cPBzQw

PS - Note the 'MSM WARNING' in the last minute of the clip 'above'..!

Howard Stern on Alex Jones vs Piers Morgan Debate

Jan 10, 2013

Alex Jones vs Piers Morgan - Piers Morgan sat down with the creator of a White House petition to get him deported from the United States. Alex Jones was fired up throughout the entire interview, launching into a series of loud tirades against Morgan and gun control every few seconds. Every time Morgan tried to ask a question, Jones continued to pile through with his arguments.

Jones said the point of the petition was to bring attention to the fact that United States has a bunch of foreigners bragging about taking away the guns of Americans while the gov't amasses more weapons for themselves. He said that the Second Amendment isn't for "duck-hunting," it's to protect us from "tyrannical government." He raised his voice to declare to Morgan, "1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms!"

Morgan attempted to explain that the United States has significantly more gun murders than England, but Jones dismissed the argument outright. He called England a "police state," telling Morgan he "fled" to the United States, going so far as to call Morgan a "hatchet man of the New World Order."

Morgan tried to patiently walk through the finer points of the gun control debate with Jones, but he went on tirade after tirade on an ever-angrier series of tangents. Jones repeatedly criticized Morgan for trying to trip him off with "little factoids" instead of getting to the heart of the gun debate.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=kXKq-g3y6WE

https://youtube.com/watch?v=kXKq-g3y6WE

Alex Challenges Piers Morgan to 2nd Debate

Jan 9, 2013

On the invigorating Wednesday, January 9 edition of Infowars Live, Alex Jones confronts the thinly-veiled threats against his life as so-called pundits joke about killing him on nationwide television. He'll continue to explore the media's fascination with his impassioned speech on Piers Morgan Tonight, and also continue to break down their attempts to demonize himself and all law-abiding gunowners.

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

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

[norman]

There HAS to be a dynamic shift if the old school public figures are only out campaigning once every 4 years while Alex Jones is out campaigning 24/7 364 days of the year always and for ever.

It's warming up into a perpetual campaign hot war with the old school being drawn out of their old comfort zones.

They will be getting desperate to make Alex drop off the radar for long periods. If they can't do that, they will surely be putting their foot hard on the gas and going for total full spectrum dominance whether it was originally in their plan for this period or not.

[turiya]

History Lesson...

WOUNDED KNEE & THE SECOND AMENDMENT


“A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY TO THINK ABOUT…….December 29, 2012 marks the 122nd Anniversary of the murder of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine …Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms “for their own safety and protection”. The slaughter began after the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. The Calvary began shooting, and managed to wipe out the entire camp. 200 of the 297 victims were women and children.

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

Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists, and why we should vehemently resist any attempts to infringe on our Rights to Bear Arms. Without the Second Amendment we will be totally stripped of any ability to defend ourselves and our families.”
Article: http://thebellnews.com/2013/01/14/wo...2nd-amendment/

[Corncrake]

Read Greg Palast on Alex Jones. Spot on!

http://www.gregpalast.com/

[humanalien]

I thought that wasn't suppose to happen
until tomorrow.

I see from the MSM that he was sworn in
today, at a private setting using michelle's
family bible.

I wonder what bible it was that they used.

I missed him being sworn in and i'd like to
hear it. I hope you tube has a copy of it soon.

I'm curious if he swore to uphold the laws
of the constitution....

As i was about to post this, fox news showed
a clip of the swearing in. Obama did swear to
uphold the laws of the constitution.

We know he won't though. Why start now when
he has been ignoring the constitution for the last
four years....

[humanalien]

OK. He did a private swearing in today and
he'll do a public one tomorrow.

[ViralSpiral]

Found it odd to have a private ceremony, so looked around

'Interesting' read......

"INAUGURAL ADDRESS IS CENTERPIECE

Obama's Inauguration Day speech will set the tone for the start of his second term and gives him a chance to lay out his vision on where he would like to lead the country. He has been drafting the speech on yellow legal pads (seriously? I obviously miss the importance of this fact) and working with his speechwriters.

After his tumultuous first term during which he achieved an overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system, his second term opens in the midst of a feud with congressional Republicans over taxes and spending.

His top policy goals for the first year, so far, include tightening gun regulations in response to the massacre of 20 children and six adults at a Connecticut elementary school a month ago. Obama is also seeking an overhaul of immigration laws and tax reform.

Abroad, he is facing a challenge from a resurgence of Islamist extremists in North Africa exemplified by the recent hostage-taking that turned deadly at an oil facility in Algeria. He is also winding down the war in Afghanistan and dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Obama will save specific policy proposals for his annual State of the Union speech before Congress on February 12.

In his inaugural address, Obama is expected to talk about the need for political compromise where possible, a reminder of the intense battles in his first term that led to paralysis and dysfunction in Washington.

With the public ceremony falling on the national holiday honoring slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., Obama will also have a chance to draw historic parallels. While taking the oath on Monday, he will place his left hand on two Bibles (?) - one once owned by Abraham Lincoln and other by King."

Reuters

[baddbob]

Barack Obama sworn in for second term as US President
Barack Obama has been sworn in for a second term as President of the United States of America in a private White House ceremony.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...President.html

[Operator]

They already announced the (again) double inauguration in a dutch newspaper last December.
So it was known for a long time. I really have no clue why that's necessary but it stinks IMHO.