THE ANONYMOUS AUTHOR OF THIS DOCUMENT GRANTS EVERYONE THE RIGHT TO REPUBLISH AND ASKS FOR YOUR IMMEDIATE HELP IN SPREADING THIS CONTENT
- Part 1 Six of Obama’s Narcissist outbursts caught on video (disturbing video below)
- Part 2 Analysis of over 50 statements and actions as proof of Obama’s Malignant Narcissism, delusional Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), and Messianic God Complex consistent with dictators such as Hitler and Stalin, and marked by an uncontrollable need for ever-increasing power consistent with his Executive power restructurings analyzed in Part 3, including Obama’s testing of audiences with suggestions he sideline other branches of government and stay in power past 2012 and even after 2016 regardless the democratic process and the Constitution.
- Part 3 Obama’s Path Toward American Dictatorship Revealed
Analysis of Obama’s preparation of unprecedented Executive powers for unspecified “emergency”, including over 100 unconstitutional and anti-democratic power grabs
Analysis of unconstitutional Executive, regulatory, and legislative actions by Obama consistent with amassing of unprecedented dictatorial-capacity powers in the most anti-democratic shift to Executive power in U.S. history, and his comprehensive and strategic targeting of all practical mechanisms of First, Second, Fourth, and Tenth Amendment protections in lock step with the dictatorship handbook, apparently designed to allow Obama to maintain power in America indefinitely.
Parts 1 & 2 lay the psychological basis behind Obama’s apparent push towards a Stalinist-style American Dictatorship analyzed in Part 3.
While Obama is a charismatic genius orator, he shows clear, diagnosable signs of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) like many of history’s brilliant, persuasive leaders, including Hitler and Stalin. This document connects the growing Internet buzz about Obama’s Narcissist Personality Disorder with undeniable proof in Obama’s “tell” gesture caught on video, and also with analysis of his strange Executive actions consistent with narcissistic delusions of increased power. Evidence suggests Obama views himself as a Messiah able to run this country without Congress, the Supreme Court, and media criticism, and believes he should be running the entire world. Obama is not merely super-competitive. Just as NPD prevented other inflicted world leaders from stepping down from power voluntarily, Obama may also be unable to psychologically accept a limit to his “historic” “messianic” grandiosity as well. Because of this disorder, Obama may be compelled to continue moving this country toward dictatorship as analyzed in Part 3, or even cause an emergency to stay in power regardless elections and the Constitution. The evidence is here. History repeats itself, unless we learn.
Six of Obama’s narcissistic outbursts caught on video
- Footage below of Obama caught in 6 outbursts of undeniable disturbed behavior are “tell” signs of Malignant Narcissism or severe Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD).
- Obama is caught repeatedly making obscene middle finger gestures when mentioning his opponents in pathological outbursts against challengers to his perceived “greatness.” Obama’s actions not only injure his “likeability” rating as merely common narcissism or hyper-competitiveness. The diagnosis must be Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) – a dangerous, delusional disorder.
Watch the disturbing videos
Warning: For those who understand what these videos reveal about Obama psychologically – revelation that our President has an alternate, hidden and unsound mindset and persona – these videos may be extremely disturbing.
What you’re seeing
Obama is caught sticking up his middle finger precisely at the moment he mentions his opponents in ways that cannot be accidental: 1) Hillary Clinton during the primaries, 2) John McCain during the 2008 election campaign, 3) John Callahan (who supported Clinton), 4) Rep. Paul Ryan right when he criticizes Obama about problems with the Healthcare Bill. 5) John Boehner, and 6) Republicans generally in another speech.
This first link has videos 1-3 together, Callahan (who supported Hillary, not him), McCain and Hillary,. Descriptions below.
1 – Obama giving the middle finger when mentioning Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primaries.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DygBj4Zw6No (this is one of multiple times he did this while mentioning Hillary)
“…and I’ll say senator Clinton, she looked in her element.” Watch Obama’s moderate verbal statement, combined with a passive-aggressive outburst at the same time, and cleverly done with plausible deniability.
2 – Obama giving the middle finger when mentioning John Callahan, who supported Hillary Clinton in the primaries.
Watch how, in between joking, Obama turns ice cold, gives Callahan the finger, and a split second later turns charming again. This false persona/real Obama contrast caught on video shows undeniably the real, hidden, truly cunning and deceptive Obama. Sane people do not engage in such behavior.
3 – Obama giving the middle finger when mentioning his rival John McCain with the typical modus operandi discussed below. Notice how he again uses index finger, and then switches to his middle finger in a way that cannot be accidental.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pc8Wc1CN7sY Notice how he does this while appearing to empathetically discuss McCain’s admirable service to this country. Being able to do both at the same time is the true, hidden Obama you’re watching on video.
4 – Obama sitting there giving the middle finger when Rep. Paul Ryan is criticizing his healthcare plan @2:09.
5 – Obama giving the middle finger when mentioning Republican House leader John Boehner
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twwpMdXEt7k&feature=related This one is not well executed, but his intent appears to be there again.
6 – Obama giving the middle finger to republicans:
7. Yet another instance caught on camera – Obama giving the finger to those who challenge him:
This is how Obama sits at a moment when someone challenges him or infuriates him is in the room – portraying this obscene gesture, but with plausible deniability, that he can talk his way out of if ever questioned on it.
Explanation of what you’re seeing
Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is marked here by an uncontrollable need to feed Obama’s view of self-grandiosity – his view of himself as above us all.
Obama does this gesture or position repeatedly at the precise moment that he mentions people who challenge his authority – the most hated thing to a narcissist.
Obama is not simply giving someone the finger as some politicians have done. That would be un-Presidential, but sane.
Rather, he is doing it in front of millions of people, but intending to NOT get caught. He does it covertly, and deniably. Meanwhile, these videos show it must be done knowingly. In Obama’s mind, he is knowingly hiding something from us, yet doing it in front of the cameras, for his own perverse gratification. This is a sign of mental illness.
Why is he doing this?
a) he cannot stand to have his perceived greatness opposed, and is driven to uncontrollable anger and outbursts at those who oppose him. Obama is saying, “f-u, I am taking the Presidency, it’s mine”, as if a kid arguing over a toy in a sand box. It’s the figurative sticking his tongue out at his opponent. And, “by the way, watch how easily I can manipulate the entire nation.”
b) he also does this because thinks he is more clever than the entire world who doesn’t notice. (Or, clever enough to talk his way out of it if someone did notice.) He is doing it to show his grandiosity above us all, for not noticing, and allowing ourselves to be manipulated by him. In his clever but twisted mind, this perverse behavior is proving to himself his greatness, his supreme cleverness above us all. (and actually genius, if he is able to get away with it, unless this document spreads before the 2012 election.)
This is clearly Narcissistic Personality Disorder combined with delusional outbursts that are arguably psychotic in nature, certainly not rational. In fact, it is because they are so irrational that they have not come to popular attention. It sounds ridiculous unless someone carefully looks at it.
Watch the videos. Do not just look at the photos.
(Please also download and save the videos, (maybe save with screen capture or other software), so it cannot be removed as some of these videos have already been.)
Why can’t these be accident?
That chance that Obama, with his masterful body language skills, does this repeatedly by accident or coincidence is impossible. We all learn at a very early age to be conscious of the middle finger’s position because it is offensive.
Once, maybe one could believe it is an accident, but not repeatedly, and at precisely at times he mentions his opponents or is infuriated or challenged. He knows exactly what he is doing. It can only be intentional.
- His Modus Operandi is always similar. He always sets it up first with his index finger first to set himself up, pauses, and then switches to the middle finger. If he only has an itch, why pause and switch fingers like that?
- He always stops talking and switches to serious demeanor at the moment he does it. Then, he amazingly switches back to joking – true mentally ill behavior of a genius caught on video – it is almost unbelievable to watch.
- In hundreds of hours of video of Obama, he never does this without mentioning an opponent, or having another trigger anger him.
- Obama is an expert in body language who could never accidentally do this. Even we all learn as kids that the middle finger is offensive, and to be conscious of it. It is impossible for Obama, an international diplomat, to be unaware that his middle finger is up and fully extended.
- Statistically, the chances of this happening at around the time he mentions someone who opposes him, ~10 seconds out of a ~30-minute speech, are about 1 in 180. Statistically, for this to occur in 2 speeches of similar length, regarding two different opponents accidentally, are 1 in 32,000. In 3 speeches, 1 in 5,000,000 (five million). There are 6 instances caught in the just videos above, the odds of which happening accidentally are, even given every benefit of the doubt, one in billions.
- It is neither practical nor comfortable to scratch with the middle finger, with other fingers bent back.
- He is doing nothing with his hand prior.
- Watch the dramatic pause after mentioning his opponents’ names each time.
- If he were scratching, why not just scratch in one motion without the dramatic pause?
- Who scratches with their middle finger anyway? It’s neither comfortable nor effective.
- Who alternates the finger they scratch with, and would do so unconsciously like this?
- The middle finger is usually even uncomfortable to extend by itself.
Once, a Russian newscaster gave Obama the middle finger: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HS0_gVnwuyw It is unclear if this was in response to Obama giving the middle finger to others, maybe Putin, or just a sign that Russia is watching Obama closely and is aware of his tactics, even if all of America is sleeping.
After some of these gestures received media attention, the White House responded by saying it was unintentional. Obama is believed to have stopped doing the middle finger gesture around the same time, while other aspects of his NPD are worsening, and are expected to dramatically worsen in a second term. The videos clearly show otherwise. Most people who view these videos identify them as clearly intentional. The remaining few, must see them in the context of Obama’s dozens, if not hundreds of other acts consistent with NPD, Malignant Narcissism, and Messiah and God complex as analyzed in Part 2 and Part 3.
Analysis of Obama’s unusual statements and actions consistent with Malignant Narcissism, Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), Messiah Complex and an uncontrollable need for ever-increasing power consistent with his Executive power restructurings analyzed in Part 3
- Psychological and factual analysis of dozens of unusual actions and statements evidencing Obama’s delusional view of himself as a Messiah and God like never before seen in an American president, but consistent with historical figures with NPD such as Adolph Hitler, Stalin, and Nero.
- Analysis of the likely severity of Obama’s NPD, and how it may affect his decision-making. Will Obama continue to conceal problems he cannot solve to protect his ego at any cost, like continuing to print money and increase debt to hide economic problems. Will he continue to make more people reliant on his “savior” hand in the form of food stamps and other government aid? Is he capable of extreme acts such as intentionally causing an “emergency” to make even more people reliant on him?
- Analysis of psychologists’ concerns about the dangers of Obama’s NPD, his self-view as a messiah, his psychological need for ever-increasing power.
- Analysis of whether Obama’s NPD is severe enough that he may be unable to step down from power and accept limits to his “grandiosity,” regardless the 2012 election, or even 2016, like Saddam, Assad, Hitler, who must die in power at any price.
- Analysis of whether Obama’s Messianic delusions can cause him to voluntarily or involuntarily manufacture an emergency to seek increased power regardless the Constitution, democratic, and elections process.
- Analysis of whether Obama’s Executive power restructurings are based on anti-democratic intent, or merely ignorant/uncontrolled narcissistic power hungriness and control obsession.
Generally, Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is exhibited as follows:
- View of self-grandiosity, as better than others, special
– Self-centered and boastful
– Seeks constant attention and admiration
– Exaggerates their talents and achievements
– Believes that they are entitled to special treatment
– Is easily hurt but may not show it
– Lack of empathy – although might fake it perfectly
– All narcissists create a cult, operate through cult, even if only a cult of one, of which the narcissist is the guru
– Narcissist has no personality, but may fake an apparently perfect charismatic personality
– Narcissists often suffer from trauma as a child, such as abandonment of a father, and the unnaturally high view of himself is compensation or defense mechanism for the feeling of abandonment
Manipulation of others
– Pathological liar, a walking piece of fiction, perhaps brilliantly performed near 100% of the time
– Always blames others for everything that goes wrong
– Hyper-vigilant regarding attacking criticism
– Will stop at nothing to feed the narcissistic need*
Some will say, “of course he has these traits, he is the President and a politician.” But it is actually the reverse. He was elected President because he exuded being special. This document focuses on extraordinary actions even for politicians.
The following is a partial list of examples and signs Obama’s Malignant Narcissism and NPD, Obama’s actions consistent with Messiah and God Complex, and Obama caught weaving Biblical and anti-Christ themes into his Executive actions. Further analysis follows.
1) Obama’s middle finger gestures shown above
Viewing the repeated instances of this strange behavior in video quickly take this analysis beyond the realm of wild conspiracy. This is clearly not ordinary behavior, and there is no sane explanation. Also, as the White House has already denied it is intentional, they now own that position, which, from watching the videos, is obviously untrue.
Narcissists often experience psychotic “micro-episodes” associated with NPD such as these, as written by Dr. Sam Vaknin, an expert on narcissism and malignant narcissism. http://samvak.tripod.com/narcissistpsychotic.html “When Narcissistic Supply is deficient, the narcissist de-compensates and acts out in a variety of ways.” Many of the examples analyzed here are just that, examples of Obama acting out.
2) Dr. Sam Vaknin speaks out with great concern about Obama’s NPD
Psychologists including Israeli psychologist Dr. Sam Vaknin have explained their analysis as to why Obama has severe NPD, a self-view as a Messiah, a false personality “mask” and a hidden true nature we rarely see (except for the outbursts above, for example). Dr. Vaknin also analyzes the possible catastrophic risks when Obama may not be able to let go of his Messiah delusion despite the reality of losing an election, having to step down from power, or some other failure or limitation.
Dr. Sam Vaknin’s multi-part analysis starts here with Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CUp7qdej8g&feature=related
Further, more detailed interview with Dr. Vaknin is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmwNrNaTcs4&feature=related
Dr. Vaknin describes Obama’s view of himself as “the most important person even on the public stage,” and that Obama will not be able to accept being a 1-term president, or a major failure, or if re-elected, having to step down in 2016. He says Obama may feel compelled to do something that will be remembered for 2000 years, like Jesus, suggesting, even if he has to cause an apocalypse.
Dr. Vaknin discusses in detail why people with NPD cannot psychologically let go of their delusions of greatness, or power, at any cost, and how this leads directly to history’s most destructive and genocidal examples of malignant narcissism.
3) Ali Sina’s Article: “Understanding Obama: Making of a Fuhrer”
This highly-recommended article by Ali Sina discusses Obama’s Fuhrer complex in relation to his NPD. http://www.faithfreedom.org/obama.html An excerpt:
“Therefore, the question whether the President is a Muslim or a Christian, whether he is pro Palestine, as he has been all his life or whether he is pro Israel, whether he is a black supremacist or an agent of racial harmony, are moot. the President is anything you want him to be and situation dictates. He takes the side that is more expedient to his cause. To communists he is a comrade, to Islamists he is their man, to Palestinian fighters he is their hope and to the Jews he is a staunch Zionist. The narcissist’s creed is himself. Everything else is negotiable.
The best description of the President comes from himself. “I serve as a blank screen,” he wrote in The Audacity of Hope, “on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” This is the key to the President’s personality. He will do and say anything as long as it suits him. He will embrace any cause, will align himself with anyone, and will shift his position wherever the wind blows. Narcissists are chameleons.”
4) Obama’s threat to the Supreme Court of the United States not to overturn “his” healthcare law.
Just days after oral arguments were heard by the Supreme Court regarding possibly overruling the Patient’s Protection and Affordable Care Act, Obama made very unusual statements never before seen in a President towards the Court. It is clinical narcissistic behavior to react as he did, in a childish undisciplined outburst, when it made the news that the Supreme Court may strike it down, just days after oral arguments were heard. Clinical narcissists cannot accept that they have any fault. The President needed to keep up his illusion of the world and needed to blame someone else, the Supreme Court, seeing them as wrong, activist, and without power to challenge him.
As analyzed further in Part 3 below, separation of powers is a key aspect of our democracy that protects us from dictatorship. The President’s unusual statement was taken as a threat by many people, including judges who demanded that the Justice Department explain what the President meant. In dictatorships, the most subtle threats are used by leaders who control the military to also pressure judges. Such statements are entirely unusual and improper for a President towards the Supreme Court.
Notice the complete absurdity with which Obama said the “unelected court” better not overturn “his” law which passed by a “strong majority”, when in reality only a single republican voted for it. This was an uncontrolled outburst based on his delusional reality in which nobody can challenge his authority. It is the very job of the “unelected court” to overturn unconstitutional laws. Interestingly, the narcissistic outburst and this delusional comment come together.
5) Obama repeatedly compares himself to super-heros in ways to that go beyond joking.
Most politicians do not compare themselves to superman, “here to save the planet earth.” But, that is exactly what Obama said, “contrary to the rumors you’ve heard, I was not borne in a manger, I was born on krypton and sent here to save the planet Earth” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vws9fTtQgz4. While once is unusual enough and perhaps joking, such identification with superman has been a recurring theme with Obama, as also shown in the photo below.
6) Obama’s NY Girlfriend Genevieve Cook calls Obama’s desire to play out a superhero a strong archetype of his personality
Note that Superman is not just a superhero, he is the strongest of all super-heros, unlimited strength and abilities, able to change the rotation of the earth to his desire.
Obama’s ex-girlfriend, Cook, “told Maraniss that she thought Obama’s desire to “play out a superhero life” was “a very strong archetype in his personality.”
Needless to say, this by itself is highly unusual. Cook’s language suggests Obama is not just a fan of Superman, but that this fantasy theme is part of Obama’s personality. It is difficult to measure the psychological impact of such a super-human mentality on someone who actually has millions of people to support such a delusion, but it is likely to solidify the delusion for such an individual, and may even make it indistinguishable from reality. Of course, if ever questioned, Obama is far too clever to admit how he really views his “superiority.”
7) Obama has referenced realization of his greatness as a “light from above”, an “epiphany.”
Obama has made statements such as, “a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, ‘I have to vote for Barack.’” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mopkn0lPzM8 And that his election will result in “a nation healed, a world repaired.”
8) Obama has said his election will “slow the rise of the oceans”, and “the planet will begin to heal”
Again, superhuman, and Biblican themes applied to his not even so much his accomplishments, but to people’s realization of his greatness in electing him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0tuAJkbUWU
I cant fathom why when Obama said this, the whole nation did not laugh, and immediately lose all serious interest in Obama for either being insane, or harboring a Messiah complex, either way, not fit for the Presidency.
9) Obama’s statement in 2008 statement, “We are the ones the world has been waiting for.”
10) Obama has referred to himself as “God.”
Reportedly, in a discussion with actor Morgan Freeman, Obama said to him, “you were God before I was God.” It is a bit of a coincidence that they happened to be on the subject of this particular Freeman movie of all his roles, to begin with.
11) Obama has supported himself being idolized as “the one”, “sent by God”, “God,” and the “Messiah”
Obama has fully supported and never rebuked the mass idolization of him by millions and the media as “God” or “Messiah.” Obama has allowed and fueled this “Messiah” phenomenon supported by millions of his fans. Some examples at: http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/.
MSNBC’s Chris Mathews said of Obama, “this is bigger than Kennedy, this is New Testament.”
Nancy Pelosi said Obama is sent by God, calling him “A leader that God has blessed us with at this time.” http://amerpundit.com/2008/08/18/pelosi-obama-sent-by-god-to-lead-us/
Bill Maher said Obama is “Christ-like.”
Even Michelle Obama has said Obama is the Messiah, and “our savior”, that he can heal the earth, part the red sea, and lead us to the promised land. http://weeklyworldnews.com/headlines/51076/michelle-obama-barack-is-the-messiah/ This is consistent with the common pattern of narcissists surrounding themselves with those who support their delusions.
The list is endless. Googling “Obama Messiah” produces 1,800,000 hits.
Why do so many people photograph Obama with a light behind him to create a halo effect and attribute a religious and Biblical overtone to him? If other politicians were photographed this way, the photo would be discarded as ridiculous and unusable. What is different about Obama? Most people are not joking when they express such views. Obama has never spoken out against this strange worship, though any wise person should know its dangers. In the least, this is inappropriate and manipulative. Both this popular phenomenon and Obama’s support of it are consistent with severe NPD and Messiah Complex.
Chris Mathews of MSNBC, Speaker of the house of Representatives Nancy Pelosi, and many other responsible intelligent people have imposed Biblical themes onto Obama in what should be described as the most frightening and primitive regression of man witnessed in modern times. Logic should be kicking in bringing to the forefront in our minds the logical danger of millions of people looking to someone as a real-life Messiah.
12) Obama adds his own accomplishments to the presidential biographies beside those of each American president
No other U.S. president has ever done anything so egomaniacal, nor would any other even feel the need to. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/16/white-house-under-fire-for-adding-obama-policy-plugs-to-past-presidents-bios/ It is delusional to think this is appropriate. This is a clear red flag. For Obama, even the U.S. Presidency is insufficient. Some dismiss this as a gaff by someone with merely a huge ego, without an understanding of the dangers of delusional NPD. And of course, Obama will cleverly talk his way out of anything.
13) Promising more “flexibility” after the election to Medvedev
Obama was caught on a hot microphone saying to Russian President Medvedev regarding missile defense, that “I’ll have more flexibility after the election.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsFR8DbSRQE This can only be taken as Obama saying, after the people vote for me, I will do things that if they knew about, they may not vote for me. Promising more “flexibility” is also vague, and manipulative – letting the other person imagine what they like, as long as he gets what he wants. Narcissists can be expert manipulators. Some suspect Obama has been making similar promises to many world leaders, and when this went public, it caused a disconnect between him and many other world leaders.
This may be the reason for such little bilateral relations recently with other world leaders, and even his refusal to meet with world leaders before the 2012 U.N. speech.
14) Obama calls for a civilian police force as strong as the military – right out of Hitler’s playbook
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHmecy94z-M Dictators often set up new police forces and militaries to circumvent established chains of command and loyalty. Doing so with a force not sworn to uphold the Constitution, and not part of the traditional military, is an attempt to restructure traditional power and enforcement mechanisms to make them loyal directly to Obama. This is discussed further in Part 3.
15) Obama calls for a “contiguous” Palestinian State
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBVfpFW2CTs Such would mean dividing Israel in half. Obama does not misspeak, begging the question: Why did he say this? This was another “more flexibility after the election” type promise. Regardless what we think it means, you can bet Palestinians have their own expectations. Based on Obama’s acts, either Israel or the Palestinians will be very disappointed based on public statements alone, not even considering what he may have promised to both parties in private. Thinking he can promise everyone the world and get away with it is consistent with NPD-type behavior.
16) When a democrat suggests cancelling the 2012 elections, Obama does not object
Governor Bev. Perdue of North Carolina made the suggestion. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/09/28/democrat_governor_bev_perdue_of_nc_wasn_t_joking_she_wants_to_cancel_the_2012_congressional_elections Obama said nothing about a suggestion that, if more widely supported, could threaten our democracy.
17) A pledge of loyalty not to the United States, but to Barack Obama
Also reminiscent of Hitler, Obama now has people making a “pledge of loyalty” not to the USA, but to Barack Obama personally. https://my.barackobama.com/page/content/pledgeproject. To even conceptualize such an oath is highly unusual, and consistent with both dictatorial mindset and NPD. It is also entirely inconsistent with promoting the United States and democratic values, and instead is a begging to feed his ego. Has any politician we can think of ever asked for a pledge of loyalty to him personally? Those who sign such a pledge may well confuse loyalty to Obama with loyalty to democratic principles and this nation. If a dictator wanted to override the Constitution, the first thing he would want to know is who and how many are with him.
This is not the only instance of Obama wanting confirmations of loyalty to him to feed an apparent narcissistic need to feel loyalty to him. Ads like the one below are repeated instances of displays of Obama’s NPD, wanting people to confirm loyalty to Obama, not to the Constitution or this county, and not even to promise to merely vote for him.
Notice how multiple of these ads carry the same theme. And maybe coincidence, the “tell Barack you’re in”, is almost essentially the same written as tell Barack “you rein” (although misspelled “you reign”). Some have suggested Obama uses significant hidden subconscious messaging an hypnosis in his mass manipulation.
18) Obama’s excessive use of “I”s and “me”s in speeches
“Consider that in Obama’s four State of the Union addresses, he has said the word “I” 80, 102, 62, and 72 times respectively. In his most recent address, he also used the word “my” 18 times, “I’m” 14 times, “me” 13 times, and “I’ve” 5 times, meaning that in a speech that was supposed to be about the health and wellbeing of our nation, Obama managed to reference himself a whopping 122 times, averaging roughly once every 30 seconds! To put that in perspective, in the first State of the Union Address ever given by an American President, George Washington used the word “I” 11 times. Thomas Jefferson used it 17 times in his first such address. In 1864, during the height of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln used the word “I” 22 times. Ronald Reagan used it an average of 39 times during his State of the Unions, with a high of 48. George W. Bush averaged 35, with a high of 46.” http://savejersey.com/2012/06/barack-obamas-20-most-impossibly-self-absorbed-moments/ http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/233274-quantitative-examples-of-obama-narcissism.html
When Obama announced the killing of Bin Laden, he referenced himself 15 times, including, “I was briefed … I met repeatedly with my national security team …I determined that we had enough intelligence…and authorized an operation…at my direction…” http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20058783-503544.html (Though, he did not mention the seals that actually carried out the mission.)
This excessive use directly evidences NPD, as discussed by Dr. Vaknin and others.
19) Obama does not look at Romney during their first debate
Several reporters commented that Obama looked down and not at Romney during their first debate. This may be a possible reaction caused by the furiosity Obama felt being challenged by Romney, which caught him by surprise.
20) Obama is referred to by Axelrod as “black Jesus” because of his “Messiah Complex”
Yes, those were Axelrod’s exact words. In ‘The Amateur’, Mr Klein’s unauthorised account of Mr Obama’s life and first term in office, he writes that Obama was supposedly known as ‘Black Jesus’ by his former senior campaign adviser David Axelrod because of his “messiah complex.” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2145035/Michelle-Obama-prepared-divorce-papers-separate-Barack-leaving-suicidal.html
21) Obama takes credit for jobs created under Clinton
During the first AND SECOND debate with Romney, Obama said, “We added 23 million jobs” – By this, Obama was taking credit for jobs Clinton created. It is likely an NPD delusion for Obama to feel as though he deserves credit for jobs created during the Clinton Administration, which Obama had no role in, enough to say “we created” those jobs.
22) Obama compares himself to Ghandi, Mandela
President’s statement comparing himself to Gandhi, “Around the world, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, what they did was hard. It takes time. It takes more than a single term…” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QrmQBcfu0s While Obama does this very subtly, the reference and intended connection is clear. Here again, the grandiosity of him being like Ghandi and Mandela, and the need for more power, a second presidential term, appear together, connected.
23) Sarkozy aid says Obama “insane” and “grossly egotistical”
“According to the European Union Times, “a new report circulating in the Kremlin” claimed that French President Nicolas Sarkozy referred in private remarks to Obama as “dangerous[ly] aliènè,” which the EU Times says “translates into his, Obama, being a ‘mad lunatic,’ or in the American vernacular, ‘insane.’ ” http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2010/04/its_been_awhile.php
French president Sarkozy has called the President conceited.
Sources close to Sarkozy say Sarkozy thinks Obama is “incredibly naive and grossly egotistical – so egotistical that no one can dent his naiveté”
24) Obama’s disturbing posture and body language
As Ali Sina discusses in her article above: What was initially disturbing to many about Obama was the way he holds himself, with a type of perfect, but haughty body language. His body language never shows self-consciousness, but the opposite, a perfect grandiosity. One typical Obama pose is chin just a little higher than others, looking upward as if toward the future, which is compelling to many who do not realize these are false tactics. He really isn’t looking up at anything, he is holding his head up for the effect it has on viewers.
25) Obama claims his Administration is more accomplished than all but three presidencies
The President’s statement that his presidency’s first 100 days has exceeded those of all but three presidents in history was deemed so narcissistic by CBS, that they themselves deleted it from the interview to protect him. http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2011/12/cbs-selectively-edits-obamas.html I wonder how many other such instances the media and supporters have filtered out, and if such people would not come forward in the interest of this nation.
26) Obama always blames others for anything that goes wrong
Obama blames Bush, the Republicans, everyone but himself. http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/03/23/president-obamas-hall-blame/ This is not just political. Narcissists see blame in others, even if clearly unrealistic to the rest of us, because they must preserve their infallible view of themselves regardless the cost, even reality must sway. That’s why it is a delusional disorder.
27) Obama tells his supporters to be “obsessive”
28) Obama claimed in school to be an Indonesian prince, and Kenyan royalty
A former classmate’s account: http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/2012/10/09/pbs-obama-claimed-he-was-kenyan-royalty-recalls-classmate
29) Charles Krauthammer calls Obama a narcissist
30) Before Obama was President, he stood before a fake Presidential Seal he created
Another example of delusional judgment in connection with viewing his self-greatness and power.
31) Obama wrote two memoirs, the first at age 35, before any real accomplishments
Similarly, Adolph Hitler wrote Mein Kamph before any significant accomplishments.
32) In a healthcare bill discussion, Obama tells McCain that “the election is over” – rudely and boastfully rubbing McCain’s nose in his victory for no reason in a disturbing display of angry NPD caught on video*
Sen. McCain is discussing the proposed healthcare law, and points out that any reform should “remove all the special interests and special deals for a favored few, and treat all Americans the same.” Obama, out of the blue, jumps on McCain to reassert his supremacy in an extreme fashion by saying: “Let me just make this point, John, because we’re not campaigning anymore. The election’s over.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXudI0ibo-k Obama accuses McCain of being political, which McCain doesn’t appear to be. Whether Obama had an overly-sensitive response to criticism, or otherwise just had a compelling urge to stick it to McCain, either is strongly indicative of NPD.
33) Obama remarks that he could fix the debt crisis better “entirely on his own”
This is another example of Obama’s perceived superiority leading directly to his argued justification for his increased powers. Dictators justify their need for more power by saying they could do more good with the power. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07/22/obama_would_be_easier_if_i_could_do_this_entirely_on_my_own.html
34) Obama remarks that U.S. military is fighting “on my behalf”
35) Obama says to Congress, “you’re going to destroy my presidency”
36) Obama says campaigner who died insisted she be buried in Obama t-shirt
This is unusual because it examples a lack of empathy regarding the death of someone, with Obama throwing his ego over it. The crowd bursts out because they cannot comprehend how to react to his statement, but Obama was not joking in speaking about this person’s death.
37) Obama said “I have become a symbol of America returning to its best traditions”
38) Obama gave Queen Elizabeth an ipod loaded with pictures of him and his inauguration
39) Obama has given the order to win re-election “by any means necessary”
White House insider Cass Sustein is reported to have created a plan whereby Obama supporters are told to win his re-election “by any means necessary.” http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/will_obama_keep_power_by_any_means_necessary.html http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/07/19/military-insider-president-obama-by-any-means-necessary/
Remember that while Obama preaches justice, he won his first primary by having all of his opponents disqualified by challenging their qualification signatures at the last minute so there was no time to obtain new signatures. http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/06/01/cnn-re-publicizes-account-of-obama-disqualifying-all-his-opponents-from-his-first-primary-race/ http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/29/obamas.first.campaign/index.html?iref=newssearch So much for democracy.
40) Obama has told his supporters to be “almost obsessive” about winning his re-election
41) Obama said “the next 100 days will be so successful I will complete them in 72 days, and then I will rest.”
This is another statement consistent with a superhuman theme, and a “God” theme (who according to the Bible created the world in 7 days and then rested.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gl0tLOIxl5M Also consistent with an anti-Christ theme, Obama has asked all other symbols of God to be removed.
42) Obama obsessively touches his debate opponents last when shaking hands to show his dominance.
Obama is always the last one who ceases touching the other on the arm or shoulder. Obama also makes sure his arm is facing the audience.
43) Obama has expressed a desire to speak all languages, consistent with Biblical anti-Christ themes.
http://popwatch.ew.com/2012/08/17/obama-superpower/ Obama’s reason for wanting this superpower is clear – to be able to speak all languages and influence the whole world with his amazing speaking skills – exactly what the anti-Christ was said to be able to do.
44) Obama asks supporters to mark their right hands and pledge loyalty to Barack Obama
“In Revelation 13:16-17, the Beast requires all to receive a mark on their foreheads or their right hands in order to buy and sell.” http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/an_obama_revelation_supporters_marking_their_right_hands.html
45) In an interview, Obama has described his relationship with God as an ongoing conversation, and “sin” as “being out of alignment with my values.”
Falsani: Do you pray often? OBAMA: Uh, yeah, I guess I do. It’s not formal —me getting on my knees. I think I have an ongoing conversation with God. I think throughout the day, I’m constantly asking myself questions about what I’m doing, why am I doing it.
Falsani: What’s that power? Is it the holy spirit? God? OBAMA: Well, I think it’s the power of the recognition of God, or the recognition of a larger truth that is being shared between me and an audience.
Falsani: Who’s Jesus to you? (He laughs nervously) OBAMA: Right. Jesus is an historical figure for me, and he’s also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher.
Falsani: What is sin? OBAMA: Being out of alignment with my values.
The authors of this article bring up the question of Obama’s God complex based on this statement. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080805/opledetuesdayx.art.htm
46) Obama has accepted as his Secret Service codename, “renegade”, meaning lawless one, which is also the name for the anti-Christ.
47) Obama is caught saying “I God bless you.”*
See the disturbing video for yourself. (ignore the other content of this video not the subject of this analysis) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06c7fdJAtcs&list=PL7870DC23E604F0FB&index=20&feature=plcp
The video is entitled “Obama to Create God’s Kingdom on Earth” and is 1:17 (one minute 17 seconds long.) I tried to insert it but for some reason the wrong video is being inserted, but please click on the link above.
Without all of the other evidence of God complex, one could say this was accidental. But with all the evidence, and knowing both Obama’s mentality and the games he plays in front of audiences such as his middle finger gestures, his other behavior suggests this was on purpose. Thus, this is quite disturbing.
48) His use of Greek columns in his speeches
As the psychologists above explain, everything Obama does is in his mind historic, and monumental, symbolic, and earth-changing – same as he views himself. The Greek columns are just one example of this.
49) At a September 11th Memorial, Obama quotes religious text which includes the phrase “I am God”
Perhaps coincidence, perhaps not, that he decided to say religious text in which this language is said repeatedly. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VSrkh2yUHo
50) Obama makes a 7-year pact with Israel consistent with Biblical anti-Christ themes
The Bible states that the anti-Christ will make a 7-year pact with Israel. In addition to deals and promises with Israel for the past 4 years, now, when Israel insists on attacking Iran, Obama instead convinces Israel to the agreement H.R. 4133: United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012, which is to terminate in 2015, an additional 3 years.
51) Dr. Andre Hodges psychology professor and FBI profiler says Obama is angry and dangerous
While this analysis is not detailed, this profiler raises an interesting point about possible anger and trauma by Obama, including from the possibility that his mother might have had Obama aborted. http://denialbusters.com/?p=140
52) Obama’s family history consistent with narcissism
Obama’s father’s had relationships with multiple women around the world, drove drunk, and only once bothered to even come see his son. Wanting to overcompensate for the feeling of worthlessness from a father not wanting to see a child is a textbook factor in creating this hyper-grandiosity NPD.
53) The real answer on the Benghazi Rose Garden speech
Obama is a master of making two sides hear different things in his same words, each walking away thinking Obama is with them exclusively. Only Obama can give a speech and have both Israelis and Palestinians walk away believing he is on just their side. Yet, on this issue like many he has taken no action. “The beauty of doing nothing is that you can do it perfectly. Only when you do something is it almost impossible to do it without mistakes.” Thomas Sowell.
The reason there was so much confusion about whether Obama called the 9/11/2012 attack in the Rose Garden on 9/12/2012 a “terrorist attack” is because Obama was being intentionally vague to appeal to all possible sides around the world. In three separate instances, Obama said, “no act of terror will shake the resolve of this great nation” – on 9/12/2012, 9/13/2012, and at the U.N. People who wanted to hear him call that specific attack “terrorism” heard that. People who wanted to hear Obama not call the attack “terrorism” instead only heard him speak generally regarding terror. The proof that Obama was being intentionally vague is that he used the same “no act of terror” language in three separate instances. One cannot be equally vague accidentally three times. Obama was being intentionally vague, because some people will accept that language he used, but would be offended to him specifically identifying a person or act as “terrorism”, such as if he would have said “the 9/11/2012 Benghazi was an act of terrorism.” Obama even refused to call the Ft. Hood attack “terrorism,” so he clearly wasn’t calling Benghazi terrorism. Biden said they were not told it was terrorism by their intelligence sources. Yet, even after Biden’s admission, Obama is so manipulative that he convinced Candy Crowley, and the world, that he did call it terrorism in the Rose Garden, knowing very well that he was being intentionally vague. Obama said, “read the transcript” with absolute smugness, knowing he is clever enough to run circles around everyone who examines his statements or acts closely and tries to catch him on something. The middle finger gesture is the epitome of this – he is saying, “look what I can get away with, I’m so clever.” This is the only explanation, and it shows the clever attention to every word in Obama’s speeches, and the brilliant ability to use his every word to manipulate audiences of one or millions. He always knows exactly what people want to hear, and thereby thinks he can do whatever he wants, because he will have a chance to explain it all away beautifully.
54) New Obama ad likens voting for Obama to losing virginity to a “great guy” Barack
http://www.caintv.com/NewObamaadTrytoimagineitslikel-636 “Let your first time be with Barack”
55) Obama campaign redraws American flag with “O” instead of stars
To those who say these things are “no big deal” – Has any other president ever done anything like this? This was quietly stopped after rightly criticized.
56) Evidence suggests Obama is a pathological liar, and a master at not getting caught
There are too many examples to name, but Obama is bolder, lying about things that are 1. Unnecessary to lie about, and 2. more easily proven false that typical politicians’ lies. Just as one example, Obama copies Romney’s debate ideas calling them a plan in a pamphlet, calls it his own plan just two weeks before the election, and goes on TV and speaks empathetically about how his plan is better than Romney’s. If you watch Obama’s debates, he regurgitates his opponents’ ideas only seconds after they say them, with full empathy, as if they were his own. Obama did this with Hillary and he did it with Romney during the debates, and now puts out a pamphlet of essentially most of the same of Romney’s 5-point plan. Being a pathological liar suggests a complete lack of a real personality (and genuine empathy) which are hallmarks of malignant narcissism.
57) Obama’s strange failure in the first debate: NPD-induced overconfidence?
Apparently, what explains the historic failure of Obama during the first debate with Romney best, is
that Obama simply thought he was so wonderful and “impregnable”, because of NPD, that he could just show up and beat Romney, as described in this WSJ article.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204530504578079232194509700.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop He wasn’t prepared, and did a lousy job, and NPD explains why. Later on, his super-competitiveness and narcissistic need for power kicked in, and he did better.
58) Obama’s former physician of many years suggests Obama may have NPD, and claims that “Barack lacks ‘passion, feeling, and humanity.”
“The author, Klein, later in the book, compares Obama’s personality to early the 20th Century progressive president, Woodrow Wilson. By quoting the historian Forrest McDonald, who called Wilson’s perception of himself, “little short of Messianic,” Klein says that McDonald’s description of Wilson “fits Obama to a T.” http://www.humanevents.com/2012/05/11/president-obamas-former-doctor-claims-that-the-president-lacks-passion-feeling-and-humanity/
59) Others are beginning to come forward suggesting Obama shows signs of mental illness, NPD, and malignant narcissism
http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/heres-why-obama-lies/ The real reason Obama lies, his NPD, by David Kupelian, an award-winning journalist
Part 2 Analysis continued
The topics analyzed in this document are admittedly difficult to believe, unless you look at history. Obama having Narcissistic Personality Disorder is difficult to believe, and understand. It is not the typical 30-second news sound bite. While recent research shows most U.S. Presidents to have some psychopathic personality traits, or simple narcissism, this analysis is concerned with something far different and more dangerous with Obama, serious delusional NPD and Malignant Narcissism.
In the video of Obama’s repeated obscene middle finger gestures in front of millions of people, for a split second of “revelation”, Obama’s charismatic facade drops, and you get a glimpse of the true, sick, evil that is the real, hidden, Barack Obama. No smile, just cold, calculating, clever outburst of hatred. And why? Because political opponents did not submit completely to his greatness.
Malignant Narcissism is a dangerous disorder shared by many of history’s leaders, including Hitler, Stalin, Nero, and history’s worst – all of whom were also articulate and brilliant and very charismatic, like Obama, and commanded the support of millions. They were grandiose, self-centered, just like Obama. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/04/weekinreview/the-world-stalin-to-saddam-so-much-for-the-madman-theory.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm Has humanity really magically evolved since 1939? No. We are subject to the same weaknesses of human nature that have always plagued us, including the occasional rise to power of manipulative sociopaths and madmen.
Narcissistic Personality Disorder manifests itself in the host as a delusionally-high view of oneself. If the narcissist is exceptionally charming, the effect can be seen on those who surround the narcissist and support his goals.
The “selflessness”, or the “giving”, of policies related to food stamps and welfare and other giving from Obama’s hand to the masses, which have dramatically increased under his presidency, are narcissistic ideas. http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2012/04/really-destructive-maniacs-of-this.html That Obama gives to the needy, answering their prayers like God, because he knows better than them, and he helps their helplessness, is a narcissistic principal that empowers the narcissist. The opposite, empowering the people, with their own business successes they built, or gun rights, would by contrast weaken the need for narcissists’ giving hand. Most of Obama’s policies, including the hiding of financial problems by printing more money, and handing out hundreds of billions, are to protect his image at the expense of the country.
Obama having a Messiah Complex is no more outrageous than an unaccomplished new politician merely by speaking brilliantly being handed on a silver platter the U.S. Presidency, the Nobel Prize, the head of the U.N Security Council, while the greatest of history, such as John F. Kennedy, pale by comparison. It is no more strange than Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, saying this unknown man is sent by God, and Chris Matthews saying that Obama is “the New Testament being written.” And of course, it is no more outrageous than Obama’s own statements, including that voters will have “a light shine down…experience an epiphany and you …have to vote for Barack”, and that when he is elected, “the rise of the oceans will begin to slow, and the planet will begin to heal,” and no more unusual than David Axelrod, Obama’s own advisor, referring to Obama as “Black Jesus” because of his “Messiah Complex.” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2145035/Michelle-Obama-prepared-divorce-papers-separate-Barack-leaving-suicidal.html
The behaviors analyzed here, in these three parts, are all sociopathic, meaning they disregard the rules of society. http://listverse.com/2011/11/14/10-monumental-malignantly-narcissistic-sociopaths/ Obama is a master of knowing exactly what someone needs to hear, and delivering those words with uncanny perfection. Obama has gotten away with so much deception and manipulation, of people, the media, world leaders, politicians, who all gave him value in exchange for it, that he may not be able to accept “the end of the ride.” Human nature, his human nature, probably dictates that he instead of giving up power, he try something drastic to see if once again, he can get away with it.
The question is not whether Obama’s Executive restructurings are due to hidden specific plan he harbors, or whether his actions have been and will be merely the result of his narcissistic, impulse-driven power grabs. Either way, it will get worse.
To change Obama’s trajectory of seeking continually-increasing power faster than anyone in history, he would have to change very his nature. If Obama wins 2012, unless he has a more immediate agenda, he will have four more years to build powers for use beyond 2016. Eventually, Obama will either lose the 2012 election, have to step down in 2016, or face some “failure” of his perceived “greatness” or limit to his power.
And, as his delusion disintegrates, he will act as all genius narcissists act. He will blame, as narcissists do, the rest of us and a system that does not allow his true greatness to shine. He will go from blaming Bush, to blaming Republicans, to blaming whoever he can. Narcissists blame others to maintain their self-view as infallible – a view they cannot let go of. As his “Messiah” delusion eventually crumbles without having lived up to the heights of his delusion, and his image crumbles in front of the millions who looked to him, he will not be able to accept the blame. He may go into narcissistic rage, try to prove that we are all wrong and that he is right, and put his “grandiosity” above everything that prevents this; the Constitution, election, the nation, rule of law, peace, and even millions of lives. The question of whether his impact is ultimately positive or negative can become secondary to the “grandiosity” of his impact, if that is his only option besides perceived mediocrity. He may not accept anything less than being the most impactful figure in human history, and try to achieve that any way he can to meet some definition of “change” – even a frightening one.
Why hasn’t he done anything like this yet? Because he hasn’t needed to in order to keep and grow his power… yet.
Can Obama reveal a very different persona in his second term? In a microphone slip to Medvedev in his message to Putin, Obama said that he will “have more flexibility after the election.” Obama literally said that after he misleads the American people into voting for him, he will reveal his true plans. This was not the only instance of such behavior. The day after the 2010 midterm elections, the Fed announced QE2, delayed almost certainly by Obama until after the election because if people knew what he was going to do, it might have cost him votes. Obama also promised the Palestinians a “contiguous” state http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-s-contiguous-palestinian-state-could-split-israel-half-says-middle-east-expert, which would divide Israel in half. Not only that, but he cleverly did it so subtly that the media ignored it. Some also suspect that Obama promised many world leaders “more flexibility” after his re-election, and the Medvedev microphone slip let everyone else know he was promising such to everyone else, and that this is what triggered a disconnect between him and many of the world’s leaders. Obama has little by way of foreign relations, and strangely had no meetings with foreign leaders before his 2012 New York U.N. speech. Was this the cause?
In human history, we have seen charismatic madmen come to power and kill millions for their own name, we have seen spies hold false personalities for decades, and we have seen dictators rather choose to die and take as many as possible with them rather than give up power.
In Obama’s case, we see an intertwined pattern of dozens of unprecedented power restructurings analyzed below, dozens of unusual narcissistic and Messianic statements, and repeated obscene gestures in front of millions intending not to be caught.
What are we looking at?
When all impossible alternatives have been removed, whatever remains, no matter how unlikely, must be the truth.
When this unaccomplished man, whom millions referred to as “the Messiah” quickly ascended to the Presidency of the United States, the highest power in the world, on election night, as though it was long-overdue, Obama said to his advisor, David Axlerod, “and this is just the beginning.” Did he mean the Presidency was just the beginning? Does he believe he is entitled to the Presidency?…and much more?
In his 2008 election night victory speech, Obama said “this is not a challenge that can be accomplished in a single day, or in a single term.” When someone is elected to the Presidency of the United States, and that same day starts cleverly preparing the country for his second term, something is wrong. That is far too calculating to be normal. It suggests someone who believes the Presidency was long overdue and owed to him. Anyone sane would have been too overwhelmed with having just been elected President, to start preparing us for a second term before he did a single thing. If the U.S. Presidency is not enough, what is? The world?
Essentially, a Malignant Narcissist’s delusion is of the value of everything in relation to his grandiosity, even the lives of others. However, it is a joint delusion. Hundreds of people were trampled to death at Stalin’s funeral, some ready to give their lives for a glimpse of his body. Malignant narcissism in the most charismatic, like Hitler, is not only in the mind of the narcissist. Part of its effect is the mass following by those who are captivated subconsciously by the narcissist’s high sense of self-worth, especially when combined with oratory prowess, charisma, and popular support by other politicians and the media. Such people, by the millions, naturally flock to support the narcissist. This is the Obamamania that we have seen.
People who have Malignant Narcissism or severe NPD, cannot give up power. It’s not in their nature. When we see Saddam Hussein and Bashar Al Assad rather risk death than step down from power, despite the threat of war, we as average citizens don’t really understand their decision. Hitler could have ruled Germany – why wasn’t it enough for him? Saddam could have ruled Iraq – why did he need Kuwait?
Even Clint Eastwood said Obama will never give up power. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/eastwood-obama-s-doing-all-he-possibly-can-keep-power-there-s-no-way-he-s-going-give-it Former presidents have had so much respect for the office in stepping down after their terms, that we have become spoiled, assuming everyone will feel the same and do the same.
Note that whether you believe Obama could successfully implement a dictatorship is irrelevant. The question is, how will NPD affect his actions, and perhaps, whether a delusional person might try.
For people with this type of psychological delusion, accepting weakness, a limit on their power, or other failure, is impossible – they will remain in denial, blame others, and historically have chosen to die, taking millions of people with them, than accepting the world seeing them as a failure, or even merely above average. This is because they will rather bend every other rule and law before they bend the perception of their own greatness, because they cannot bend the primary essence of their being. If you have ever been in an argument, you know that you can almost never convince someone else that they are wrong. Apply that to someone who thinks they are the Messiah or sent by God.
Historically, when leaders’ NPD delusion is collapsed by reality, Malignant Narcissists turn genocidal, blame others, as their greatness is infallible to them, and they try to destroy the world that they perceive to have wrongfully destroyed their greatness and hurt their ego. In Obama’s case, it may he his full anger at his father for abandoning him, taken out on the entire world. The narcissist’s ego means more to them than millions of lives.
“Social psychologist Erich Fromm first coined the term malignant narcissism in 1964, describing it as a “severe mental sickness” representing “the quintessence of evil”. He characterized the condition as “the most severe pathology and the root of the most vicious destructiveness and inhumanity”. Edith Weigert (1967) saw malignant narcissism as a “regressive escape from frustration by distortion and denial of reality”; while Herbert Rosenfeld (1971) described it as “a disturbing form of narcissistic personality where grandiosity is built around aggression and the destructive aspects of the self become idealized”.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malignant_narcissism
The evil is the absolute corruption that comes from the absolute power of having the ultimate in charisma, authority, ability to manipulate, control, (and mislead) millions. It is arguably the natural human nature reaction of executive power by those with a propensity to narcissism. The real power of the presidency makes distinguishing between fantasy and reality impossible. If millions of people support something you know is a lie, it distorts your sense of justice. Power fuels the malignant narcissist, and causes the delusion that whatever he chooses to do is right, because he is so far above all of us. It essentially leads the narcissist to believe he is a God, compelling him to make an appropriately-dramatic mark on the world. In the end, he cannot let go of the delusion of grandiosity, even if the only way he can achieve the grandiosity is through destruction. It is extraordinary, but extraordinary things like 9/11
Part 3: Obama’s Plan for Dictatorship Revealed
Analysis of Obama’s preparation of unprecedented Executive powers for unspecified “emergency” and unconstitutional power grabs.
Consistent with NPD, in his first term, Obama has executed the most anti-democratic shift in power to the U.S. Presidency in history. Strange and numerous Executive actions, governmental restructurings, and legislation passed under Obama focus on a future unspecified “emergency,” as to be defined by him, and arguably allow him to:
- create lists of millions of Americans who might oppose him politically under DHS’s NSI/SAR program
- refocus counterterrorism efforts towards American citizens under new DHS guidelines
- detain millions of American citizens without trial under NDAA in new FEMA detention centers
- silence political opposition and shut down the Internet under his CyberSecurity Act and Executive Orders
- seize all private food, water, and resources under the National Defense Resources Preparedness Order
- enforce martial law on American soil; and much more as detailed below.
Obama’s disregard for Constitutional protections is not merely unprecedented. Close analysis of his multi-faceted targeting of the most practical aspects of First, Second, Fourth, and Tenth Amendment protections, suggests not only deception, but comprehensive design targeting the most practical mechanisms of these protections.
This section takes the conversation beyond any allegedly “harmless narcissism” and details the movement toward American dictatorship that Obama is causing, possibly due to NPD.
Part 3 Introduction
Never before has a President been so focused on a future, unspecified “emergency”, yet to be defined, by him, as to affect dozens of interconnected pieces of legislation and Executive actions to prepare for it. Obama has been systematically amassing emergency powers for himself, and setting up mechanisms that directly target the most practical aspects of Constitutional protections with multiple layers of attack on key points.
Also, none of the new systems he is setting up will be Constitutionally tested in the courts before a crisis, in which it will be difficult or impossible to properly have judicial and congressional oversight.
Perhaps even more striking, none of the dozens of systems he has set up have any significant mechanisms designed for protection from abuse of power or oversight. In every new system, key persons report directly to Obama, flattening all organization structures, putting all control at Obama’s fingertips, as with his czars.
If all the actions analyzed were innocent narcissistic power grabs with best intentions of saving America, the counter-democratic shift in power is nonetheless so severe as to deserve immediate political and legal attention. In an emergency, any pro-democratic political and legal action will be disorganized, and unlikely to have effective force against an organized leader.
In sum, the concerns arise not from all the things Obama is doing that are consistent with dictatorship, but rather, because there is nothing necessary for a dictatorship that he isn’t doing. In a second term, this would get much worse.
Part 3 Analysis Begins Here
Obama has made more numerous and more drastic restructurings to Executive powers to be utilized in a future unspecified “emergency” than any president ever, while eloquently speaking about upholding the Constitution and rule of law. The contrast is so bizarre, as to leave even the most liberal commentators, such as MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow stunned. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mPZlysCAm0&feature=related In this video, Maddow criticizes Obama on “prolonged detention” of someone before they have committed a crime. While Obama convincingly tells us that transparency and protection of civil liberties is his utmost priority, that interpretation of his actions is either delusional, or intentionally false.
It almost appears as though the reason Obama has not put forth a real agenda for term 2, other than a rehashed brief pamphlet a few days before the election after being criticized by Romney, is because he has been busy preparing dictatorial powers for an emergency as his primary focus.
When one restructures or creates a new process or law, it may arguably circumvent prior court rulings on the Constitutionality of the former process. By Obama creating new systems of communication flow, authority, chains of command, and processes for these systems of government, he may be trying to limit the effect of prior court decisions that will arguably no longer be directly on point.
None of this content is a legal opinion suggesting that anything Obama may do is lawful. “Arguably” in this document is used to mean Obama will be able to argue he has such powers. For example, he can argue that he can implement an Executive Order that under the law would be unconstitutional, because no court has yet ruled on it and specifically said so. Much of what Obama may do is unconstitutional, but may practically be carried out until ordered stopped by a court – which is why such powers are especially dangerous in an emergency, when the court may not be functioning effectively, or when courts naturally defer to the president, and congress.
Many believe that Obama may not step down if he loses the 2012 election, and instead try to cause some emergency to retain power. Others believe that if he wins, he will immediately stat laying the groundwork to repeal the 22nd Amendment so he can remain in power after 2016 in true dictatorship fashion. At the rate of Obama’s power grabs, by 2016, there may be nobody left in a position to oppose his manipulation of whatever voting processes allow him to remain in power.
Obama’s actions are organized for purposes of this analysis according to a typical counter-democratic course as follows:
A) silence opposing speech
B) consolidate power
C) disarm the population that might resist
D) identify, deter, and dispose of political opposition
E) set up the mechanisms to directly implement policy
F) control key resources
A. SILENCING OPPOSING SPEECH AND TARGETING CRITICAL MEDIA (Undo 1st Amendment) 12
1) DOJ investigation of NewsCorp. – the leading conservative media outlet critical of Obama…………………….. 12
2) Actions to pull NewsCorp’s FCC licenses…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 12
3) FBI’s investigation of NewsCorp……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12
4) Legislation granting Executive control over Internet – Cyber Security Act of 2009……………………………………. 12
5) Citing new Internet control authority to the Communications Act of 1934…………………………………………………… 12
6) The CyberSecurity Act of 2012…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12
7) SOPA, PIPA and CISPA – Legislation granting executive control over Internet………………………………………… 12
8) Obama’s Internet Control Executive Order – “Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions” July 2012……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 13
9) Unusual contracts between democratic media and Government Services Administration (GSA)……………… 14
10) National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace……………………………………………………………………………………… 14
11) Investigation of critical journalists……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 14
12) Setting up “Attackwatch” to report on fellow Americans who criticize Obama………………………………………… 15
13) Securing government centers from public………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 15
14) Control of news media…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 15
15) Obama has no response when San Francisco Bay Area Bart police turn off cell phone signals to silence protestors…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 15
16) Obama-“Core” proposes federal control over education curriculum………………………………………………………………. 15
17) Efforts to neutralize Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and Foreign Relations Authorization Act in 1987…….. 15
This would eliminate a primary protection from government propaganda in the U.S………………………………………….. 15
B. CONSOLIDATING POWER AND CONTROL (Undo 10th Amendment)…………………………………………… 15
18) Testing audiences with messages of sidelining Congress, and staying in power after 2016……………………. 15
19) Superseding Congress after he said he could not do so Constitutionally……………………………………………………… 15
20) The Budget Control Act……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 15
21) Executive appointment of czars for every government agency………………………………………………………………………… 16
22) Recess Appointments…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 16
23) The President’s threat the Supreme Court……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 16
24) Obama has declared an “emergency” as of June 25, 2012 under section 204(b) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 16
C. DISARM THE POPULATION THAT MIGHT RESIST (Undo 2nd Amendment)………………………………. 16
25) Appointing anti-gun justices to courts including the U.S. Supreme Court…………………………………………………… 16
26) EPA attempts to overrule law and declare itself a regulatory agency on hunting………………………………………. 16
27) Environmental groups seek EPA power to restrict ammunition containing lead………………………………………… 16
28) Use of ATF to set up new “regulations” to circumvent laws and Congress…………………………………………………. 16
29) Misleading Americans about existing gun laws and the Second Amendment…………………………………………….. 16
30) Obama admits to attacking the Second Amendment “under the Radar”……………………………………………………… 17
31) Support for U.N. Small Arms treaty………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 17
32) Project Gunwalker designed to mislead Americans about gun crime as pretext for gun control……………. 17
33) Obama supports reinstituting assault weapons ban……………………………………………………………………………………………… 17
34) Selection of regulatory specialist for gun policy advisor……………………………………………………………………………………. 17
35) Banning Importation of one of the most popular medium-cost quality rifles………………………………………………. 17
36) Misleading Americans to promote new anti-gun agenda…………………………………………………………………………………… 17
37) Hidden anti-gun messages in the media………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 18
38) Before Heller, Obama said he did not believe the Second Amendment was an individual right………….. 18
39) Two months after Obama took office, national parks announced lead restrictions……………………………………. 18
40) Illinois Senator Obama opposed some use of firearms for self defense in one’s home…………………………….. 18
41) Obama supported Illinois handgun ban and then denied it………………………………………………………………………………. 18
42) Obama said he opposes concealed carry…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 18
43) Obama said he believes in keeping [all] guns out of inner cities………………………………………………………………………. 18
44) Obama supports ban on all semi-automatics………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 18
D. IDENTIFY AND DISPOSE OF POLITICAL OPPOSITION……………………………………………………………………. 18
45) The power to indefinitely detain American citizens under NDAA………………………………………………………………… 18
49) Obama supports a biometric national ID card to track citizens………………………………………………………………………… 19
50) The power to kill American citizens…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 19
51) NSA tracking all electronic communications of all Americans………………………………………………………………………… 19
52) DOJ and SEC both investigate Standard and Poor’s after they downgraded U.S. credit rating………….. 19
53) The mysterious death of Breitbart on day of planned release of negative information on Obama………… 19
54) IRS target and crack down on political opponents like the Tea Party……………………………………………………………. 20
E. Set up the capacity for direct enforcement of policy……………………………………………………………………………………….. 20
55) FM 3-49.40 U.S. Army Internment and Resettlement Operations Manual Revised 2010………………………. 20
56) Civil disturbance operations indicates use of military facilities to house American civilians………………….. 20
57) U.S. government conducting war games with scenarios against U.S. population………………………………………. 20
58) 16,000 new IRS agents to help enforce Obamacare……………………………………………………………………………………………. 20
59) HR 1388 – Propaganda legislation to “bolster public awareness”…………………………………………………………………… 21
60) The Repeal of the “Posse Comitatus” Act……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 21
61) A “Ready Reserve Corps” under Section 5210 of (“Obamacare”)………………………………………………………………… 21
62) Calls for civilian police force as strong as Military (except not sworn to uphold the Constitution)………. 21
63) 20,000 surveillance drones approved to fly over the United States homeland……………………………………………. 21
64) HR 645 National Emergency Centers Establishment Act of 2009 massive Homeland Security “detention centers”………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 21
65) Setting up of 600 “FEMA” camps capable of housing millions of Americans……………………………………………. 21
66) FEMA’s interest in 140 million body bags, and plastic coffins to hold at least thousands……………………… 21
67) Reports of military increasing training for domestic civil war and martial law……………………………………………. 21
68) DHS, which has no active combat role, orders 450 million rounds of defense ammo………………………………. 21
F. Control key resources…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 21
69) FEMA purchases astounding $1 Billion dollars in freeze dried food…………………………………………………………….. 21
70) National Defense Resources Preparedness Order calls for Obama control of all food, water, resources 21
Never in history has anyone fought so hard to obtain so many new powers that they didn’t use. Arguably, all Obama needs now is an emergency.
A. SILENCING OPPOSING SPEECH AND TARGETING CRITICAL MEDIA (Undo 1st Amendment)
Freedom of speech and press, as protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, is necessary for the exchange of ideas that is necessary for democracy. Control and/or shutdown of opposing media were tactics used by most of history’s dictators. In today’s modern tech world, such efforts would appear as follows:
1) DOJ investigation of NewsCorp. – the leading conservative media outlet critical of Obama
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is investigating Newscorp, owner of the Wall Street Journal and Fox News, controlled by Rupert Murdoch. http://thinkprogress.org/media/2011/07/15/270719/attorney-general-doj-investigating-news-corp/?mobile=nc This article describes the investigation as a general investigation rather than mentioning any specific allegations, prompted by a progressive group and members of Congress, from the top to bottom, for investigation of violation of any laws. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/25/murdoch-confirms-u-s-department-of-justice-investigation-into-news-corporation.html “There have been members of Congress in the United States who have asked us to investigate those same allegations and we are progressing in that regard using the appropriate Federal law enforcement agencies,” Holder told reporters. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/department-of-justice-investigates-news-corp/241994/
The DOJ, controlled by the President, is putting itself in a position of being able fine, or even shut down the primary media outlet, in internet, print, and the primary conservative television news station – the one most critical of the President. Any investigation of a critical media outlet by the government is already suspicious. The lack of any specific allegations, and the suggestion of a search to see if any laws were violated, instead of a specific focus, begs even greater suspicion. A fishing expedition by a would-be dictator seeking the means and ammunition to shut down their main critic, to be implemented at a key strategic point in time, such as a Constitutional crisis, would appear no different than this.
2) Actions to pull NewsCorp’s FCC licenses
At the same time, the group “Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington”, another progressive group closely tied to Obama, has been actively working with the White house on efforts to pull Rupert Murdoch’s FCC licenses in the United States. http://wonkette.com/472414/fox-news-worries-about-extinction-its-own
3) FBI’s investigation of NewsCorp
Meanwhile, the FBI is also investigating NewsCorp regarding aspects of the same cell phone hacking scandal, despite that there have been no specific facts come to light about any allegedly wrongful conduct committed in the United States, or by anyone in the United States. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/14/fbi-news-corp-investigation_n_898653.html
Thus, while one governmental action targeted at NewsCorp is suspicious, there are currently three separate and overlapping, ongoing, at Obama’s control, targeting the primary outlet of criticism of Obama, as we head into the second term. If licenses were pulled, and these media outlets eliminated, there is currently no protection mechanism in place to protect this primary free speech, other than going to the courts, and possibly a long legal process, by the end of which, key moments, such as during an emergency, will have passed.
4) Legislation granting Executive control over Internet – Cyber Security Act of 2009
Freedom of speech, the airwaves, and communication is necessary for the free flow of ideas. Freedom of the press is not just about a printing press. Major Internet communication engines like Facebook, Google, and Twitter have played key roles in democratic movements in the Arab spring in places like Egypt. In other places, like Iran, such websites were blocked to prevent pro democracy forces from communicating.
The original bill for the Cyber Security Act of 2009 had language, sought by Obama, that would effectively give him a kill switch to be able to shut down the Internet when he chooses to declare a cyber security “emergency.” “Despite the Internet kill switch provision being dropped from the bill, the web as a whole still faces innumerable threats to the anonymity, privacy and freedom of speech of those who use it.” http://www.prisonplanet.com/internet-‘kill-switch’-dropped-from-cybersecurity-bill.html
While the “kill switch” language was removed, President Obama maintained the ability to essentially do the same thing by setting up response plans in collaboration with owners and operators of critical infrastructure systems. However, once an emergency occurs, and such plans are implemented, those owners and operators have no say if government failed to properly execute such plans. All the President has to do is send a report to Congress within 48 hours, and every 30 days thereafter.
S.773 – Cybersecurity Act of 2009
SEC. §201. CYBERSECURITY RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITIES.
(b) Collaborative Emergency Response and Restoration- The President–
(1) shall, in collaboration with owners and operators of United States critical infrastructure information systems, sector coordinating councils and relevant governmental agencies, regulatory entities, and nongovernmental organizations, develop and rehearse detailed response and restoration plans that clarify specific roles, responsibilities, and authorities of government and private sector actors during cybersecurity emergencies, and that identify the types of events and incidents that would constitute a cybersecurity emergency;
(2) may, in the event of an immediate threat to strategic national interests involving compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information systems–
(A) declare a cybersecurity emergency; and
(B) implement the collaborative emergency response and restoration plans developed under paragraph (1);
(3) shall, in the event of a declaration of a cybersecurity emergency–
(A) within 48 hours submit to Congress a report in writing setting forth– (i) the circumstances necessitating the emergency declaration; and
(ii) the estimated scope and duration of the emergency; and
(B) so long as the cybersecurity emergency declaration remains in effect, report to
the Congress periodically, but in no event less frequently than once every 30 days,
on the status of emergency as well as on the scope and duration of the emergency.
The underlined portions suggest the President in such emergency will essentially define the authority of the government and private sector with regards to any even he declares a cyber emergency. There is no check on the President’s power, nor any administrative process or review that would prevent abuse, or absolute control. http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1773-Senate-panel-passes-Cybersecurity-Act-with-revised-kill-switch-language.
One would think this would be enough control over the internet for one man, but it isnt.
5) Citing new Internet control authority to the Communications Act of 1934
When there was public outcry over the powers in the 2009 Cybersecurity Act, and at the same time dispute over the extent of its “kill switch” powers, the White House, along with some Senators, spoke out asserting their ability to shut down any private internet infrastructure under their power to take over communications networks under the “Communications Act of 1934.” http://www.prisonplanet.com/internet-‘kill-switch’-dropped-from-cybersecurity-bill.html; “This law states that if a ‘state of public peril or disaster or other national emergency’ exists, the president may ‘authorize the use or control of any…station or device.’” http://www.prisonplanet.com/internet-‘kill-switch’-dropped-from-cybersecurity-bill.html One of these Senators, Joseph Lieberman, said this model was based on the Chinese internet system model. http://www.prisonplanet.com/internet-‘kill-switch’-dropped-from-cybersecurity-bill.html
Notable here is the Administration’s immediate jump to defend a power they claimed to have no interest in ever using.
6) The CyberSecurity Act of 2012
The CyberSecurity Act of 2012, which is supposed to alleviate some of these concerns, is still in dispute. Under this Bill, the Secretary of Homeland Security, who is appointed and controlled by the President, can designate any computer or technology system to be “covered critical infrastructure,” including private ones, and under executive control. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s2105/text While Obama fought to have the Bill pass, it has thus far been blocked by the Senate, with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) strangely against Obama on this Bill, citing concerns. http://www.yourblackworld.com/2012/08/03/aclu-disagrees-with-obama-about-failed-cybersecurity-act-of-2012/
7) SOPA, PIPA and CISPA – Legislation granting executive control over Internet
Obama has also sought the power to remove any website (that may criticize him or allow a democratic movement to advance) through the SOPA and PIPA online piracy laws. Now that these were defeated, there have been suspiciously strong efforts to push through H.R. 3523, the “Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011″ (CISPA). As with the NDAA, Obama has threatened veto, then ultimately and inexplicably supported the legislation.
SEC. 111. EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.
(a) Preemption of State Cybersecurity Laws- This Act shall supersede any statute, provision of a statute, regulation, or rule of a State or political subdivision of a State that expressly requires comparable cybersecurity practices to protect covered critical infrastructure.
The above “supersede” language is troubling because it claims to supersede all other laws, and arguably state action, disregarding the entire body of law of federalism and the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, which addresses the balance of power and disputes of authority between the states and the federal government, and says that all powers not delegated to the federal government shall be reserved to the States, or to the people. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57469950-93/obama-signs-order-outlining-emergency-internet-control
8) Obama’s Internet Control Executive Order – “Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions” July 2012
When Obama’s kill switch power was doubted, he again acted on this same issue, passing yet another Executive Order directly on point. While the media dubbed it a measure to keep the Internet running in case of an emergency, common sense says that the government would not need any special new power to do that. http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/10/3149831/obama-national-security-emergency-preparedness-internet-order
This Executive Order thus represents the 4th or 5th overlapping Executive action based around this “kill switch” power. The Administration continued to seek this power while it continued to claim it does not want it, which is strange.
Arguably, the language in the Order, in an emergency, redirects all communication through the Executive Branch. See, “Obama’s Obsession with Control” – http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/47912. Even Russian media mocked this Order as “”Obama gives himself control of all communication systems in America.” http://www.zdnet.com/foreign-news-outlets-cynically-bash-americas-new-emergency-communications-executive-order-7000000554/ Canadian media referred to this as “Obama Seizes Control of All Communications Systems With Executive Order.”
The truth is, by setting up new systems of power, authority, communications and control that go through Obama and his closest persons, not Congress, Executive control is the primary effect of the Order, whether or not it expressly written.
The Order’s first words are to cite the authority Obama spent several back-and-forths arguing about under the 1934 act, stating,
“By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (47 U.S.C. 151), the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2061), the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2251), the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5121), Section 5 of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977 (3 C.F.R. 197, 1978 Comp.1), and Section 203 of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978 (3 C.F.R. 389, 1978 Comp.2), and in order to provide for the consolidation of assignment and responsibility for improved execution of national security and emergency preparedness telecommunications functions, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. The National Communications System.
(a) There is hereby established the National Communications System (NCS). The NCS shall consist of the telecommunications assets of the entities represented on the NCS Committee of Principals and an administrative structure consisting of the Executive Agent, the NCS Committee of Principals and the Manager. The NCS Committee of Principals shall consist of representatives from those Federal departments, agencies or entities, designated by the President, which lease or own telecommunications facilities or services of significance to national security or emergency preparedness, and, to the extent permitted by law, other Executive entities which bear policy, regulatory or enforcement responsibilities of importance to national security or emergency preparedness telecommunications capabilities.
(b) The mission of the NCS shall be to assist the President, the National Security Council, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget in:
(1) the exercise of the telecommunications functions and responsibilities set forth in Section 2 of this Order; and
(2) the coordination of the planning for and provision of national security and emergency preparedness communications for the Federal government under all circumstances, including crisis or emergency, attack, recovery and reconstitution.…”
“Consolidation of assignment and responsibility” is code for, “whoever had the power before, I now say who has it from this point forward.” Of course, all “NCS Principals” are “designated by the President” – which arguably means if any of them ever do something the President disagrees with, the President can de-designate them, and designate someone else to that responsibility. There is also no provision that prevents the President from designating himself as in charge of these systems, which Obama would no doubt accompany with clever speech to the effect of, “I will oversee personally that this is done right and civil liberties are protected.”
“Sec. 2. Executive Office Responsibilities.
(a) Wartime Emergency Functions.
(1) The National Security Council shall provide policy direction for the exercise of the war power functions of the President under Section 606 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (47 U.S.C. 606), should the President issue implementing instructions in accordance with the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601).
(2) The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall direct the exercise of the war power functions of the President under Section 606(a), (c)-(e), of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (47 U.S.C. 606), should the President issue implementing instructions in accordance with the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601).
(b) Non-Wartime Emergency Functions.
(1) The National Security Council shall:
a. Advise and assist the President in coordinating the development of policy, plans, programs and standards within the Federal government for the identification, allocation, and use of the Nation’s telecommunications resources by the Federal government, and by State and local governments, private industry and volunteer organizations upon request, to the extent practicable and otherwise consistent with law, during those crises or emergencies in which the exercise of the President’s war power functions is not required or permitted by law; and
b. Provide policy direction for the exercise of the President’s non-wartime emergency telecommunications functions, should the President so instruct.
(2) The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall provide information, advice, guidance and assistance, as appropriate, to the President and to those Federal departments and agencies with responsibilities for the provision, management, or allocation of telecommunications resources, during those crises or emergencies in which the exercise of the President’s war power functions is not required or permitted by law;”
As described in the quoted section above, the President becomes the focus and control point of all telecommunications functions in the event of war or emergency. But far worse, “Identification, allocation, and use of the Nation’s telecommunications resources by the Federal government” could not more clearly express an intent to seize, eliminate and/or control private telecommunications infrastructures. “During those crises or emergencies in which the exercise of the President’s war power functions is not required or permitted by law;” arguably even voids legal limitations and allows allocation of telecommunications resources even when it not permitted by law.
“(c) Planning and Oversight Responsibilities.
(1) The National Security Council shall advise and assist the President in:
a. Coordinating the development of policy, plans, programs and standards for the mobilization and use of the Nation’s commercial, government, and privately owned telecommunications resources, in order to meet national security or emergency preparedness requirements;”
This section again, could not be clearer in its intent to allow full control, seizure, or shutdown of all “telecommunications resources”- including privately owned telecommunications resources.
These sections offer no specific remedy to any specific problem, making them appear to be purely broad power grab strokes encircling the President, with no power limitation of any kind to protect these provisions from abuse.
Not only are there no checks and balances, but the Order even contains mechanisms to prevent these powers from being taken away from the President by other branches of government, such as Congress, as the Order seeks development of “Alternative mechanisms for funding, through the budget review process, national security or emergency preparedness telecommunications initiatives…” arguably to prevent other parts of the government from pulling the funding from the President’s communication control activities, if another part of the government feels such activities by the President are improper. This may neutralize Congress’ “purse strings power” – a primary check on the President’s power.
Also suspicious is Section 2) C) 3)
“(3) The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy or his designee shall advise and assist the President in the administration of a system of radio spectrum priorities for those spectrum dependent telecommunications resources of the Federal government which support national security or emergency preparedness functions. The Director also shall certify or approve priorities for radio spectrum use by the Federal government, including the resolution of any conflicts in or among priorities, under all conditions of crisis or emergency;
Why is this unusual? The government already has the Emergency Broadcast System to get a message to the public in case of an emergency, and there has never been an emergency in which private radio did not carry an important government emergency message to the people – that is what news media does. Government already also has its own radio communication system through the military, and is fully able to communicate in an emergency without this. This is not about allowing communication. This is about control and blocking of communication of others, potentially ALL communication. It is totally unnecessary for the goals described. The government here, by the President’s word, can arguably say they need all radio frequencies on the spectrum, and say that everyone needs special certification and approval, which they then choose to not grant. Without our fallback of radio communications, controlled by the FCC, in case the Internet and other media are inoperative or controlled, we are helpless. The President can do anything he chooses. He can simply announce that there has been a Constitutional convention that granted him permanent powers – how would we know otherwise, let alone organize against it?
In sum of the last several sections, Obama appears to have an obsession about having an internet (and television) “off” switch, and has take repeated layers of executive actions to try to obtain one while employing deception about wanting one.
9) Unusual contracts between democratic media and Government Services Administration (GSA)
Under the pretense of “regulation” and alleged “privacy concerns,” the Government Services Administration (GSA) has signed very unusual contacts with ALL MAJOR democratic engines like Facebook, Yahoo, Google, Youtube, Myspace, and others. These sites have been key to democratic movements around the world including the Arab Spring, and would similarly be key to a democratic movement un the U.S.. These unusual contracts are not only understood to allow sharing of confidential information between these websites and the United States Government, but commit these companies to obligations that if not complied with, will arguably allow the executive branch to impose greater control over these sites, or arguably even shut them down, possibly in combination with the CyberSecurity Act of 2009 or other actions discussed here. http://epic.org/privacy/socialnet/gsa
This is again, an unprecedented and mysterious pinpoint targeting by the government of a necessary link in the chain of democratic communications, and again overlaps and works in conjunction with the other telecommunication control actions analyzed.
The GSA has refused to disclose the nature of most of these agreements, but some details were released pursuant to FOIA requests. Strangely, the Facebook Agreement was not disclosed, only a brief amendment to it. The portion released may make it look like the government wants its own Facebook page to disseminate information. Similarly, the government’s agreement with Google purports to be for the government to have a Youtube channel, to be able to disseminate information, videos of Obama, government messages, etc.. While this may lead to propaganda, there is a far larger concern in Google’s contract.
3.2. Removal. If Provider notifies Google or if Google determines that its use of Provider Content, or any part thereof, may create liability for Google (including liability for infringement, libel and slander, or invasion of privacy) or harm the integrity of Google’s servers or the Google Services, Google may stop displaying such content. In that circumstance , or for any other reason , Provider may remove Provider Content through methods made available by Google to remove the material from Google Services within 48 hours. In the event that Provider Content continues appearing on Google Services more than 48 hours after Provider has successfully initiated removal , Provider shall notify Google of the URL by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org or other addresses Google may designate, and Google will use commercially reasonable efforts to remove the material from the Google Services promptly, but no more than 20 days from confirmed receipt of such notice.
What this purports to say, is that if the government finds any technicality related to any copyright, trademark, patent, or other argument for liability of any kind, and threatens Google with it, and remove it within 48 hours. It doesn’t say only if the liability is confirmed by a court of law, or if a warrant or court order is obtained. It is pretty difficult to put out a video that doesn’t at least arguably create some potential for liability. The government itself could be the suing party, creating such “liability” for any miniscule or technical point. Also troubling are the “methods” made available to the government to themselves take down other users’ video content that they decide violates their interests within 48 hours. There is also a requirement that Google YouTube take down any content the government flags in case the government is not able to take it down by its own “methods.” Constitutionally, this is a limitation on free speech by the government called “prior restraints” (restraining speech before it occurs), for which the government is arguably attempting to bypass all legal processes and constitutional protections, by simply entering into an agreement with the provider. An analogy would be the government entering into an agreement with the New York Times, and being able to remove content from their newspaper without meeting the usually-required burdens they would have, ex: imminent harm to national security. See The Pentagon Papers – the legal case wherein the government sought to prevent the New York Times from publishing information the government claimed was damaging to national security, a very high burden to prove. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers
YouTube played key democratic role during the Iranian 2009 uprising, showing the demonstrations and killings that the government denied were occurring. And the Iranian government sought to block such videos from getting out and showing other Iranians, and the world, what was going on, how to organize, etc. In a democratic movement in this country, or in communication of messages criticizing the President, or, showing what the president is doing that he does not want others to see, YouTube would be a critical means of pro-democratic communication by the people, those who do not control a television or radio station. Our government, through these agreements, is essentially taking for itself the power to take down videos of protests against it, pro democratic communication messages, and necessary communication channels for democracy.
Also, why did the government not take down the offensive video blamed for the Benghazi attack? Obama asked that it be taken down, but never started the process to remove it. Did he fear a court process may decide against him, and limit his arguable power to do so later?
10) National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace
This draft program (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/ns_tic.pdf) would not only take away the freedom of access and anonymity of the Internet, but would allow the federal government even greater, arguably absolute control over every Internet user’s access.
“The execution of the actions above requires the Federal Government to continue to provide leadership, coordination, and collaboration in order to enhance the security of digital identities. To lead the day-to-day coordination of these actions, the Executive Office of the President (EOP) will designate a lead agency within the Federal Government. The Office of the Cybersecurity Coordinator within EOP will continue to lead interagency policy development specified in this action plan. The lead agency will work closely with The Office of the Cybersecurity Coordinator. This Strategy is a call to action that begins with the Federal Government continuing its role as a primary enabler.”
It is very concerning to think of the federal government as the “primary enabler” of the internet, and by that, having the power to “disable” it. The proposed structure also seeks to set up this control mechanism for all technologies, arguably able to track, and terminate usage, for anyone, and everyone.
“Many existing infrastructure components in use today (e.g., cell phones, smart cards, personal computers) should be leveraged to facilitate ease-of-use through their wide adoption, accessibility, and availability. Whenever possible, identity solutions should be “built-in” to the infrastructure to enable usability.”
The democratic functions of the Internet require freedom of use, freedom from government control, freedom from government ability to silence, and anonymity.
11) Investigation of critical journalists
The executive branch has been using the group Media Matters to investigate journalists who criticize the President, including Fox News. Media Matters has “coordinated closely with the White House,” and is involved in an anti-conservative movement in the media. Now working with a PAC named America Bridge 21st Century. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/13/reports-media-matters-head-coordinates-with-white-house-builds-super-pac/
Carl Frisch of Media Matters stated:
“We should hire private investigators to look into the personal lives of Fox News anchors, hosts, reporters, prominent contributors, senior network and corporate staff,” he wrote.
After that, Frisch argued, should come the legal assault: “We should look into contracting with a major law firm to study any available legal actions that can be taken against Fox News, from a class action law suit to defamation claims for those wronged by the network. I imagine this would be difficult but the right law firm is bound to find some legal ground for us to take action against the network.”
Notably, Obama had no criticism of such tactics. The problem is that when such organizations take their instructions from the President, such fishing expeditions destroy equal protection under the laws, and make law enforcement politically selective and politically motivated. In a world where there is so much regulation that it is difficult to operate without violating some law, somewhere, whether it be tax, regulatory, contractual, or otherwise, there ends up being little difference between this, and the Hitler/Stalinist dictatorial tactic of ousting, if not arresting, or otherwise improperly pressuring away unwelcome political opinions.
Obama’s “enemies list” is described as Nixonian. With the DOJ cooperating with Media Matters, it is not far from Hitler/Stalinist. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/20/Issa-oversight-Obama-Media-Matters-enemies-list
12) Setting up “Attackwatch” to report on fellow Americans who criticize Obama
The President set up the “Attackwatch” website – allegedly to discredit false “smear” media coverage of himself. In effect, this amounts to asking citizens to tattletale on each other when they criticize Obama, similar to how citizens would “report” on each other for criticizing Hitler or Stalin. The site purports Obama will be the decider of what is true and what is not, under the apparent authority of the government. Nazi Germany was famous for children reporting on their parents for speaking out against Hitler at the dinner table, as was Stalinist Communism. Both deterred and eliminated political opposition by this method. The line between reporting untrue or “smear” about the President, and reporting all criticism of the President in a Hitler/Stalinist fashion is here, to be decided unilaterally by the President. In fact, the website simply asks users to “Report an Attack” – which means any attack, (or criticism) of the President. And of course, the names of all those who criticized Obama go on a list that he controls.
Hitler’s dictatorship coup could be summarized into two simple steps: 1. Make a list of anyone who might resist, and 2. Round them up. Obama is doing #1, creating lists of opponents, both through this list system, as well as the Suspicious Activity Reporting (SAR) system, and others means. At the same time he is giving himself the means to do #2, which will not be difficult during a time of emergency, like Katrina, the L.A. riots, or other civil unrest. If you feel the slightest fear of being on such a list, this system’s deterrent effect is already working on you.
Here also, no dictatorial prevention mechanism of any kind exists for this system. There is no oversight of how the list is used, and no protection mechanism for the individuals on the list. If federal, state, or local law enforcement, FEMA, DHS, or other government agency in a time of crisis receives the name of someone whom the government claims is a threat, they will simply arrest them, round them up, and take them to facilities they are ordered to. Executing law enforcement officers wont know the whole story, just like the arresting officers during the Holocaust only thought they were detaining criminals to go to temporary labor camps, and knew nothing of gas chambers. Any agent not willing to follow orders would be replaced by someone who is willing. There is dangerous potential for abuse from such “reporting” and list creation, especially when combined with the ability to shut off media, the ability to use military or government force on U.S. soil, and the other aspects described. It is unbelievable that a President who is a former law professor would not see the dangers to democracy from the culmination of the changes taking place.
13) Securing government centers from public
Under the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, it is now a crime to disrupt government activities in or near any building or grounds designated as “special.” This can essentially ban all protest, and potentially even make FEMA camps and any government facility off limits to investigation by anyone, even journalists.
14) Control of news media
Numerous media outlets suggest the President has journalists on a very short leash, typically dictates talking points to them, has many bloggers and journalists who work directly to support his agenda feeding talking points to the rest of the media, and even blackballs journalists who investigate him. http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/new-transparency-white-house-bans-rep http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/04/29/bradley-manning-protest-white-house-bans-journalist-for-doing-journalism/
The media can be largely controlled by keeping their careers by the puppet strings, and only granting access and interviews to those journalists whom Obama can be certain provide positive coverage.
15) Obama has no response when San Francisco Bay Area Bart police turn off cell phone signals to silence protestors
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) silenced cell phone communications to stop a protest, similar to how military dictatorships silenced protests in Tehran or Cairo by cutting cell communications, access to Facebook, etc.. While BART had the excuse of preventing violence, so would every dictatorship have that excuse regarding every protest or criticism of the state. The President, who claims to be very pro speech and liberty, remained suspiciously silent, not saying a single word about the importance of protecting free speech in the face of such government action.
16) Obama-“Core” proposes federal control over education curriculum
Obama seeks the power to federalize, over state control, the nation’s education curriculum. This is also consistent with allowing him to dictate the views that would be taught to all of the nation’s children. http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/next-nightmare-power-grab-obama-core/
17) Efforts to neutralize Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and Foreign Relations Authorization Act in 1987 – a protection from government propaganda in the U.S.
B. CONSOLIDATING POWER AND CONTROL (Undo 10th Amendment)
Note the discussion in the free speech section on “Obama’s Internet Control Executive Order – “Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions” July 2012, directly related to power restructuring of all national communications, public and private, in case of emergency.
18) Testing audiences with messages of sidelining Congress, and staying in power after 2016
The President has himself, in speeches, been testing audiences to gauge their reaction to his dictatorship messages by repeatedly suggesting he would supersede Congress, “if they failed to act.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slzZgmhH3Zk&feature=related The President can be seen in this video not only suggesting this, but when watched carefully, he can be clearly seen pausing after his statement, to gauge the audience’s reaction. Executive orders may not allow the President to become a legislator when Congress has chosen not to act, as this violates some of our most important separation of powers that protects us from dictatorship.
Obama exhibits the same behavior when suggesting he cannot keep running again in 2016, as if to hear the “awe”s and “no’s” from the crowd. http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2012/07/13/obama-theres-term-limit-thing-presidency Notice the silence after his statement, as if his narcissistic ego almost has a need to hear the crowd unhappy that he cannot remain in power after 2016, as that were his whole purpose for making the statement and eliciting the response. Watch his energy soar from hearing the crowd’s disappointment. Again, another example of NPD combined precisely with the most blatant dictatorship theme – maintaining power in disregard of the Constitution and elections.
19) Superseding Congress after he said he could not do so Constitutionally
Obama said “some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own (waits for applause)….believe me and believe me, …the idea is very tempting.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wD5Y88UWno Watch his face. Obama seems to absolutely love the idea. While Obama goes on to politically protect himself and admit that’s not how our Constitution is written, his actions that follow are in line with his former tone.
After this exchange, and without Congress, Obama essentially unilaterally “legalized” millions of illegal immigrants by announcing a new policy that is effectively new law without Congressional action. http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/06/15/155106744/with-dream-order-obama-did-what-presidents-do-act-without-congress This is Obama acting as legislature in a role where he has acknowledged that legislature, not he, has authority.
Obama did this after specifically saying in the speech above that this is not how our Constitution and government works. Thus, he did not merely change his mind. He not only acted unconstitutionally. He sought approval from a segment of the population, and to feed his ego, and then used that as justification to violate what he admittedly knew to be a Constitutional limitation on his authority.
Just as he went against his word and acted unilaterally with the support of the crowd regarding immigration, he may similarly use the support of crowds to justify stay in power regardless the Constitution, violating other themes he has been testing audiences with.
20) The Budget Control Act
Instead of budgets being brought to the floor and voted on by Congress as was traditionally done before the debt ceiling deal of 2011, multiple appropriations bills can now be passed every year, without being comparable to prior years that had annual budgets. Essentially, Obama has done away with our federal government’s centuries-old system of presenting and adopting an annual budget. Drastic spending is now less comparable to prior years, and future projections are even less controllable, giving the President even more power to throw billions into any government effort he wants, with little check, if any.
As one troubling example, Section §3101A of the Budget Control Act entitled “Presidential Modification of Debt Ceiling” allows the President to increase the debt limit, upon simply sending a letter to Congress, by $900,000,000,000. Then if Congress doesn’t act, by another $500,000,000,000, and if the President submits another letter, by $1,200,000,000,000, or more, unless Congress acts to stop him. Before, Congress had to act to increase the debt ceiling. The difference is, now, if Congress is unable to act, due to whatever emergency, the President can raise the debt ceiling and spend trillions alone, without any controls, checks or balances.
21) Executive appointment of czars for every government agency
The Presidents’ appointment of czars allows him to personally direct these agencies with a flattening of the hierarchical strcture, giving an unprecedented level of direct control.
22) Recess Appointments
The President has made highly-criticized “recess appointments” while Congress was absent and unable to analyze or object to them.
23) The President’s threat the Supreme Court
Obama challenged the Supreme Court’s authority to overturn his healthcare law in a very strange, legally and factually incorrect speech that could only be interpreted as a threat only days after oral arguments in an unprecedented fashion. He called it an “unelected court,” and said the law passed by a “large majority” of Congress, and essentially said the court could not overturn his law. http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-national/the-constitutional-crisis-obama-provoked?CID=obinsite This challenge to our fundamental balance of power disturbed some judges so much, that a three-judge panel on the 5th Circuit has demanded that the DOJ clarify within 48 hours the nature of the President’s threat against the Supreme Court.
“With his comments this week, the President became the first president to weigh in on a major Supreme Court case after oral arguments wrapped up but before a decision was actually issued, according to University of Texas Supreme Court historian Lucas Powe. He says this is an unprecedented move largely because previous presidents didn’t have the opportunity to do the same thing. Franklin D. Roosevelt hung back while judges were deliberating his cases–though he criticized them after they ruled—for fear of being labeled a dictator.” http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/jerry-smith-obama-rebuke-questioned-legal-experts-213822371.html
As a Constitutional law professor, and as the President, Obama knows well it is the very job of this “unelected” Court to review and overturn unconstitutional laws. (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)) To call the Court “unelected” and challenge their right to overturn the law is so outrageously incorrect that it is beyond a gross lie. It is delusional. Also, to say it passed by a “large majority of congress” is also so outrageously incorrect that it is a delusional statement. Obama’s statements can only be delusional narcissistic outbursts, by which this nation should be seriously concerned with not only how easily and drastically the President lies, but even worse, how skewed this President views this nation, his authority, events, and the law. There are multiple levels of delusion here. It is not even like he is lying on something he should expect to get away with, as Clinton did. He is lying about things for which there is clear evidence to the contrary. This is why these statements are extremely disturbing from a psychological standpoint. Additionally, they happen to be dictatorial in nature, suggesting an implied threat.
As a separate issue, Justice Roberts should not have made up a highly questionable argument, and not even raised by the government, in order to preserve the law.
24) Obama has declared an “emergency” as of June 25, 2012 under section 204(b) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)
It is entirely unclear what powers this declaration gives him.
C. DISARM THE POPULATION THAT MIGHT RESIST (Undo 2nd Amendment)
25) Appointing anti-gun justices to courts including the U.S. Supreme Court
In confirmation hearings, Justice Sotomayor, when asked “do you have a personal opinion, or can you give me your opinion, of whether or not in this county I personally, as an individual citizen, have a right to self defense?” Sotomayor answered, “I — as I said, I don’t know.” http://townhall.com/tipsheet/townhallcomstaff/2009/07/15/sotomayor_on_whether_citizens_have_a_right_to_self_defense_-_i_dont_know. She refused to acknowledge an individual right of self-defense, an extreme position and primary basis for rights protected by the Second Amendment. Sotomayor also “argued that the Second Amendment would not block any gun-control laws as long as the politicians passing the laws thought the weapon was “designed primarily as a weapon and has no purpose other than to maim or, in some instances, kill.” http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/06/30/john-lott-elena-kagan-sonia-sotomayor-gun-ownernship-self-defense-second/ Thus, Sotomayor directly argued against the primary purpose of the Second Amendment, defense against tyranny, and apparently believes the Second Amendment is a quick word about hunting in between nine other rights that limit government powers.
“Elena Kagan said as a U.S. Supreme Court law clerk in 1987 that she was “not sympathetic” toward a man who contended that his constitutional rights were violated when he was convicted for carrying an unlicensed pistol.” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-05-12/kagan-said-she-was-not-sympathetic-toward-gun-rights-claim-in-1987-memo.html At confirmation hearings, Kagan was unwilling to discuss her personal views on the 2nd Amendment or whether she believed the right to bear arms is a fundamental right. When asked, she replied that she had never thought about it before, and that she “never had the occasion to look into the history of the matter.’ http://www.humanevents.com/2010/08/05/gop-brandishes-2nd-amendment-against-kagan/ Such responses are troubling regarding a key protecting principle of democracy, and worse, appear to be intentionally dodging the question.
26) EPA attempts to overrule law and declare itself a regulatory agency on hunting
In 2010, the EPA sought to declare itself a regulating agency on hunting. After considerable political heat within 72 hours, the EPA withdrew the petition, stating that it agreed with the NRA and the firearms industry that it “does not have the legal authority to regulate this type of product under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA),” and that it was not interested in seeking that authority either. Such quick political reaction from a slow-moving government agency suggests top-level involvement.
27) Environmental groups seek EPA power to restrict ammunition containing lead
28) Use of ATF to set up new “regulations” to circumvent laws and Congress
New ATF “rules” have been set up to track, monitor, and restrict gun ownership, clearly circumventing Congress’s role as the nation’s legislative body, and for restrictions and monitoring that Congress would not pass. http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/170823-doj-gives-new-tools-to-atf-to-fight-guns
29) Misleading Americans about existing gun laws and the Second Amendment
After the Colorado shooting, Obama said, “I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals”, “…That they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.” This statement is shows a lack of understanding of the purpose of the Second Amendment by a former Constitutional law professor, or an intentional disregard for it. The Second Amendment exists to balance the Government’s power with the People’s. It is not a quick word about hunting in between nine other rights that limit government power. To effectuate the Constitution and give people the power to protect this nation from tyranny, people need powerful arms like Ak-47s, just like the government has, not just hunting rifles. It is unlikely that Obama does not know this. Second, he also knows that there are already laws preventing criminals from having guns. “Get guns off the ‘streets’” is a phrase used to mislead Americans. There are already laws preventing criminals from having guns. Most gun laws including any they would pass do not focus just on criminals, but affect firearms in the homes of law-abiding citizens. These statements evidence knowing deception. It is also amazing how the media avoids this simple explanation.
30) Obama admits to attacking the Second Amendment “under the Radar”
Obama has said with his own words, to Sarah Brady, former president of the nation’s leading anti-gun group, “I just want you to know that we are working on [gun control]. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.” http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/12/28/president-obamas-anti-gun-agenda-shows-no-sign-stopping/ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/28/obama-administration-eyeing-gun-control-radar-groups-warn/
31) Support for U.N. Small Arms treaty
The entry of the United States into a treaty restricting firearms could be a way to try to circumvent American gun laws which are hard to change because of political, democratic, and Constitutional protections. Some argue that treaties can be considered equal to the Constitution as the “Supreme Law of the Land.” Under this premise, the Administration’s policy, through Hillary Clinton, has been support and finalization of the U.N. Small Arms Treaty.
The media has also failed to cover this potential impact on a primary protection of our democracy, and for a while it was even difficult to obtain proposed language. Among problems in the language, it fails to recognize a right of self-defense for individuals (only nations). It fails to recognize the purpose of the Second Amendment and other gun rights for protecting democracy and deterring dictatorship. The treaty amounts to a government registration (and thereby ability to control and confiscate) of all firearms and possibly ammunition by putting it into one centralized database, potentially even accessible to international organizations. http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/24/reaction-to-the-latest-draft-of-the-u-n-arms-trade-treaty/ Here is part of the current proposed treaty:
“Each State Party shall take the appropriate measures, within national laws and regulations, to control brokering taking place under its jurisdiction for conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty.”
This could mean “control all sales.”
“Each State Party shall adopt appropriate legislative, administrative or other measures to monitor and control, where necessary and feasible, conventional arms covered by this Treaty that transit or transship through territory under its jurisdiction.” http://iapcar.org/?p=970
This could mean monitor and control all weapons.
This treaty is extremely counter-democratic. Most peoples and nations of the world do not understand the wisdom between the uninfringed right to keep and bear arms and democracy as known to our founding fathers. Nor do many American politicians. This treaty should actually do the opposite, and create unrestricted gun rights to allow peoples to reject dictatorships and criminal organizations, instead of mandated helplessness. This treaty will only restrict law-abiding citizens, and do little to stop criminal groups, terrorists, and dictatorial governments, who have always have had and will always have arms. The treaty will make the world less free. Countries like Iran and Syria will be able to maintain their stranglehold on power if they can control weapons flows, and this treaty will prevent providing of arms for self defense to Syrian people, Iranian people, Mexican people and others struggling for peace and freedom against their governments and criminal elements.
32) Project Gunwalker designed to mislead Americans about gun crime as pretext for gun control
The evidence suggests that Obama lied about Operation Gunwalker having started before he took office. It is also suspected by many that Obama not only knew about the program, but intended the program to mislead Americans about guns going across the border, in order to justify and further anti-gun laws in the U.S..
“On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF’s Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:
‘Bill – can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks.’
On Jan. 4, 2011, as ATF prepared a press conference to announce arrests in Fast and Furious, Newell saw it as “(A)nother time to address Multiple Sale on Long Guns issue.” And a day after the press conference, Chait emailed Newell: “Bill–well done yesterday… (I)n light of our request for Demand letter 3, this case could be a strong supporting factor if we can determine how many multiple sales of long guns occurred during the course of this case.” http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57338546-10391695/documents-atf-used-fast-and-furious-to-make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/
It appears the ATF, under Obama’s control, implemented this program to restrict American’s gun ownership, by showing that American guns were ending up in Mexican drug cartel hands, by faking it.
33) Obama supports reinstituting assault weapons ban
He has admitted this in the second debate with Mitt Romney. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/17/us-usa-campaign-guns-idUSBRE89G08T20121017
The expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban under Clinton did not result in any increase in crime, and Obama referred to a couple of isolated incidents to justify restricting the tools of democracy for hundreds of millions of law-abiding citizens. Also, Obama did not discuss whether he would add to the ban that was in place under Clinton.
34) Selection of regulatory specialist for gun policy advisor
Obama selected as assistant for justice and regulatory policy a man named Steve Croley, who not only favors closing a loophole in the law that allows unlicensed gun dealers to sell arms without background checks such as at gun shows.
Croley has a background in administrative law has especially prepared him for figuring out how state agencies can make their records readily available to a federal gun database, and he is a “regulatory genius.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/over-a-barrel-meet-white-house-gun-policy-adviser-steve-croley/2011/04/04/AFt9EKND_story_1.html If Obama wanted to circumvent Congress, and use regulation to restrict gun rights, and create a federal system that takes advantage of, but then supersedes state databases, and works with an arms trade treaty, there is hardly anyone better he could have selected.
Additionally, Obama’s conspicuous silence in the face of some high-profile shootings for a while has been suggestive of the Administration’s strategy. http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/over-a-barrel-meet-white-house-gun-policy-adviser-steve-croley/2011/04/04/AFt9EKND_story_1.html ; http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47872.html
35) Banning Importation of one of the most popular medium-cost quality rifles
The President has banned importation of rifles like the M1 Garand.
36) Misleading Americans to promote new anti-gun agenda
Aurora Colorado shooter’s psychologist informed the university of concerns he may hurt someone, he was reported to police, he was banned from campus, he wrote a letter describing what he intended to do, and even called the university minutes before he carried out the attack, in addition to demonstrating mentally-unstable behavior. Police, psychologists, and the university dropped the ball.
Still, this did not stop Obama from jumping on this opportunity to say the following:
“I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals — that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities. I believe the majority of gun owners would agree that we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons; that we should check someone’s criminal record before they can check out a gun seller; that a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily. These steps shouldn’t be controversial. They should be common sense.” http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-guns-romney-assault-weapons-ban-aurora-shooting-2012-7
Let’s examine point by point, his argument for new gun laws.
I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals [It is already the law that criminals cannot own guns, and misleading to use this as an argument for new laws] — that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities. [again, the laws would not affect guns on the streets, but guns owned by law-abiding citizens. “On the streets” is a misleading phrase. Also, “Ak-47s” is manipulative terminology, the term is used to scare people who are not knowledgeable about guns because Ak-47s sound scary. Since the purpose of the Second Amendment is to prevent tyranny, it necessitates capable and effective arms, not just hunting rifles. The Second Amendment is not a quick word about hunting in between nine other rights that limit government powers.] I believe the majority of gun owners would agree that we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons; that we should check someone’s criminal record before they can check out a gun seller; that a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily. These steps shouldn’t be controversial. They should be common sense. [These are common sense but they are already the law. Saying this to advocate for new laws is intentionally misleading.]
37) Hidden anti-gun messages in the media
After the shooting of Trayvon, Obama said, “all of us have to do some soul searching to figure out how does something like this happen—and that means that we examine the laws and the context for what happened as well as the specifics of the incident.” The concept that new laws are needed to remedy every wrongful act committed in a society of 300 million is not genuine. We do not live in a perfect world, and the use of a single event is usually a pretext to pursue a pre-existing agenda.
38) Before Heller, Obama said he did not believe the Second Amendment was an individual right
Obama said before the Supreme Court’s ruling on D.C. v. Heller that the D.C. total gun ban was Constitutional. http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/barack_obama_gun_control.htm The Supreme Court and the plain language of the Constitution say otherwise. After the ruling, Obama claimed to reverse his position and said he believed the ruling was correct.
39) Two months after Obama took office, national parks announced lead restrictions
For the national parks to take action to restrict all lead ammunition, which is almost all, only two months after Obama took office, suggests this was high on Obama’s agenda. http://home.nps.gov/applications/release/Detail.cfm?ID=855
40) Illinois Senator Obama opposed some use of firearms for self defense in one’s home
41) Obama supported Illinois handgun ban and then denied it
“Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, ‘No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.’ Actually, Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:
35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.
Obama’s campaign said, “Sen. Obama didn’t fill out these state Senate questionnaires–a staffer did–and there are several answers that didn’t reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn’t reflect his views.” http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/barack_obama_gun_control.htm
Although Obama denied writing this, it is consistent with all of Obama’s other actions and statements.
42) Obama said he opposes concealed carry
Reportedly, Obama said, “I didn’t find that [vote] surprising. I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry.” http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/barack_obama_gun_control.htm Source: From Promise to Power, by David Mendell, p.250-251 Aug 14, 2007
43) Obama said he believes in keeping [all] guns out of inner cities
“I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer’s lobby. But I also believe that when a gangbanger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels someone disrespected him, we have a problem of morality. Not only do we need to punish that man for his crime, but we need to acknowledge that there’s a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair.” Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.215 Oct 1, 2006, http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/barack_obama_gun_control.htm
Compare this to the following logic: If law-abiding young men could lawfully carry firearms unless they commit a felony, they would have a self-preservation motive to obey the law. With no carry permits issued to law-abiding citizens anyway, people have a self-preservation motive to break the law, and carry. They also lose respect for a Constitution that isn’t followed. In Florida, concealed carry permit holders are statistically more law-abiding that most police officers, with virtually zero felonies – because people respect, and do not want to lose the right to carry.
44) Obama supports ban on all semi-automatics
Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
- Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
- Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
- Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998, http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/barack_obama_gun_control.htm
Since a primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect this nation from tyranny, this purpose could never be carried out without the people owning semi-automatic weapons, which are most firearms. “Necessary to the security of a ‘free’ state.” Second Amendment, U.S. Constitution. A strong military has nothing to do with a state being “free.”
D. IDENTIFY AND DISPOSE OF POLITICAL OPPOSITION
45) The power to indefinitely detain American citizens under NDAA
Obtaining the power to indefinitely detain (imprison) without trial unlimited numbers of U.S. citizens under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA) including § 1021(b) is a power that a U.S. President should never have, and should never want – especially not a President who speaks out on civil rights. This power is unlimited. It could be used to jail ten, or a million political opponents. Arguably, even the best-intentioned President should not risk such power falling into the wrong hands with a future President. The fact that Obama does not have that concern is suspicious.
While the President publicly threatened to veto NDAA, perhaps strategically to reduce opposition, when the bill came around, he quickly signed it.
Per Democratic Senator Carl Levin, while the White house suggested it was not interested in being able to detain U.S. citizens publicly, privately, the White house demanded removal of language that was already in the bill designed to protect U.S. citizens. The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill, and the Administration asked to remove that protection of American citizens. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DNDHbT44cY http://www.unelected.org/obama-requested-indefinite-detention-amendment-in-ndaa http://www.infowars.com/obama-administration-demanded-power-to-indefinitely-detain-u-s-citizens/ This means Obama not only lied about wanting the power, but used public deception about its intentions to obtain it.
Then, Obama personally made a statement confirming he has such power to detain citizens, to make sure it is not in dispute. Why? Confirmation of powers he claims he does not want, but then fights for repeatedly, with layers of separate actions to obtain, is a common theme with Obama in the dictatorial power arena. Thus, the President has sought and acquired the power to jail any political opponent, and consider American soil to be a “battlefield” for all purposes, including detaining of American citizens. http://www.infowars.com/president-obamas-ndaa-signing-statement-i-have-the-power-to-detain-americans-but-i-wont/
District Judge Katherine B. Forrest struck down this provision of this law as unconstitutional in Hedges v. Barack Obama, Case 1:12-cv-00331-KBF, Southern District New York, wherein her opinion on 9.12.2012 stated regarding the enforcement of §1021(b) of the 2012 NDAA: “At the March hearing, plaintiffs testified credibly to their specific past activities and concerns. At that hearing, the Court repeatedly asked the Government whether those particular past activities could subject plaintiffs to indefinite military detention; the Government refused to answer. Hr’g Tr. of Oral Argument on Prelim. Inj., Mar. 29, 2012 (Dkt. No. 34) (“Tr. I”) at 236, 239, 245.” http://monachuslex.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/NDAA_Ruling.pdf
The Administration could easily have answered this question by stating it does not apply to U.S. citizens, or on U.S. soil, but it refused to answer this question.
The Administration also did not accept the court’s decision that this provision was unconstitutional. After this decision on 9.12.2012, the Obama administration immediately appealed this decision, again, suspiciously fighting furiously for the right to specifically detain U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. In their appeal, they argue a grave concern over overseas uses of the law, which makes no sense, because they could have easily made that argument before Judge Forrest. http://monachuslex.com/?p=2055 Again, you have Obama engaged in layer upon layer of aggressive action and deception over it, regarding key powers that would be necessary for a dictatorial coup. And quite suspicious, that Obama is so focused on this before the election, filing its appeal on the very next day, Saturday, September 13, 2012. The Administration had their appeal pre-prepared and ready to go. If this doesn’t smell of a dictator who desperately wants this power before the election in case he needs it, I don’t know what does.
It gets worse. On September 17th, 2012, the Obama Administration filed for an emergency stay of Judge Forrest’s injunction, and by the end of the day, it had it from 2nd Circuit Court Judge Raymond Lohier. http://monachuslex.com/?p=2055
46) Shift in DHS terrorism focus to “freedom lovers,” “homegrown” and “lone wolf”
The President has shifted the focus on “terrorism” from Islamic extremism to domestic “subversive groups” and “lone wolves,” allowing him to target any American group or citizen who opposes him politically; including former military, preppers, supporters of the Constitution and Second Amendment. http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110921-cutting-through-lone-wolf-hype With this move, Obama cleverly applies all of the powers he has amassed in the name of fighting terrorists abroad, and can now use these on any one person, or a million, whom he labels a terrorist. The government is said to already have identified 300,000+ (public number) American citizens who are referred to as “sovereign citizens.”
A Homeland Security report by National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism entitled “Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1970 to 2008” informs that U.S. citizens such as tax protestors and abortion opponents are terrorist suspects. Criteria for raising suspicion and being placed on a federal government list of suspicious individuals include traits such as “suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty, and believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.” This definition would include every Constitution-loving patriot. Under Hitler/Stalin, they would be referred to as “people who would make trouble” and included anyone who spoke out against Hitler or Stalin. These people were rounded up and killed under these regimes without hesitation, and the rest of the population quickly fell in line.
47) Making lists of millions of Americans under NSI’s (SAR) Program (Suspicious Activity Reporting)
NSI (National SAR Initiative) is a new government agency under Obama that is set up to, and has begun implementing a program called “SAR” (Suspicious Activity Reporting). They combine law enforcement databases not only of crimes, but “suspicious activities” related to “terrorism” through new information “fusion centers” under the control of the Administration. There are now 72 DHS fusion centers in the country for information collection and sharing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev0IdCA_21w&feature=related. Controls to prevent their use from serving anti-democratic goals, and violating Constitutional rights, are nonexistent.
As a result of defining patriotic Americans as “terrorists” in the DHS Hotspots 2012 report, and other such definitions, DHS arguably grants the list compilers power to create secret lists to include hundreds of thousands or millions of Constitution-loving patriots who might resist a dictatorial coup. This process has startling similarities to the 2-step system Hitler used, 1. Making a list of anyone who might oppose, and 2. Under the cover of an “emergency,” round up all such people and dispose of them.
The NSI final report’s recommendation that criteria for putting Americans be clearly defined has not been addressed, and the operational implementation for list record keeping allows flexibility to support an anti-democratic agenda.
“The more appropriate term for information gathering during this project would be that information which is “reasonably indicative of terrorism-related activity.” The development of training that stresses this issue and provides understanding to the participants about what activities would be appropriate to share was a key component in this project. Suspicious activity being collected and documented by the project for the ISE-SAR EE is the kind of data that agencies have always collected concerning suspicions of other criminal activities.”
“Recommendation: NSI leadership should provide specific guidance to future participating agencies concerning the appropriate level of suspicion needed for the inclusion of information in the NSI. A review should take place concerning the SARs entered during the evaluation period to determine the consistence of determining the level of suspicion.”
There are no concrete legislative or operational protections from implementation of a Hitler-style 2-step process as described here. In effect, nobody watches the watchers but the President. “Implementation” may be done by FEMA, the military, local law enforcement, or other force under executive control. While the report says only information traditionally collected/reasonably associated with the acts should be collected, there is no effective control on this.
Interestingly, the fusion centers, the rewriting the definition of “terrorists” to include constitution-loving Americans, and seeking of the ability to detain and kill American citizens under NDAA can all work hand in hand to accomplish a police state agenda.
48) Targeting political threats with the FBI, DOJ, and IRS
The Obama administration has been repeatedly accused of using the IRS to target political opponents, including this libertarian party vice presidential candidate. http://nation.foxnews.com/irs/2012/10/08/columbia-classmate-obama-using-irs-punish-me
49) Obama supports a biometric national ID card to track citizens
The Democratic immigration bill included a national ID card to track all American citizens. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/29/national-id-card-included_n_557721.html Such would give the President, as the enforcement branch of government in charge of INS, incredible tracking power over citizens. http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/95235-democrats-spark-alarm-with-call-for-national-id-card
50) The power to kill American citizens
President Obama’s “kill list” includes American citizens, and the Administration has carried out targeted killing of a U.S. citizen. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/06/ben-swann-local-ohio-repo_n_1861943.html The President has publicly backed legalized targeted assassination of U.S. Citizens, and not specified any limitations on this power. http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/07/the-obama-administration-and-targeted-killings-trust-us/
Holder also backed this power, and “Perhaps most disturbing, Mr. Holder utterly rejected any judicial supervision of a targeted killing.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/opinion/sunday/the-power-to-kill.html?_r=0 This becomes a very different story when you start considering “domestic terrorism” to be “terrorism,” and consider those reverent of the Constitution and freedoms to be potential “terrorists.” This is, of course, even before they commit attacks, because of concern that they might do something.
51) NSA tracking all electronic communications of all Americans
An NSA codebreaker and whistleblower William Binney explains loopholes created by the 2008 amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/video-nsa-whistleblower-explains-how-us-government-spying-every-single NSA is using technology used to track terrorists after 9/11 against ALL Americans. Some will say “so what.” Well, with the complexity of laws today, tax laws, copyright laws, virtually everyone is guilty of some minor infraction or another. This gives the government power to arrest anyone, and everyone, it disagrees with politically. It sounds outrageous, but during a national emergency, if you are labeled part of an anti-government group, the arresting officer will do his job, or his replacement will.
The ACLU is seeking to limit the law to criminals and terrorists, and the Obama administration is opposing this, and instead, choosing to take the matter to the Supreme Court in a case called Amnesty v. Clapper. (Director of National Intelligence) http://www.aclu.org/national-security/amnesty-et-al-v-clapper Briefs available here. Again, the Obama administration is fiercely at odds with the ACLU’s position.
The Obama administration does not want judges to have to independent review of such surveillance and searches to be made, and instead wants all such surveillance to be allowed merely because the Attorney General or Director of National Intelligence approve it. (Unlike judges, these people are appointed by and beholden directly to Obama) This is a direct circumvention of the Constitution which puts courts in the position of deciding what searches may be legally executed.
52) DOJ and SEC both investigate Standard and Poor’s after they downgraded U.S. credit rating
Again, this sends a Hitler/Stalinist dictatorial threat message that if you challenge the Administration, you will risk criminal investigation and prosecution.
53) The mysterious death of Breitbart on day of planned release of negative information on Obama
It is suspicious, and, if it was assassination, it sends a Hitler/Stalinist-type dictatorial message of punishing those who speak out to deter opposition through fear. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/03/breitbart-announced-release-of-damning-obama-video-before-his-death/
54) IRS target and crack down on political opponents like the Tea Party
There may now be a congressional investigation on why the IRS has made threats and begun challenging the tax exempt status of Tea Party chapters, and whether such may be politically motivated. http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/22/congressional-investigations-sought-over-irs-assault-on-tea-party-groups/ If this were allowed, a president would merely have to arrest his political opponents for tax or other violations, as is done in Russia, and by the time the matter is cleared up, the election is over. The bright line between dictatorship and democracy is that law enforcement can never be politically motivated. Also, a law must be clear enough to know when a man is violating it, and all crimes must require intent.
E. Set up the capacity for direct enforcement of policy
55) FM 3-49.40 U.S. Army Internment and Resettlement Operations Manual Revised 2010
The new U.S. Army Internment and Resettlement Operations system revised under Obama is arguably now applicable to domestic “internment” and “resettlement” of American civil populations. http://www.scribd.com/doc/92186759/FM-3-39-40-U-S-Army-Internment-and-Resettlement-Operations-Manual
Categories of detainees include “civilian internees” or “CI”, and the new operations manual sets up the systems by which they may be “deprived of their liberty.”
“Civilian Internees §1-10. A CI is a civilian who is interned during armed conflict, occupation, or other military operation for security reasons, for protection, or because he or she committed an offense against the detaining power. (JP 3-63) CIs, unless they have committed acts for which they are considered unlawful combatants, generally qualify for protected status according to the GC, which also establishes procedures that must be observed when depriving such civilians of their liberty.”
If the “detaining power” is the U.S. – there is no description here that would exclude American citizens from application of these procedures.
“Enemy Combatants §1-15. An enemy combatant is, in general, a person engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners during an armed conflict. (JP 3-63) Enemy combatant includes EPWs and members of armed groups.
Obama could well try to declare American citizens in the United States to be “enemy combatants,” including Constitution-loving patriots, by declaring them engaging in hostilities against the United States even though such groups may be acting to try to restore the Constitution if this Country should ever be taken over by a tyrant. There is no provision in here stating that an American citizen will never be considered an “enemy combatant,” regardless its unconstitutionality. In fact, Obama has sought to declare even American ground to be a battlefield for determining “enemy combatant” status, for which Constitutional protections would not apply.
§1-16. Enemy combatants are divided as follows: An enemy prisoner of war is a detained person who, while engaged in combat under orders of his or her government, was captured by the armed forces of the enemy.
Member of an armed group is a person who engages in or supports acts against the United States or its multinational partners in violation of the laws and customs of war during an armed conflict that do not meet the criteria of a prisoner of war as defined within the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Members of armed groups are not entitled to combatant immunity and will be treated as CIs until, or unless, otherwise directed by competent authorities.
§1-17. EPWs are persons defined in the GPW as — Members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict and members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied”
With this, a civilian volunteer militia of American citizens operating in their own territory could arguably be considered an “enemy combatant.” Someone who speaks about rights the way Obama does, if genuine, surely would have some protection here for American citizens on American soil.
The operations Manual also provides that if there is any doubt as to someone’s status, they will be treated as an enemy combatant until their status can be determined by a military tribunal, or “other competent authority” arguably including the President himself.
“§1-20. If there is any doubt whether personnel captured or detained by the U.S. armed forces belong to any of the detainee categories previously described in paragraph 1-17, and Article 4, GPW, such personnel receive the same treatment to which EPWs are entitled until their status has been determined by a competent military tribunal or some other competent authority.”
Not only is there no specific protection for American citizens, but the only appeal is to be effected “as soon as possible” with no specific timeline for outside review required, even for an American citizen. There is no provision for so much as a phone call.
Arguably, similar policies would apply to displaced persons, anyone whom the U.S. government determines could not or should not stay in their homes, or otherwise “needs assistance.” Arguably, the European Jews needed assistance in relocation to concentration camps.
“AGENCIES CONCERNED WITH INTERNMENT AND
1-40. External involvement in I/R missions is a fact of life for military police organizations. Some government and government-sponsored entities that may be involved in I/R missions include—
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).
International Organization of Migration.
Local U.S. embassy.
Department of Homeland Security.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Federal Emergency Management Agency.”
So, the U.S. military’s detainment, internment and resettlement operations manual is by no means exclusively for overseas operations. In fact, it clearly invokes the involvement of U.S. soil domestic agencies, including the two conspicuous ones, FEMA and DHS.
Some might argue that many American soldiers (such as “oathkeepers”) would not follow such orders. While it may be true, those who are not willing would be either relieved of duty or arguably also interned themselves for “opposing the U.S. government.” When faced with internment for themselves and their families, many U.S. military personnel would be forced to follow such rules. Those who still do not could simply be replaced with those who do.
56) Civil disturbance operations indicates use of military facilities to house American civilians
In case of civil unrest, operations planning indicates use, for American civilians in large numbers the same military internment camp policies discussed above, controlled by the Department of the Army. http://publicintelligence.net/usamps-civil-disturbance-operations/ While this document is from 2006, it does not need to be rewritten because it refers to the policies of the internment document which was rewritten in 2010.
57) U.S. government conducting war games with scenarios against U.S. population
58) 16,000 new IRS agents to help enforce Obamacare
59) HR 1388 – Propaganda legislation to “bolster public awareness”
This includes print media, cable, television, radio, internet.
60) The Repeal of the “Posse Comitatus” Act
This change now allows the U.S. military (and arguably foreign militaries) to enforce law on American streets (John Warner Defense Authorization Act, H.R.5122) Posse Comitatus ensured local police loyal to the community were always in control. This fundamental protection of our democracy is gone. While this was done under President Bush, Obama has engaged many regulatory and executive actions that can effectuate his power in the event of U.S. military presence on U.S. soil.
61) A “Ready Reserve Corps” under Section 5210 of (“Obamacare”)
This can allow Obama to enforce any agenda with his own private army through the Patient’s Protection and Affordable Care Act, a military force that is not under the control of Congress, into which he can put unlimited funds by Executive Order. This voids the fundamental Constitutional protection of having Congress control the U.S. military through its “purse strings” power. “Purse Strings power” has been historically the primary tool through which congress can limit executive power, by taking away the money, including from military operations. U.S. Constitution, Article I, §9, Clause 7 states, “no money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in a consequence of appropriations made by law” [Congress’s power, as a check and balance of Presidential power to spend money.
62) Calls for civilian police force as strong as Military (except not sworn to uphold the Constitution)
Obama said, “We cannot continue to rely only on our military to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s Also unlike our military, the President’s private army is not sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution “against all enemies foreign and domestic” like our military is. And, “that we’ve set? – what objectives are those that need this 2 million-person civilian security force? Even a congressman called this a move towards a Marxist dictatorship. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFM-n38OevA And, Rahm Emanuel said it should be mandatory.
While right out of Hitler’s playbook, Obama likely expected people to blindly agree, and simply create a civilian army for him. As such, training for this force is now in effect and graduating young people, though only a small number so far. That would obviously change in an emergency.
The Colorado Springs event wasn’t the only time Obama preached of his requirement for a “civilian security” force. WND also has reported that U.S. Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., introduced the Universal National Service Act that would require “all persons” from ages 18 to 42 “to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security.” His idea was to authorize “the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.” Rangel’s plan specified that “national service” means “military service or service in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the president, promotes national defense, including national or community service and service related to homeland security.” http://www.wnd.com/2010/10/220869/
63) 20,000 surveillance drones approved to fly over the United States homeland
Oama has sought the right of 20,000 drones to fly over the entire United States with virtually no restrictions to obtain information for the government on ever person, group, organization. If there is a dictatorship coup by Obama, such drones could be used to track every effort to restore the Constitution and rule of law by this nation’s elected representatives.
64) HR 645 National Emergency Centers Establishment Act of 2009 massive Homeland Security “detention centers”
Again, no restrictions or protections for people who wish not to be detained, interned, or housed there.
65) Setting up of 600 “FEMA” camps capable of housing potentially millions of Americans
FEMA is a perfect avenue for dictatorial coup enforcement action because it is absolutely under Obama’s sole direction, without the control of Congress or anyone else. Obama can put unlimited funds into it by Executive order, and in an emergency, FEMA actions will rarely be questioned, and local police will be in little position to question, and especially to stop federal agencies. FEMA camps are designed with secure fenced-in areas, near train tracks, and have parking for large vehicles. http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/new_nationwide_fema_camps_should_raise_eyebrows.html
The camps may house potentially millions, and are often at U.S. military bases, federal correctional facilities, and even at Japanese WWII internment camps. http://www.apfn.org/apfn/camps1.htm
66) FEMA’s interest in 140 million body bags, and plastic coffins to hold at least thousands
FEMA inquired regarding the availability 140 million body bags, and reportedly has ready tens of thousands of large mass plastic coffins stockpiled without explanation.
67) Reports of military increasing training for domestic civil war and martial law
It is too difficult to confirm the scope and intent of some of these operations. However, some have even involved foreign militaries including Russia.
68) DHS, which has no active combat role, orders 450 million rounds of defense ammo
The DHS (Department of Homeland Security) recently signed a deal with defense contractor ATK to purchase 450 million rounds of .40 cal. hollow-point ammunition. Why is this unusual? A) Homeland security does not have nearly as large an active security force as the U.S. military, nor are they currently in any active combat role. B) DHS is mostly domestic, not involved in Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere overseas. C) Its parts, the Secret Service, TSA, and of course FEMA (again) are all organizations that the President controls directly, separate from congress and its “purse strings” power. In an emergency, he could put unlimited money into these and congress could do nothing about it. D) While the stated purpose was “training”, hollow point ammunition is not typically used for training or target practice. It is a combat and defensive round. Also, why didn’t they buy from one of the major manufacturers like Federal or Remington? E) It is pretty aggressive to spend a couple of hundred million dollars on ammunition for a group that doesn’t typically purchase ammunition together, and does not have a combat role F) Since there are only approximately 45,000 coast guard agents, 20,000 customs agents, 42,000 ICE agents, and 5,000 Secret Service agents, many of which are not armed as part of their duties, even assuming 200,000 such personnel, 450,000,000 rounds amounts to at least 2,000 rounds of hollow point per agent, likely double that. G) As the training of each such department is almost certainly unique and specific, it is odd to standardize ammunition, and also odd that the government, knowing it, did not try to pass on such “training” incidental costs to the agents themselves, as many police departments do. H) Perhaps strangest, within days of this announcement, the same contractor, ATK (which only focuses on 5.56 rifle ammunition but not .40 Cal.) also launched a secret government satellite, which nobody knows the purpose or function of. The nature of it is classified, and other than being “critical for national security” no other information is available from the National Reconnaissance Office even if 20 mill rounds a month training, still overkill, planning for wide-scale civil unrest or civil war. Open bid for 175m .223 militarizing law enforcement. Not the pentagon, but DHS. http://www.webpronews.com/dhs-purchases-450-million-hollow-point-bullets-2012-03
F. Control key resources
69) FEMA purchases astounding $1 Billion dollars in freeze dried food
FEMA purchased an astounding $1B in emergency freeze dried food, taken to undisclosed locations. This unprecedented food store purchase, in an emergency, will be controlled personally by the President and him only in an emergency, and he will decide who eats and who does not. This goes hand in glove with Obama’s executive orders giving him control of all food and water resources in the country. This purchase is suspicious because it is approximately 20 million #10 sized cans of freeze dried food. If there is an emergency in one part of the country, other areas should still be able to ship food to where it is needed. This purchase is not preparing for an emergency, it is preparing for Armageddon. It is otherwise hard to imagine the need for food for 50 million people for a week or 1 million people for 50 weeks.
70) National Defense Resources Preparedness Order calls for Obama control of all food, water, resources
On March 16, 2012, the President signed a disturbing executive order entitled the National Defense Resources Preparedness order, expanding on previous law, the Defense Production Act, 50 U.S.C. App. §2071, purportedly allowing him, to take control of all the food, water, energy, and transportation in the entire country. The Order designates that when the President declares, in an emergency, through the secretaries of Agriculture, Energy, Transportation, Defense, Commerce, etc., the President can take control of all food, water, resources and energy in the country including those privately owned. While this is a re-confirmation of a very old law, it completely violates the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
This law now applies to both emergency and non-emergency situations, and to coordinate through DHS and his Cabinet, “to require that performance under contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) which he deems necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense shall take priority over performance under any other contract or order… (and) to require acceptance and performance of such contracts.” http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2010/appendixtotitle50/civilianprotectionfromwar/actaug201954ch77768stat75/titlei/section2071/ This means that the President is arguably authorized to “require” anyone to enter into any contract with any terms he declares necessary, and to be required to perform that contract – essentially, giving him the power to require anyone to do anything that relates to food, water, energy, or transportation, including seizing personal property, including having the power to seize all the water and food that any (and every) person or organization may have.
Even Congressmen, including Rep. Sandy Adams, have raised concern about Obama’s power grab as potentially leading to martial law. http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-07/news/os-sandy-adams-obama-martial-law-20120407_1_order-powers-barack-obama
For Obama to carry on this campaign, or even allow it, while claiming to respect the Constitution, is deceptive. He once said, “I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution.”— Barack Obama, at a campaign fundraiser, March 30, 2007.
Obama, a lawyer by training, consistently ignores the rule of law, always in favor of more executive power.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/11/a_lawyer_by_training_obama_ignore_rules_of_law_115733.html
The above examples of Obama’s actions and power grabs are essentially all unconstitutional, and together, if not any one, they show a disturbingly comprehensive shift on every practical level towards Executive control. They directly target the most practical First, Second, Fourth, and Tenth Amendment protection mechanisms. These are systems for control of resources and execution of agenda on American soil separate from the other two branches of government. A lot of these changes are not based on any specific present need, but provide vague Executive powers, to be used upon the occurrence of some future emergency as defined by Obama. Governments rarely act before a need arises. An American President interested in preserving our Constitution and democratic principles should be too concerned about such powers falling into the wrong hands under a future president to allow this. For a Constitutional law professor to not be concerned about this is suspicious. Imagine our country on this course for another 4 years.
Biblical considerations and coincidences
According to our nation’s laws, Obama is supposed to step down if he loses the election in 2012, or in 2016, and not violate the Constitution. According to the laws of human nature, he may not be psychologically able to do so.
This Biblical analysis is an examination separate from whether supernatural phenomenon exists, and not done to suggest Biblical evidence for Obama being the anti-Christ. Its purposes are to examine:
- The Bible’s wisdom about human nature. The Bible talks about an “anti-Christ” having the most amazing oratory caliber and ability to influence. It talks about him having the highest haughtiness and ego. It talks about him being given the highest authority in the world. It talks about such a man at some point stopping pretending to be nice, and revealing his true self. It talks about his rewrite of laws, his blasphemy of religion, claims to be God, and use of deception unlike any who have come before him. Perhaps the reason the Bible warns of the anti-Christ’s specific traits is because someone as intelligent, charismatic, with oratory of such caliber, who rises to power so quickly, and is idolized, and is able to influence so many so strongly, also necessarily suffers the ultimate corruption from that power per the Bible’s wisdom and fundamental understanding of human nature and psychology. Absolute power, corrupts absolutely, and Obama may not be any exception. Essentially, the Bible says that a person of such abilities and character who is able to charm so many and reach such heights with such haughtiness, is also the character of someone who might cause unparalleled destruction.
- Whether there are facts upon which Obama may form a subjective belief that he is the Messiah, and
- Whether Obama is acting consistent with Biblical prophecy regarding the actions of the anti-Christ. If he does believe himself to be a Messiah or anti-Christ, he may use such beliefs to justify carrying out anti-Christ-like acts. Several of these are discussed in Part 2.
Here is a list of Biblical coincides. While you may disagree with some interpretations, the question is, can Obama buy into one or more of them to justify a possible subjective belief that he is a Messiah or anti-Christ.
- The day after the 2008 election, the Illinois lottery numbers were 666, the number of the anti-Christ. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/lottery.asp (The pick 4 was 7779, God’s number of perfect completion, and judgment)
- There is an interpretation that the name of the anti-Christ is revealed in Luke 10:18, saying, “I beheld Satan as lightning falling from the heavens”, and in Arameic Hebrew, the word for Lightning is Baraq (Baw-rawk), and the word for bamah (bam-mah), with u or o as a conjunction. Thus translatable as “I beheld Satan as Baraq o Bammah.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlT9SYR6jq4&feature=related http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_Barack_Obama’s_name_mean_in_Hebrew#ixzz24iDGReij
- Religious texts state that the Anti-Christ will be an oratory genius, “who spake as never man spake.” Nobody in history has ever spoken like the President, except maybe Hitler, who was known to dazzle and hypnotize crowds with his speeches as the President does. Revelation 13:2 declares that his mouth is “as the mouth of a lion” which is a symbolic expression telling of the majesty and awe producing effects of his voice. The voice of the lion excels that of any other beast. So the anti-Christ will out rival orators ancient and modern. http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Antichrist/anti_04.htmMany have compared the unique auditory prowess of Barack Obama to that of Adolph Hitler, believed to be the second anti-Christ also unique, mesmerizing and powerfully influencing millions, as in this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRP3kAASxVo&bpctr=1350240697 Did children ever sing song praising any current President other than Barack Obama?
- It is said he will be left-handed.
- The anti-Christ will be a beast that rises up from the sea. Obama is from Hawaii.
- The anti-Christ is said to appear as a white horse, the word for which is “buraq”
- The anti-Christ will have 6000 years to learn man’s weaknesses and how to influence him. Obama’s charismatic and speaking ability to influence is unparalleled.
- It is said the anti-Christ will have three blasphemous names. “Barak” means blessed. “Hussein” means Handsome. “Bama” bama or bamah a height, a name used simply to denote a high place where the Jews worshipped idols (Ezek. 20:29). The plural is translated “high places” in Num. 22:41 and Ezek. 36:2.
- The anti-Christ is said to pretend to be nice, and after 4 years reveal his true nature, and Obama is promising “more flexibility” after the election to world leaders.
- If Obama did reveal his true nature his second term, could there be any more Biblical “Revelation?”
- The anti-Christ will speak blasphemously. The President has mocked the Bible, including with his comment about people clinging to guns and religion, and his statement about which religion is most correct.
- Netanyahu actually calls Obama “the great Satan.” (accidentally) He didn’t intend to. In the March 5th 2012 meeting at the White House with Netanyahu in front of reporters, Netanyahu said to the President discussing terrorists’ views, “you’re the great Satan, we’re [Israel] is the little Satan.” While clearly Netanyahu was referring to the United States being referred to the great Satan by terrorists, when he said “you’re the great Satan” speaking at the President, the President appeared to me to become briefly angered, as if ironically the statement actually did hit home. Netanyahu’s inadvertent slip of the tongue may be another coincidence.
- The video compares Obama’s oratory and Hitler’s oratory. Obama’s oratory skill is nothing short of biblical caliber. Nobody in the history of man has ever ascended to the greatest power in the world, (the Presidency, the Nobel Prize, the head of the U.N Security Council) so quickly and easily merely by speaking.
- The video above also says the Bible Code has Obama’s name at Revelation 13.1, referencing the anti-Christ.
- The Bible says the anti-Christ will be “mabus.” If the economic crisis and some of the unconstitutional Executive power grabs were started under Bush and then caused an economic crisis under Obama, the combination of obamabush has “mabus” in it.
- Many are concerned about the possibility of a catastrophic economic collapse from the national debt. If the dollar did cease to become the world’s reserve currency, gold and silver would likely become the world’s currency again. Revelation 13:17 “And no one could buy or sell unless they had the mark, the name of the beast, or his number.” Most pure silver and gold bullion is marked with a purity of .999, which, when you look at your coins upside down, is chillingly the mark of the beat on all precious metals bullion. Thus, it is quite possible for prophecy to become eerily true, that in an economic collapse, nobody will be able to buy or sell unless they have this mark, 666, on their coins.
- The anti-Christ is said to be left-handed.
- The anti-Christ desires to be worshipped.
- Obama has asked Israel not to attack Iran, and prophecy says Israel will pay a great price for trusting Satan’s ambassador.
- He shall exalt and magnify himself above every god, shall speak blasphemies against the God of gods. See his statement above, “I was not born in a manger…”
- The Anti-Christ is written to be asexual or homosexual. Some believe there is something odd about Obama’s sexuality. Larry Sinclair, a gay man in Chicago, claims that he took drugs and had homosexual sex with the President in November of 1999.
- The Anti-Christ denies religion of father, Daniel 11:37 “Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. ” The President’s father was Muslim.
- Revelations 6:1-2 “I watched as the Lamb opened the first of the seven seals. Then I heard one of the four living creatures say in a voice like thunder, “Come!” I looked, and there before me was a white horse! Its rider held a bow, and he was given a crown, and he rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest.” The President made his acceptance speech for the Democratic nomination at INVESCO Field at Mile High in Denver Colorado, the Denver Bronco’s home stadium. Outside this stadium is a giant statue of a white horse.
- If he either opposed religion entirely, or expressed a loyalty to Islam, he could be arguably “Anti-Christ” for that reason.
- The Anti-Christ will be called an abomination. Matthew 24 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,'[b] spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house.” Jerome Corsi wrote a book entitled “Obamanation.”
- The anti-Christ will have the mouth of a lion. The President’s astrological sign is Leo.
- The anti-Christ is to be very well liked at first and have a huge following, until he reveals his true nature and unleashes destruction.
Q & A with the author
Q: Why did you write this?
A: Because I have never seen anything like this before. It is extraordinary, and nobody else is talking about it. If there is a danger, I want to help protect this nation, the Constitution, and global peace and security. I wrote this to warn people of what might happen and why, so lawmakers, the Vice President, and others in authority, can affect the rule of law to protect us in case Obama would choose to go against the Constitution and possibly harm Americans.
Q: What do you find extraordinary?
A: Everything is coming together to the same point; our understanding of human nature, psychology, legal analysis, the Bible, philosophy, and history. They all suggest there is something very wrong with Obama’s uncanny rise to power, his self-grandiosity, delusions, Messianic speech, and hunger for power. There are huge warning signs of the most grave consequences across every understanding of human beings. Not to belittle the point, but even in popular culture, the last Star Wars “Sith” plot, was about a politician who sought world domination by rising to the top ranks politically, and then creates an emergency so he can “reluctantly” accept the emergency dictatorial powers he has been plotting for.
Q: What is unique about your analysis?
A: I figured out that the three topics go together and explain one another. There has been an internet “buzz” about Obama having NPD, but it is the word of a few psychologists against many, on a complex subject the media will never cover unless people really pressure them to. Also, people may say “so what.” The answer to that is: the resulting Executive actions. There has been some low-level attention and concern about loss of freedoms, and constitutional concerns regarding Obama’s actions, but no urgency without any serious concern or motive – the link to NPD and historical analysis provides the motive, plots a future trajectory, and shows potential consequences. The middle finger gestures raise that urgency and concern because it shows potentially serious mental irregularity. There was a small buzz about Obama’s middle finger gestures, and discussions online which substantially agreed that this could not be accident, but nobody ever linked it to something of serious concern. Now, the three issues all make sense together. And, even with Obama’s cleverness, the middle finger videos are the one thing he cannot talk his way out of. That’s Obama’s Achilles heel. He cannot explain that, because he was not doing that at any times other than while mentioning his political opponents.
Q: What conclusions can be drawn from your research?
A: I hope psychologists come forward and back me up, but my conclusion is that there is a potential danger of Obama’s NPD influencing his actions. You can’t know for certain what someone will do, especially if they are very clever, but there is more than enough reason for concern for people to come forward, tell what they know, and either take some legal action, or prepare to.
Q: Do you realize how amazing it sounds, that a logical, intelligent president would go off the deep end and do harm to this country, intentionally or not?
A: Yes, but the possibility is not much more amazing than what has already happened with his uncanny and unnatural rise to power, power grabs, strange gestures and so on. NPD and Messiah Complex are mental disorders, so if I show he has it, which I believe I have provided significant evidence toward, then we have to project his likely behavior accordingly. Just like we can predict a person with severe schizophrenia will not act perfectly normal tomorrow, but will likely worsen without medication, we can predict based on extensive studies of NPD, that a person who has that disorder will not let go of their need for grandiosity and laugh it off like a healthy person would.
Q: Do you think Obama has ill intent, or will merely try to become a dictator through being a victim of his own uncontrolled narcissism while intending to do good?
A: While I have never seen so much deception in a president, it really doesn’t matter for our sakes. Whether driven by helpless narcissistic power needs, or whether he is already hiding some plan, his actions may follow a somewhat similar course. Though, if he does have some hidden plan, I think we are more likely to see changes immediately following the election. I think all “evil” things are done with some justification. Hitler wanted 1000 years of peace and “purity” by killing millions. However, at some point, narcissism blurs the judgment. In Obama’s case, small examples include wanting to help people, but in reality creating reliance by increasing food stamps which actually feeds his narcissism as the needed helping hand to those who are powerless. But to answer your question, I don’t see how a constitutional law professor could not have concern about the dramatic power shift. His threat to the Supreme Court, his sidelining of Congress, his rewriting of the presidential biographies, calling for a national police force under his command –is this all an amazing coincidence? Dr. Vaknin believes Obama is capable of causing a catastrophe, and I believe he compares him to Charles Manson, Hitler and Stalin.
Q: Some think Obama is just “a guy with big ears and the funny name” as he put it.
A: Isn’t that what the most perfectly exceptionally clever wolf would say?
Q: What would Obama say to this?
A: First he will ignore it and hope the media doesn’t pick up on it. Otherwise, he will say I have a very creative imagination, that the finger gestures were a coincidence, or unintentional, and he would say that he deeply cares about American freedoms, and assures us that he will look into this to make sure the Constitution is protected. Then, he may commission a report or put up a website, but otherwise continue doing as he would anyway.
Q: Do you think anyone will heed your warnings about Obama?
A: I don’t know. People have defense mechanisms that tell them not to worry about things that sound amazing. I think people will dismiss it as coincidence and right-wing paranoia, despite history. It is not in human nature to heed warnings despite discomfort, or when another interest seems more immediate. If in 1932, I said Hitler was a charismatic narcissist of Biblical caliber who would kill tens of millions of people, nobody would have taken it seriously enough to do anything. Sometimes history needs the disaster before people can justify reacting. This also…it sounds too amazing, and people are comfortable and lazy… but yet I hope people with information come out, that media covers, this, and that the vice president and congress and others put the nation ahead of politics and understand what Obama may be capable of and remove him, if necessary. That decision is not up to me – all i can do is put the information out there, as is the purpose of free speech, and hope that the right people find it. Or if not, maybe after a disaster, this analysis may help people understand what happened.
Q: It is hard to believe.
A: Yes, but if Obama did do something dictatorial and genocidal, after reading this document, would anyone really be surprised? Why is it by necessity that Hitler be the worst for all time? In our short history, we certainly have room for someone to try and outdo him. For someone with so much power who sees himself as so great, world domination is naturally the only logical next step. Hitler tried to conquer the world by announcing it ahead of time and doing it militarily, geographically, but the world united against him. Why can’t there be someone like Hitler in a lot of ways, with perhaps a different agenda, who sees that Hitler’s way didn’t work, so he tries to take control by his charisma and manipulation via a political route. It makes perfect sense. The more power someone has, the more they want. That goes exponentially for someone with NPD.
Q: Are you right wing?
A: No, I try to be a pragmatic problem-solver, a centrist. I am generally Libertarian, I love this Country and the Constitution and the law, I was raised Democrat but then broadened my understanding, identify with Republicans to some degree, and I vote for the best candidate regardless party.
Q: Do you think the President is the anti-Christ?
A: I tried to make this analysis completely independent of religion so it can be objective and logical. I am not very religious. I think more important a question is whether he, if he goes into narcissistic rage, may believe he is, and act as such, as if a self-fulfilling prophecy. I do think that the Bible has some interesting warnings about someone who is so charismatic that we hand him the world, and so grandiose that he acts as though it isn’t enough.
Q: But do you think he is?
A: He has a choice. He can choose not to put his grandiosity above the law, the nation, and accept his accomplishments and quit while he is ahead, walk away call it a day. I hope he decides to put the interests of the nation and world ahead of his ego. Believing himself to be a Messiah can only lead to disaster. One only understands that the work and the nation is more important than himself, if he is able to step aside and give up power for the greater good, as Washington did after 2 terms. It is unclear if Obama can do that. He may believe it is him who saves us, or nobody. I have serious concerns that he will not be able to accept not being “the one,” but think he can actually walk away with accomplishments to be proud of, being the first African American president, etc.
Q: Why did you write this anonymously?
A: I don’t need anyone to know who I am. I don’t seek fame or publicity, just to help preserve our Constitution, nation, and rule of law. And of course, I have nothing to do with the group by the name “Anonymous.”
Q: Will you ever reveal your identity?
A: I plan not to.
Q: What else would you have added if you kept writing this document?
A: I left out a lot. Like when Obama talked about a tornado in Kansas where 12 people were killed, and he said 10,000 people died. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NREgpRRIlD4 This is incredibly troubling, because he seems the number seems to have no impact on him. There is something very wrong with someone who doesn’t know the difference between 12 people killed and 10,000, and the difference has no impact on him. Certainly not even bothering to check to see if this extraordinary number, more than who died on Sept.11th, is accurate. This statement may be some type of delusional outburst more than any exaggeration. Also, the time he said he has been to all 57 states in America. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws How could he get this wrong?
Q: What got you started on this project?
A: I was always concerned about Obama’s rise to power. Nobody honest is that charming – I always saw him as a master of manipulation, but a deceptive one. In a totally different class than someone like Bill Clinton, who is very charismatic but not like Obama. In debates, he takes the points the other party makes, and repeats them as his own with such apparent empathy, it’s truly startling. I don’t like cults, whether a cult of 10 or 10 million, it’s still a cult. Logic stands aside. Obama’s rise to power was and is completely unnatural – coming alone from his ability to influence and manipulate. I have never seen someone come from nothing, and simply by speaking, have millions of people become almost hypnotized, cry, faint, calling him the “Messiah”, as I said, almost like a cult, but with near 100 million followers. It was spooky from day one. I kept thinking, “didn’t we all see what happened with Hitler and his speaking brilliance and Charisma?” I try to have a critical mind, and this was wrong to me from the start on every levels. Nobody who is genuine is able to influence people that powerfully that quickly. People who are genuine come out with ideas that you disagree with, because everyone deep inside is different. Obama is 100% false but delivered with a perfection that is more unnatural than anything I have ever seen in my life. People who have been the most liked and admired in history through lifetimes of accomplishments and acts of character, Kennedy, John McCain, paled in comparison to Obama who had no substance, took no positions, and chanted “yes we can.” I initially laughed, and was horrified how millions were absolutely enveloped by him, like watching a cult from the outside. It’s wrong on every level, and probably the most frightening thing I have ever seen to see intelligent, logical human beings acting like the people we read about in history, like the followers of Hitler, exactly the type of person in school we read about, and wondered how they could be so stupid.
Q: What do you think Obama might do?
A: Well, he may utilize some trigger, like an economic collapse from printing so much money and the problems in Europe, or maybe a drastic war, to unite people behind him as people united after September 11th, and carry out whatever his agenda is. All of his emergency preparations are centered around a nationwide disaster.
Q: What do you think his agenda is?
A: To plot his trajectory: To rule the world. That is about all that is appropriate for someone who thinks the Presidency is owed to him, and “just the beginning.” His actions, trying to pander to the whole world, are very consistent with such a goal.
Q: Do you think that he would create such a disaster intentionally to stay in power or increase his power?
A: We see greedy people do horrible things throughout history. We see narcissistic leaders in history rather die and take as many as they can with them rather than give up power. He has done some strange things.
Q: Like what?
A: Like helping overthrow most Middle East governments, but not Iran and Syria; like promising the Palestinians a “contiguous state”… When his delusion of being the Messiah and savior crumbles, he may go into narcissistic rage, and may seek to punish all of us for not allowing him to realize his greatness. Just like he blamed Congress for “destroying ‘his’ Presidency”, he will blame all of us, and when unable to save the world, or even maintain power, my fear is he may go completely psychotic, and try to literally become the anti-Christ, cause a nuclear war, or some other calamity to prove he is smarter than all of us or punish us. Others share my concern. While I hope I am wrong,I can’t not warn people of the possibility.
Q: It sounds unbelievable that anyone would do that.
A: What Hitler did also sounds unbelievable also – to round up and kill an entire race for his ego? The Bible says the worst of the three anti-Christs pretends to be nice during the first part of his reign, and then reveals his true nature. Why can’t someone have an agenda as sick as Hitler’s and keep it secret? It is not impossible. Or, maybe he really intends his increasing powers to try to help the world, but when he is unable, he loses his judgment to unparalleled anger like that Bob Woodward wrote about in his book he witnesses in Obama. When Obama could not get the cooperation from Republicans on the debt deal, Bob woodward described Obama’s rage as “pure fury.” http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bob-woodward-book-debt-deal-collapse-led-pure/story?id=17104635 “When Boehner finally did call back, he jettisoned the entire deal. Obama lost his famous cool, according to Woodward, with a “flash of pure fury” coming from the president; one staffer in the room said Obama gripped the phone so tightly he thought he would break it. “He was spewing coals,” Boehner told Woodward, in what is described as a borderline “presidential tirade.” When Michelle was going to divorce Obama in 2000, his friends were concerned that Obama was “suicidal.” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2145035/Michelle-Obama-prepared-divorce-papers-separate-Barack-leaving-suicidal.html If our worst fears about Obama do come to fruition, will future people looking back be at all surprised?
Looking at these pictures above 100 years from now, would it be that hard to believe Obama was an evil dictator with a narcissistic disorder, who manipulated millions to get into power and then killed millions for whatever awful reason? Most people have a defense mechanism in believing anyone they trust will always be a nice guy because they have never run into a real brilliant sociopath.
Q: Have you?
A: Yes, and having experienced a sociopath once in my life, I have learned how brilliantly deceptive they can be. This is something many people have not experienced, making it harder for them to see the real Obama.
Q: So you think he may intentionally cause a war?
A: Hopefully not, but I do have a concern, whether Intentionally, subconsciously, driven by narcissistic bias – it is hard to know. I am concerned that a dispute over the election, or just a small step, such as declaring martial law, could spur civil unrest, which he would then claim the need to quell, allowing him the excuse to begin a more dictatorial agenda.
Q: What if you’re wrong?
A: if I’m wrong, people stay on alert, and nothing happens. Our country is strengthened to help protect Constitutional principles because we realize a vulnerability.
Q: Anything else?
A:It might be cool to run an ad on TV of Obama’s middle finger gestures and ask http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEtqizcs58M&feature=related “what the heck is wrong mentally with our president?” I think people should at least see it. The media has been horrible. They have filtered out the strongest criticisms of Obama, allowed him to get away with everything, put him in office, while keeping basic facts and perspectives from the American people. It is unforgivable.
Q: What do you want?
A: Peace, the rule of law and Constitution to prevail.
Q: What would you say to Obama?
Q: Take it easy and just be a normal president?… I dont know.
Q: What can people do?
A: I am asking for people to help spread this content, by copying and republishing it on the web immediately, by linking to this page and to other pages where it is republished, by sending links to all their friends and contacts, and contacting the media and asking them politely to look into this. Also, I need people to download/save/screencapture the videos, spread and repost them to prevent people from removing the evidence – of the middle finger gesture videos especially. I am asking psychologists to come forward, contact the media, and say speak up if they feel something is not right with Obama. Perhaps just as important, I am asking those people around him to be aware of this, and watch for any dramatically dangerous and unconstitutional actions, regardless how manipulative and clever he may be in asking for help in carrying them out. He usually has others carry out the dirty work for him. If Obama does show signs of instability, he will have to be replaced by the Vice-President pursuant to the 25th Amendment, or other authority, hopefully before he shows signs of narcissistic rage. He will have to be removed from office to allow the Vice President, Congress or other legal authorities loyal to the Constitution to act, and for the legal/impeachment/removal process to replace him to protect this nation. People’s awareness of the potential danger is the first step. Thanks for listening to my well-intended concern.