Evaluating Obama

If you assume that Obama wants America to be a free and prosperous Constitutional Republic, almost nothing he does makes any sense.

If you assume that Obama wants America to be a socialist country under UN rule, everything he does makes perfect sense.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Evaluating Obama

  1. B says:

    That applies to pretty much everyone in elected office. The schools were set up a long time ago to those ends. They trained us as children to be collectivists. The power hungry want to manage the collective. The money in elections is corporatist and collectivist. (corporations and foundations). Foundations by and large are working towards a single global collective. The masses fine freedom scary. They want the safety and stability of a collective. They like being told what to do and as much of the effort in life being removed from their hands as possible.

    Obama’s behavior is as expected, as the design calls for. Obama has done nothing surprising, remarkable, or anything else.

    • Cornelius says:

      “That applies to pretty much everyone in elected office.”
      Agreed, most Republicans politicians do nothing to reverse the endless shift toward collectivism. They simply take us in the same direction, but more slowly. Controlled opposition at work.

  2. Edmonton Al says:

    He is still an a$$hole. AND wants to be head of the UN in 2017. His next step to Emperor of the World.

    • DD More says:

      Standard procedures from the first was that – ‘The UN Presidency would not be held by a member of the Security Council’. Wonder if that missing birth certificate will suddenly show up with a different ‘Natural Born’ finding.
      If it doesn’t work out, I do hear someone is looking for a 12th imam and maybe he could get that gig.
      “Twelvers — not other Shiites or Sunni Muslims — believe that al-Mahdi will return as a messiah with Jesus to bring peace to the world and establish Islam as the ruling faith across the globe.”

      Sounds like he has been practicing.

  3. tabnumlock says:

    The US won’t work as a 3rd world country. It doesn’t have the climate for it. Most of it is either too cold or too dry. The part that isn’t has the world’s most violent weather. That’s why only a million Indians were here. Only white-built and white-maintained infrastructure allows 300 million people to live here. I suppose the Chinese could take it over but that would not bode well for the brown people,

    • Shazaam says:

      Oh I don’t know about that. As soon as wall street completes strip-mining the country’s financial assets, the transition to a 3rd world country will be nearly complete.

      The government is well on it’s way to meeting or exceeding 3rd world standards as the liar-in-chief leads the way with his legendary truthfulness and his most transparent administration ever.

      The hallmarks of a 3rd world country are an illiterate population, a totally corrupt government and a marginally industrialized economy. What part does the laughingstock-in-chief need to work on to complete the descent?

      When all the SNAP cards read $0 with no hope of a refill, and no foreign country will finance the government debt (by buying treasury bonds), we will be Zimbabwe on steroids. The race baiters have done their level best to insure that the hordes supported by the government won’t blame the politicians when the government stops with the bread and circuses. The dependent ones will find themselves with no uncle sugar, no skills, no education, and no prospects. It will not be pretty.

      • Tel says:

        The thing about financial assets, they have two sides to them: a creditor and a debtor. If the creditor destroys the debtor, they also destroy their own asset. Kind of depends on cooperation to make the whole thing stay together. This is what Yanis Varoufakis is trying to explain to the Germans, admittedly somewhat later than ideal, but better late than never.

        Physical assets (land, gold, minerals, etc) don’t have this aspect, they just have an owner. What I’m saying is that Wall Street must either fix their business model and make those financial assets work, or they would need to escape to physical at some stage. If they do neither of these things, they just take out their own wealth along with everyone else… one would presume there’s no advantage in doing that.

        Even physical assets are subject to revaluation depending on the circumstance. For example, a house in Detroit used to be much more valuable than today. The house is the same, but Detroit has changed. A lot of the “value” of a physical asset depends on the context.

    • Ronald says:

      There were large flurishing numbers of people prior to 1500. The book 1491 talks about it in great length. Disease took a terrible toll which depopulated much of North America. man has been altering their surrounding environment for thousands of years from the indians in the Americas burning the land with great zeal to the european settlers allowing everything to be overgrown by not burning and introducing non native species like pigs and earthworms. To the 1900s of building dams and planting trees.

      Fact is we live in a world that is able to support huge numbers of people who very rarely freeze to death, who can store foods via refrigeration and have the means to transport the food with haste before it spoils. What I find ironic is the most ardent enviornmentalists live in the cities but not in the so called country where farmers common sense means more than al gores proclamations.

    • Christopher says:

      Futhermore, many americans will not stand for it, sadly too many others will.

  4. mikegeo says:

    If Obama was actually working for the other side, is there anything he could do differently?? I think not.

  5. gator69 says:

    Whenever I hear someone say, “How can the President do that?”, I remind them that Obama is not a President.

  6. Andy DC says:

    A local sport radio guy said that Washington Redskin quarterback Robert Griffin’s performance was so horrible that the team’s performance could not be evaluated. I guess same goes for Obama’s performance. Too horrible and too irrational to make an evaluation.

  7. dom says:

    No wonder Thomas Hobbes wrote the depressing and pessimistic treatises…..we would tear each other apart without some form of government, and the government snow-balls with the social contract theory…..the bigger the favor, the more inebriation…an undefeatable sea monster; a leviathan….lovers of liberty are on our own.

    I think the phenomena of ownership is what separates developed nations from the others; Obama and the other elites are doing their best to take away everything we own.

    Nothing to own; no reason to fight.

    Thank God for the private citizens who have taken Obama to court; win or loose, they have my respect and gratitude…..unlike the so-called Americans who are hedging their corporations with government welfare programs, those that either voted for Obama or didn’t vote against him.

    • gator69 says:

      It appears to me that those who have nothing to lose are the most dangerous.

      Michael Brown owned so little he had to rough up a convenience store clerk for cigars, then tried to kill a cop.

      ISIS members are not likely to have investment portfolios.

      Of course, there are exceptions like OJ who thought he owned Nicole Brown Simpson.

      I have never feared for my life while walking at night through an affluent neighborhood.

      • It doesn’t seem likely to me that Usama bin Ladin’s impoverished existence (worth about US$300 million at the time) drove him into al Qaida. Nor young Saudis in general: Their unemployment is and was high (50% or so) because they received large stipends and imported Africans to do what they considered to be menial work. If young Saudi males worked at all, it was as clean-handed professionals. Usama bin Ladin was in college to become an architect when one of his professors, a Muslim Brotherhood leader, radicalized him.

        Moreover, if poverty was the “cause” of terrorism, the desperately poor US Appalachian region would be a hotbed of terrorist acts. It isn’t; the mindset is completely different. And with the right mindset, something taught in Saudi Arabia in college and in other Middle Eastern countries beginning in preschool, poverty isn’t even necessary. It just happens that the same nihilistic, modernity-hating philosophy that causes jihadism also causes poverty.

        ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s