Obamanati.info

Infowars - President Barack Obama has once again betrayed his promise to restore liberties eviscerated by the Bush regime by pushing Congress to renew Patriot Act provisions that allow for warrantless spying on American citizens, even in cases where there is no link to terrorism whatsoever.

According to a Wired News report, the “Obama administration has told Congress it supports renewing three provisions of the Patriot Act due to expire at year’s end, measures making it easier for the government to spy within the United States.”

Obama’s support for the provisions should come as little surprise because he first voted for warrantless wiretapping of Americans in 2008 when he was an Illinois Senator, while also lending support for immunizing the nation’s telecommunications companies from lawsuits charging them with being complicit in the Bush administration’s wiretapping program.

One of the provisions Obama is pushing to renew is the so-called “lone wolf” provision, enacted in 2004, which allows for the electronic monitoring of an individual without the government having to prove that the case has any relation whatsoever to terrorism or a foreign power. This is in effect a carte blanche for the government to use every method at their disposal to spy on any American citizen they choose.

The “lone wolf” provision is opposed by the ACLU, whose legislative counsel Michelle Richardson told Wired, “The justification for FISA and these lower standards and letting it operate in secret was all about terrorist groups and foreign governments, that they posed a unique threat other than the normal criminal element. This lone wolf provision undercuts that justification.”

Another Patriot Act provision Obama wants Congress to renew gives the government access to business, library and medical records, with the authorities generally having to prove that the investigation is terrorism related. However, since according to Homeland Security guidelines the new breed of terrorist is classified as someone who supports a third party, puts a political bumper sticker on their car, is part of the alternative media, or merely someone who disagrees with the authorities’ official version of events on any given issue, the scope for the government to use this power against their political adversaries is wide open.

The third provision Obama is pushing to renew allows a FISA court to grant “roving wiretaps” without the government having to even identify their target. This is another carte blanche power that gives the state the power to monitor telephone calls, e mails and any other form of electronic communication.

Barack Obama swept into office on a mandate of “change” and a commitment to restore liberties that were eviscerated under the Bush regime. Despite promising to do so, he has failed completely to overturn Bush signing statements and executive orders that, according to Obama, “trampled on liberties.” Indeed, despite promising to end the use of signing statements, he has continued to use them.

Obama has failed to close Guantanamo Bay or any other CIA torture “black site” as he promised to do.

Obama has failed in his promise to “reject the Military Commissions Act” and instead has supported the use of military commissions.

Obama has continued to allow the rendition and torture of detainees, while protecting Bush administration officials who ordered torture from prosecution and blocking the release of evidence related to torture.

Obama has gone even further than the Bush administration in introducing “preventative detention” of detainees, ensuring people will never get a trial.

In restating his support for warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, Obama has once again proven that his promise of “change” was nothing more than a hollow and deceptive political platitude to ensure his election. Since he took office, Obama has betrayed almost every promise he made and effectively become nothing more than the third term of the Bush administration.

Cannonfire - Of all the outside-the mainstream notions I’ve posited on this blog, the one that annoys the most people is my suggestion that the CIA recruited young Barack Obama during his days at Occidental College. I would further suggest that the Agency link runs in the family. I believe that, at an earlier time, the Agency (or some other branch of the intelligence community) may have recruited his mother, Ann Dunham.

For earlier posts in this series — may I call it a series? — see here, here, here and here.

And now we have this intriguing shard of additional data:

The eye-opener here concerns Obama’s first job out of college. He was recruited by Business International Corporation, accused of functioning as a CIA front company.

You don’t have to take the word of John Pilger, the man in the video. Here’s Wikipedia:

The company has been identified as cover organization for the Central Intelligence Agency, e.g. see Lobster Magazine, issue 14 in 1987. According to a lengthy article in the New York Times in 1977, the co-founder of the company told the newspaper that “Eldridge Haynes [the other founder] had provided cover for four CIA employees in various countries between 1955 and 1960″.

I see no reason to presume that the CIA/BIC relationship ended in 1960. Lobster is a quirky but reliable publication.

William Blum, a left-wing CIA expert, made the same catch:

In his autobiography, “Dreams From My Fathers”, Barack Obama writes of taking a job at some point after graduating from Columbia University in 1983. He describes his employer as “a consulting house to multinational corporations” in New York City, and his functions as a “research assistant” and “financial writer”.

The odd part of Obama’s story is that he doesn’t mention the name of his employer. However, a New York Times story of 2007 identifies the company as Business International Corporation.

In his book, not only doesn’t Obama mention his employer’s name; he fails to say when he worked there, or why he left the job.

Obama’s bios are as important for what they leave out as for what they reveal. I first became suspicious of his now-infamous trip to Pakistan (which he took in the summer between Occidental and Columbia) because he refused to mention this adventure in his books.

Think of it: We are talking about a man who compiled not one but two autobiographical works before the age of 46. We are talking about an ambitious politician intent on establishing his foreign policy cred. Yet he refused to mention a dangerous trip to Pakistan which he made at a time when travel to that country was discouraged by the State Department. That country was then the focus of the CIA’s largest covert operation, the supplying of the Afghan mujahadeen. While there, this callow college kid met with one of the most powerful men in Pakistan — a meeting arranged by an unnamed personage with the American Embassy. (Spook-watchers know what that means.)

If the trip was a pleasure jaunt, why did Obama keep it a secret? And how did he pay for the journey?

This site encapsulates a series of points which I had earlier made at greater length:

Adding to the mix is the fact that Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother, had visited at least 13 countries in her lifetime, and had worked for companies that required travel to Pakistan. Her employers appear to have included the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Ford Foundation, Women’s World Bank, and the Asian Development Bank. Note that USAID and the Ford Foundation have (allegedly) been used as covers for CIA agents. . . .

Like mother, like son. Ann worked for at least two organizations notorious for providing CIA cover. Barack went straight from college to an organization known to provide CIA cover. Coincidence?

Let’s put it this way: How often do such things happen in your family?

Supposedly, Ann was a leftist. Yet she married Lolo Sotero, a key intermediary between the American oil companies and Indonesian strongman Suharto, installed by the CIA in an extremely bloody coup. (Obama admits the CIA connection in his book.) No genuine lefty would have had anything to do with Suharto or his cronies.

I do not claim to have conclusive evidence. Then again, one must ask: When we try to sort out who’s who and what’s what in the clandestine world, what constitutes hard evidence? If you are emotionally invested in Obama, then no amount of proof will ever suffice — except, perhaps, for a signed note by CIA director Panetta, saying “Yes, he worked for us.”

Photo website takes down Joker picture citing fraudulent copyright claim

Paul Joseph Watson, Prison Planet.com - The online photo-sharing giant Flickr has banned the Obama Joker image from its website, citing flimsy copyright claims which aren’t even applicable, in the latest attempt to chill free speech.

The image had received over 20,000 page views on the Flickr website before it was pulled for apparent “copyright-infringement concerns,” due to the Time Magazine logo appearing in the picture.

Flickr’s claim that the image represents an infringement of copyright doesn’t stand up when one fully examines the law. The image clearly constitutes a derivative work and is perfectly legal.

“For copyright protection to attach to [a derivative work]…. it must display some originality of its own. It cannot be a rote, uncreative variation on the earlier, underlying work. The latter work must contain sufficient new expression, over and above that embodied in the earlier work for the latter work to satisfy copyright law’s requirement of originality,” reads one description of derivative copyright law.

Since simply putting a moustache on the Mona Lisa constitutes a legal “derivative work,” it is preposterous to claim that the Obama as Joker image, which is vastly different to the original Time photo of Obama, represents copyright infringement simply because the logo has not been removed. Indeed, there have been dozens of spoof front pages of Time Magazine posted on the Internet over the last decade.

“The price of free speech is to defend the speech you don’t like, and hence Flickr should be condemned for yet another stupid decision on copyright, one that on the face of it they’ve made even without receiving a claim from Time Magazine,” writes blogger Duncan Riley.

The move to ban the image is just the latest in a series of hostile measures taken by different authorities in an attempt to crush the viral success of the Obama as Joker image.

As we have covered, police and mainstream media outlets in Florida have characterized people posting the image on flyers as an attack on the residents of Clermont, creating “victims” of some kind of heinous crime. Felony charges are now being filed against a teenager for posting the flyers.

Establishment media attempts to denounce the Obama Joker as racist were always grasping at straws, but the issue was firmly put to bed earlier this week when it emerged that the creator of the original Obama as Joker image was not a white supremacist, as many on the left were hoping, nor even a Republican, but a politically independent Muslim-American of Palestinian descent.

The propagation of the contrived hoax that the majority of people are “disgusted” by the image has been proven fraudulent by polls showing that most people support the first amendment rights of people to post the flyers.

Columnist who compared Obama campaign to Hitler’s Nuremberg rallies is expelled

Ben Stein, censored for criticism of Obama

Steve Watson, Prison Planet - A columnist for the New York Times has publicly stated that he believes he was fired last week simply for criticizing president Obama and his policies.

Commentator Ben Stein writes in the American Spectator that the real reason for his dismissal was not, as the Times indicated, due to a conflict of interest arising from his role as a spokesperson for credit rating service FreeScore.com, nor for budgetary issues.

Rather, Stein states, he was “expelled from the New York Times” due to recent criticism of Obama.

“The two main things, as I see them, were that I started criticizing Mr. Obama quite sharply over his policies and practices.” Stein writes.

“I had tried to do this before over the firing of Rick Wagoner from the Chairmanship of GM. My column had questioned whether there was a legal basis for the firing by the government, what law allowed or authorized the federal government to fire the head of what was then a private company, and just where the Obama administration thought their limits were, if anywhere. This column was flat out nixed by my editors at the Times because in their opinion Mr. Obama inherently had such powers.” he explains.

Stein added, “By a total coincidence, I was tossed overboard immediately after my column attacking Obama. (You can attack Obama from the left at the Times but not from the right.)”

Stein is well known for his controversial 2008 film Expelled, in which he argued that the scientific theory of evolution has contributed to the rise of fascism, communism, atheism, abortion and eugenics.

Stein believes that his commitment to this project also contributed to his eventual dismissal, following a barrage of hate mail from those he describes as “neo-Darwinists”.

He also cites his questioning of Goldman Sachs’ activity as another reason for his firing.

“I made a new set of antagonists by repeatedly and in detail criticizing the real power in this country, the “investment bank” Goldman Sachs, for what seemed to me questionable behavior. This elicited a mountain of favorable mail but also some complaints by well-placed persons.” he writes

Stein was previously criticized in 2008 interview after comparing one of Obama’s major campaign rallies to Adolf Hitler’s Nazi rallies at Nuremberg.

Read Stein’s full account here.

Infowars - Michael Shaw, over at Huffington Post, does not seem to understand the Obama-as-Joker poster. “Regarding the image specifically, I’m interested in your read, particularly Obama in chalky white face. Besides the allusion to the President as a psychopath and more insidiously, a man behind a mask, does the chalk exploit race by suggesting the man is playing at being white? What I’m also concerned about, aside from the psycho-Joker reference, is the association to violence (emphasized by the gang tags in the background), Obama with the bloody mouth and, particularly, a couple of black eyes,” muses Shaw.

Liberals far and wide are like Chatty Cathy dolls when it comes to either criticizing or parodying Obama — they uniformly assert racism is at work. Of course, one of the reasons our rulers selected Obama is because they want to disarm all criticism by playing the race card. In our politically correct and brainwashed society, any allusion to racism immediately destroys an argument — no matter how reasoned or logical.

The white face — and clowns usually hide their faces under white makeup (it is called “clown white”) — has nothing to do with an attempt to portray Obama as a white person. It’s about Obama as the Joker, and not necessarily the Joker played by the late Heath Ledger.

Bob Kane’s original comic book Joker is a master criminal and a bizarre psychopath. Obama is not necessarily a psychopath — that is to say a ruthless hands-on serial killer — but by the standard of his office he is a master criminal, or rather a front man for a cartel of master criminals.

In 2009, the office of the president is nothing if not a wholly owned subsidiary of the international bankers. In fact the whole of Congress is owned by the banksters and their corporate minions, a fact the liberals consistently miss or are incapable of understanding mostly because many of them are beholden to foundations established by the same bankster elite.

Shaw is also perturbed by the reference to violence in the Joker poster. It is of course incomprehensible for most liberals to believe Obama represents the most violent and sadistic force in the world — the United States government long ago taken over by the aforementioned bankster cartel or mafia. Three million dead Vietnamese, one million plus dead Iraqis, an undetermined number of Afghans and assorted others either directly slaughtered by the U.S. war machine or its numerous proxies should be evidence enough. So should the penchant for torture and economic warfare, the latter waged against literally billions of people, including the kool-aid drinking liberals. Obama is the current and transitional face of this high-tech murder and economic violence machine.

Liberals never learn. Back in the day when the supposed liberal Bill Clinton held office they looked the other way when he attacked the former Yugoslavia and butchered thousands of Serbs under the sickly guise of humanitarianism. Liberals even devised arguments in favor of Clinton’s slow motion war against the people of Iraq and the engineered murder of 500,000 or more Iraqi children under the brutal sanctions regime imposed by the United Nations, a globalist organization liberals generally support.

Of course, so-called conservatives are no better. They supported the same murderous behavior on the part of Bush and crew. It is sour grapes at work now that the obverse side of the New World Order is in the saddle. It is a parlor trick and the conservatives buy into it with the same mindless zeal as the liberals.

The basic problem with the Obama as Joker poster is that its message is lost on those who believe the government is basically good and all it takes to turn things around (things accomplished by that monster Bush) is that we elect the right man to the office of president. It is intellectual laziness that prevents most people from reading the true message.

Finally, the word “socialism” dilutes the message. Obama is not a socialist. He does not believe in worker ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a more egalitarian method of compensation, that is to say the textbook definition of socialism. Obama is a front man for a cartel of fascists and monopoly men — and determined eugenicists.

“If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead, it becomes logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs,” explained the late Gary Allen. “Communism or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite.”