Copyright © Old Holborn 2007-2008 and the respective owners whoever they may be - though it's hardly likely is it?. All rights reserved. Every single one. None of the materials provided on this web site may be used, eaten, reproduced, or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, carrier pidgeon, osmosis, semaphore, chav txting (gr8) recording or the use of any information storage and retrieval system, papyrus, bits of old toilet paper, fag packets, carrier bags, mystic meg etc., except as provided for under fair use, without permission in writing from the publisher - me and my dog. To request such permission and for further enquiries, contact the dog using the contact form. Offer her a bone. She likes bones.
To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonoured. That is government; that is it's justice; that is its morality.
.JPG)
22 Comments:
"Whoever is in charge of the US, it isn't Obama"
That was exactly what I thought, when I watched it.
Take it the bank - well now we know Obama's rhetoric is as bust as they are.
Ian - Presidents are only front men for faceless cabals.
Good question OH Who`s in charge of the US?
Military Industrial Complex
Generals etc
Giant corporations
Giant media
CIA
Oil barons
Land barons
Ronald McDonald
Michele Obama
Religious right
Russia
China
Israel
I`m guessing there`s a few more all pulling on Obamas strings.
Being the most powerful man on the planet looks a tough job.
Lehman Brothers, presumably. A clever bit of irony from Obama's lobbyist script writers?
Obama isn't in charge of anything, other than keeping the masses in check. Like Blair, and Brown, and all the rest, really, he's given just enough of an illusion to use as a base for method acting, but that's it.
A puppet.
Down Syndrome becoming more prevalent in the U.S.
found an increase in prevalence of more than 30 percent over the last 24 years
Makes sense.
Did he go to Eton with Cameron?
Urban11
It may be true. He may not be in charge.
There is still the other point to acknowledge.
When good campaigners (and he is a great one) land up with some real responsibility (the most inexperienced US leader ever? Contenders please) they have to face some reality.
Our little poster boy starts getting briefing after briefing explaining the geopolitical realities (as considered by the US's top professionals that will out credential Obama and he knows it), his campaign prose start to sound a little less than relevant. It is clearly orthodox opinion amongst the top US policy wonks and high military that a pull out now will be a disaster. Obama would actually have to be stupid to assume that a man of his background and experience would know better. This should be taken into account before using it as some sort of proof of NWO machinations or something.
Besides, he campaigned against Iraq and for Afghanistan, it is not a big swing away from what he campaigned on to try a 'surge' in Afghanistan.
If anything, by not sending the amount asked for by the expert, BO is bringing a bit of politics into it. That seems more like him than any ruthless money interests pulling his strings.
It's Obama. Obama and his leftist friends. His marxist buddies.
Too bad for him that he can't cut and run as he wants to.
"accelerating a risky and expensive war buildup, even as he assured the nation that U.S. forces will begin coming home in July 2011."
Bull.
It's a surge, aimed to bring more troops on the ground to kick the talis and AQ in the ass.
However, July 11th is a lie, again. Another lie coming from the commie in the White House. Full deployment of all new forces will take that long.
The only time when the US will move out will be when the mission is accomplished. Meaning: no more talis.
It's going to be the same as in Iraq. Where it actually WORKED.
I love it when civilians comment about military issues.
BO does not have the balls to pull the US out of Afghanistan. If he really foresees them shipping out in 2011, why send more now?
Afghanistan is, was, and will always be a great big fail.
If 'The One' laid off the White House party scene for enough time to sober up, he would realize it.
At least it'll be enough for him to pass the Baroness Warsi Muslim Test.
@That seems more like him than any ruthless money interests pulling his strings
Given what is now known about Obama's corporate backers, his lavish funding, and the carefully crafted/orchestrated nature of his campaign, it is meaningless to suggest that those around him didn't know that his claims, as shown above, were anything more than vapid, vote-grubbing rhetoric.
If we were to be charitable, at the expense of casting BO as something of a politically inept doofus, perhaps he wasn't aware of this - all the better to give a convincing performance, no? - but that point has already been made and is completely consistent with him being gullible, limelight whoring, NWO stooge-puppet.
@Gobshite17:04-If 'The One' laid off the White House party scene for enough time to sober up, he would realize it.
The President floats across the marble dance floors like he is floating on air...very graceful.
See how things turn out when you spend 90% of your career voting as "present".
Old Slaughter said: "When good campaigners (and he is a great one) ..."
He, isn't. His handlers did the donkeywork and anti-bush sentiment covered up the gaping cracks in Him. There were times when He slipped their leash and ummed and ahd through unscripted speechs, behaved in a petulant manner and displayed little common sense.
He is like Chance the gardener from Being There but on purpose. Tony Blair was similar. Saying things for the sake of saying things but worded in a way that they cannot be held against you.
Quote: "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank. " - Barack Obama Campaign Promise - October 27, 2007
liar!!!!
I don't think an honest speech would have gone down too well, i.e. "We'll leave when the gas pipeline is built and properly fortified, even if we have to bury it under a mound of bodies."
Apparently, if you don't actually say that out loud, you're never called on it by the supine vetted excuse for a "press".
With "promises" like that, Obama will get on brilliantly with Cast Iron Dave.
Brerc
I understand the nature of Blair and Obama.
He still won the primaries. That was not predicted, not buttered up well in advance by the MSM. It was done via a variety of other reasons. But it was a great campaign and he did the business on it.
He is a great campaigner. As was Blair.
Whether you wish to call them vacuous or not is another question. Immoral, another again. But don't underestimate their TV appeal and ability to convince idiots.
Sorry. Correct me if I am wrong but he is not talking about Afghanistan here is he?
Was this not his Irag 18 month pledge?
Which makes this whole post and thread comical.
want to understand politics?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU&feature=player_embedded
@Was this not his Irag 18 month pledge? Which makes this whole post and thread comical.
Assuming it was, I already had, it was but one element of his all encompassingly bogus peacenik rhetoric, was it not?
Do you think Obama has, or is at all likely to, made good on the spirit or substance of the anti-war sentiment that was such a noticeable feature of his campaign strategy?
What is at issue here is not whether Obama has considerable talent as a front man, he does. He is still a puppet who has little say, perhaps no effective say, in policy. He is in place to divert attention away from the decision making process.
Obama is not, and never will be, the change he claimed, and claims, to be.
It is indeed comical, in a sad sort of way.
When I saw the video I also thought he is not in charge of anything; not even the deployment of talent of his government.
Post a Comment