The Danger of Conspiracy Theories

[Pat Speer]

I do think conspiracy theories are dangerous--but not because they cause people to question "officialdom."

I think they're dangerous because they are equal opportunity employers. The right claims the commies killed Kennedy. The left claims the right killed Kennedy. The right then claims the left railroaded Nixon. The left then claims the CIA railroaded Nixon, on behalf the right. The left then claims Reagan and Bush are murderers. The right then claims Clinton was a murderer. And so on. And so on.

The net effect, then, is of conflicting theories, which allow those interested in these theories to pick whichever one floats their boat, and claim it as the one great truth.

One of my friends says that the notion of truth is an out-dated one, and I'm beginning to think he's right. One of the reasons I suspect as much is the widespread popularity of conspiracy theories regarding Obama (secret muslim, born in Kenya, didn't earn his grades at Harvard, etc). This is all transparently racist bs, IMO, And yet, this stuff seems true and credible to what? 30% of the American public?

At this point, I'm convinced that most of the theories of any popularity are bs, and that this bs is dangerous because it distracts us from the real issues of the day.

When debating whether or not George Bush planned 9/11, for example, most avoid the real tangible evidence that he and his administration were grossly incompetent, and that he should never in a million years have been re-elected in 2004...and that the was re-elected in part because many of those arguing against him were making outlandish claims against him (that he'd deliberately murdered Americans) --which the public at large would never buy--while failing to report what the official facts showed--that he and his administration were gross incompetents who'd failed to perform even their basic duties (protecting America). And that they'd done this for political reasons. (They'd thought Osama Bin Laden was a mirage conjured up by the Democrats to distract us from the real Boogiemen--Putin and Hussein.)

Edited October 5, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Guest Tom Scully]

The commercial media has a dismal record of advocacy for anyone but the owners of the owners.

http://aliciapatterson.org/stories/lessons-ida-tarbell

The Lessons of Ida Tarbell

Steve Weinberg

....By the time she started, Tarbell had won a measure of fame for her serialized biographies in McClure's Magazine on Napoleon Bonaparte and Abraham Lincoln. Finding new material on those historical figures had been difficult. Rockefeller presented a different kind of challenge. He was alive, not dead, and at the zenith of his power. He had no intention of letting a mere journalist - and a woman, at that - assault his empire.

Tarbell's biggest obstacle, however, was neither her gender nor Rockefeller's opposition. Rather, her biggest obstacle was the craft of journalism. She proposed to investigate Standard Oil and Rockefeller by using documents - hundreds of thousands of pages scattered throughout the nation - then fleshing out her findings through well-informed interviews with the company's executives, competitors, government regulators and academic experts.

In other words, Tarbell proposed to practice what today is considered investigative reporting. But in 1900, as she began her research, investigative reporting did not exist. Tarbell would have to invent a new form....

http://muckrack.com/ggreenwald/statuses/239777678754996224

@TPCarney I agree with you that the supreme media basis is not liberal or conservative but fealty to political authority

.......................

At this point, I'm convinced that most of the theories of any popularity are bs, and that this bs is dangerous because it distracts us from the real issues of the day. ......

...and that the was re-elected in part because many of those arguing against him were making outlandish claims against him ........ --which the public at large would never buy--

Oh horrors, Pat! "The public at large" of the U.S.A. is the dullest, cooperatively indoctrinated, and subservient mass ever to endeavor to deliberately undercut its own best interests.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/04/third-party-us-presidential-debate-deceit

Wednesday night's debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney underscored a core truth about America's presidential election season: the vast majority of the most consequential policy questions are completely excluded from the process. This fact is squarely at odds with a primary claim made about the two parties – that they represent radically different political philosophies – and illustrates how narrow the range of acceptable mainstream political debate is in the country.

In part this is because presidential elections are now conducted almost entirely like a tawdry TV reality show. Personality quirks and trivialities about the candidates dominate coverage, and voter choices, leaving little room for substantive debates.

But in larger part, this exclusion is due to the fact that, despite frequent complaints that America is plagued by a lack of bipartisanship, the two major party candidates are in full-scale agreement on many of the nation's most pressing political issues. As a result these are virtually ignored, drowned out by a handful of disputes that the parties relentlessly exploit to galvanise their support base and heighten fear of the other side.

Most of what matters in American political life is nowhere to be found in its national election debates.....

.....Yet none of these issues will even be mentioned, let alone debated, by Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. That is because they have no discernible differences when it comes to any of the underlying policies,....

......all but the most centrist positions are off limits.

The harm from this process is not merely the loss of what could be a valuable opportunity to engage in a real national debate. Worse, it is propagandistic: by emphasising the few issues on which there is real disagreement between the parties, the election process ends up sustaining the appearance that there is far more difference between the two parties, and far more choice for citizens, than is really offered by America's political system.

One way to solve this problem would be to allow credible third-party candidates into the presidential debates and to give them more media coverage. Doing so would highlight just how similar Democrats and Republicans have become, and what little choice American voters actually have on many of the most consequential policies. That is exactly why the two major parties work so feverishly to ensure the exclusion of those candidates: it is precisely the deceitful perception of real choice that they are most eager to maintain.

If your concern about what "the public at large would never buy," or would buy, is an actual consideration of any importance, could this ignored crisis in the USA even get to this ridiculous level of disparity, and then be almost ignored as a major political issue, with the majority of the public loudly demanding a political solution, delaying or eliminating a violent one?

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2004/0704miller.html

Ronald Reagan's Legacy

His destructive economic policies do not deserve the press's praise.

John Miller

....... In the broader historical sweep, the Reagan tax cuts saved America from following Western Europe into welfare-state decline. In addition to igniting growth, his tax cuts put a brake on the expansion of government that had seemed unstoppable.

When Mr. Reagan took office, the top marginal U.S. tax rate was 70%. When he left the top rate was 28%; it is now 35%, and even John Kerry has conceded with his proposal to cut some corporate taxes that the marginal rate of tax matters. Today Americans may disagree about what tax cuts are needed, how deep they should go, and what they ought to target. But the debate itself reflects Mr. Reagan's central premise: that people respond to incentives, and that high taxes interfere with natural human creativity and drive.

—The Wall Street Journal, June 7, 2004

....Two days after his death, the Wall Street Journal ran a lengthy editorial tribute to Ronald Reagan, in the editors' estimation the most important president since FDR. In their paean to the fortieth president, Reagan gets credit for everything from winning the Cold War to renewing a sense of optimism at home. Oh, and he gets extra kudos for doing it all with that famously sunny disposition.

On economic policy, as the Journal tells the story, by tying the hands of meddlesome government bureaucrats and cutting taxes, Reaganomics ignited an episode of miraculous economic growth that restored prosperity to the U.S. economy. But like much of what Reagan had to say while he was president, what the Journal offers is just so much happy talk that masks a mean-spirited, economically unsound, and socially destructive policy agenda. ...

...Today, the average real earnings of nonsupervisory workers remain far below those of 30 years ago, despite healthy wage gains in the second half of the 1990s expansion, when unemployment rates dropped toward 4%.

Nor did Reagan era growth do much to alleviate poverty. The poverty rate in 1989 at the end of Reagan's two terms was still 12.8%. That was just one percentage point lower than at beginning of his administration. In contrast, the 1990s boom knocked three percentage points off the nation's poverty rate, while the 1960s boom nearly cut it in half.

Reagan administration economic policies did not result in a 1960s-style prosperity, when workers' real wages went up in tandem with the value of stock holdings—just the opposite. Since 1980, the gains from U.S. economic growth have gone overwhelmingly to the well-to-do, and economic inequality has steadily worsened. By 2000, the ratio of the family income of the top 5% to that of the bottom 20% stood at 19.1, a dramatic rise over the 1979 ratio of 11.4. Reagan's economic policies ushered in the return of levels of inequality unseen since the eve of the Great Depression. ....

...But what about the particulars of Reaganonomics (or supply-side economics), which in practice meant large tax cuts targeted at the rich, a military buildup, and slashing social spending? That too is a disturbing story.

The tax cuts came in 1981, Reagan's first year in office. The administration's plan slashed corporate and individual income tax rates, with the biggest cut in the top rate. The Reagan team promised that their tax cuts would jolt the economy back to life because, as the Wall Street Journal's editors put it, "high taxes interfere with natural human creativity and drive." And the true believers went so far as to suggest that the economy would grow fast enough that tax revenues would actually rise, making the tax cuts painless.

The results never came close to measuring up to the supply-side rhetoric. For starters, the tax cuts busted the federal budget. The federal deficit ballooned from 2.7% of GDP in 1980 to 6% of GDP in 1983, the largest peacetime deficit in history, and was still 5% of GDP in 1986. Tax revenues did pick up, especially after the 1983 payroll tax increase kicked in, reducing the deficit somewhat.....

.....Worse yet, most low-income taxpayers missed out on the Reagan tax cuts. The bottom 40% of households paid out more of their income in federal taxes in 1988 than they had in 1980. Increases in the payroll taxes that finance Social Security and Medicare, which made up a far higher portion of their federal tax bill than income taxes, swamped what little benefit these taxpayers received from lower income tax rates. For the richest 1%, on the other hand, the Reagan tax cuts were pure elixir. This group saw their effective federal tax rate drop from 34.6% to 29.7%, according to a recent study conducted by the Congressional Budget Office. As these numbers suggest, Reagan left a far less progressive federal tax code than he found.

While the Reagan military buildup kept overall government spending from shrinking, Reagan's budgets slashed social spending. Domestic discretionary spending, which includes just about all nondefense spending outside of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, was the special target of Reagan's budget cutting. Relative to the size of the economy, one-third of domestic discretionary spending disappeared: it fell from 4.7% of GDP in 1980 to 3.1% in 1988. Hardest hit were programs for low-income Americans, which in real terms suffered a withering 54% cut in federal spending from 1981 to 1988. After correcting for inflation, subsidized housing lost 80.7% of its support, training and employment services 68.3%, and housing assistance for the elderly 47.1%. These programs have never returned to their pre-Reagan spending levels. In fact, under the Clinton administration spending on domestic discretionary programs continued to decline relative to the size of the economy.

Reagan's economic legacy endures. Government continues to turn its back on social spending for the poor in favor of ineffectual tax giveaways for the rich, at same time that it finds unlimited monies for military adventures. Lopsided economic growth showers benefits on stock investors while doing precious little for workers or—not an entirely separate group—the poor. And today's Depression-level inequality is not mitigated as much as it once was by the tax code ......

...and 35 years later.... the top 5 percent own 58.9 percent of everything, vs. the top 4 percent owing 37 percent of US wealth in 1969....

"Of all the offspring of Time, Error is the most ancient, and is so old and familiar an acquaintance, that Truth, when discovered, comes upon most of us like an intruder, and meets the intruder's welcome."

If you are cursed with the afflictions of intelligence and curiousity in the USA, acting in one's best interest amounts to emigrating to another place in the world where there might exist the possibility of a public at large inclined to discover the priorities and goals of the oligarchy and those who support it, and to then commit politically to opposing and undoing those priorities and goals.

[Chris Newton]

I think that decrying "Conspiracy Theory" is a thoroughly modern invention that started in the nineteen-sixties to assuage the public. It's part of the "dumbing-down" of society in general.

Here in the US, we've had conspiracies since before we were a republic and, in the distant past, when there was evidence of them exposed there wasn't a huge backlash of thinking that those that exposed them were some kind of cabal of flakes.

There was in our history a conspiracy to kidnap and kill George Washington, the Lincoln Assassination, the Mckinley Assassination, the Truman assassination attempt. By definition, these were all conspiracies.

Now we have Lone Nuts, lots of them. They are easier to explain. We got him! ...nothing more to see here, move along folks.

[Chris Newton]

In fact, in the spirit of full disclosure, I come from a long line of conspirer hunters. My Great (x5) Uncle was General John Cadawalader who fought a duel with General Conway, who with General Gates had conspired to supplant George Washington (see the Conway Cabal).

The story of the duel the way I heard it was that General Conway fired first and missed. General Cadawalader then raised his pistol but a strong gust of wind made him lower it and wait. Conway shouted "You fire with Deliberation, Gen. Cadwalader!".

"I do" General Cadawalader responded, "when I aim at a traitor".

General Conway was shot in the mouth but survived.

Both of General Cadawalader's sisters, Margaret and Hannah are my Great (x5) Grandmothers .

Edited October 6, 2012 by Chris Newton

[Daniel Gallup]

"One of my friends says that the notion of truth is an out-dated one, and I'm beginning to think he's right." Pat, I'm sure you mean that the Kennedy assassination happened only one way, but that it is increasingly impossible for us to say exactly how. At least I hope that is your meaning.

[Don Jeffries]

Most people accept the conventional view of history, in which "great" figures arise to offset dastardly villains, significant events are attributed to randomness and a slew of complex factors make it difficult for the unwashed masses to understand it all. It is assumed under this theory that those with great power will excercise it with good intentions, and that they have some sort of principles. Except for our enemies, of course, whose leaders are cardboard caricatures who hate our freedom.

An increasing number of us, especially young people, look at politics more skeptically. They analyze historical events from the assumption that those with great power will not exercise it with good intentions, and that the whole history of the world (with very few exceptions) bears this out. The founders understood this concept pefectly, and created a wonderful system of checks and balances to prevent great concentrations of power anywhere. They would be mortified at our present Orwellian superstate.

Rather than worry about what the mainstream media thinks, we ought to be calling out mainstream "journalists" on their despicable behavior. The reason the JFK assassination conspiracy was so successful is because of their total willingness to swallow the most absurd contentions of the Warren Commission, FBI, Secret Service, etc. from the moment the shots were fired in Dallas. Tom Wicker, David Brinkley, Walter Cronkite and co. refused to tell the truth about anything related to the events that day, and in subsequent years, the Dan Rathers, Ted Koppels, Peter Jennings, Keith Olbermanns of the world have followed meekly along. Only an extremely large conspiracy, with extremely powerful conspirators, could possibly conrtol that many allegedly independent "journalists" for such a long period of time.

We should be willing to look at any issue honestly, and shouldn't fear being labeled "wacko" or "extremist" because of our intellectual curiosity. As I've noted, one looks at virtually any significant political event of the past fifty years, and one finds the official account of it to be dubious at best. During our lifetime, history has become little more than a massive psyop. The problem now, for those who misrule us, is that the internet serves as a great communication tool between all of us who are outside the matrix and willing to independently think. Thus, when something like the supposed death of Bin Laden occurs, average citizens all over the world can instantly analyze and investigate it, expose the flaws in the official story, without waiting for CNN, Fox News and the other television networks to assure us that "there is nothing to see here, move along."

If you truly look at recent history with an unbiased eye, you will find the "left" and "right" labels to be meaningless. LBJ had numerous unnatural deaths attributed to him, as did Reagan, both Bushes, Clinton and Obama. Reagan wasn't the only national poltician playing a part; these guys are all actors to some degree. With all the nonsensical wars we've been involved in for over twenty years, if the Democrats were truly a "leftist" party, then at least one of their presidential nominees would have been a strong peace candidate. Instead, the Democrats really only had one true peace candidate during this period, Dennis Kucinich, and he never had a chance to get more than 2-3% in any primary (mainly because all those unnecessary, manipulative pre- election polls kept telling us he didn't).

All national candidates, and all national figures of prominence, agree on every substanial issue. They may disagree of things like gay marriage, but on the truly important subjects, they are always in lockstep. Every one of them supports every war, occupation, invasion or bombing of other countries. They all believe in the idea that America should be the world's policeman. They all support the disasters of NAFTA and other "free" trade agreements. They all support corporate welfare. They all preach that we are a "global" economy. They all believe in a "strong military." They all strongly support anything Israel does. They all believe in a "bipartisan" foreign policy, which means essentially that they have agreed not to ever make foreign policy a campaign issue. They all support the Federal Reserve and our fractional banking system, which is legalized counterfeiting. They are all eugenicists, to at least some degree. They all believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, and decry any and all "conspiracy theories."

I don't know what the answer is, but those who get their history from television, or the likes of court historians like Stephen Ambrose or Douglas Brinkley, know less historical truth than the most uneducated souls in the trailer parks or ghettos. 9/11 is the JFK assassination of today's young generation, and groups like We Are Change are doing a great job of exposing how vested our leaders are in maintaining that partcular fairy tale. The least informed poster on this forum knows more about the JFK assassination than all the Pulitzer Prize winning historians do, or at least that's the only conclusion one can come to from reading their pronouncements upon the subject.

Edited October 6, 2012 by Don Jeffries

[Dawn Meredith]

Hi Mark... nicely put. Yet I must disagree with your Osama conclusion... it was the Pakistani Army who supported the terrorists, MOST of them were Saudis, the list of hijackers is woefully incorrect and NEVER been updated

There was no reason to 'update' it because they is no doubt about their identities

and finally, the FBI NEVER LISTED 9/11 when describing and listing Osama's crimes

LOL I love that one, yes the USG orchestrated this giant conspiracy to murder thousands of people and fake huge amounts of evidence but were unwilling or able to include 9/11 on his wanted poster! It was not listed because he had not been indicted. He wasn't indicted presumably because it was unlikely he would every be brought to trial.

Such bs. You do not have to be indicted to be on the FBI's most wanted list.

Loved your post Don and looking very forward to your book.. People who deny conspiracy are either very stupid or lying..

However the "no people died" on 9-11 or there were no planes "explanation" is disturbing. I ignore people who run that scam.

Dawn

[John Dolva]

Thought provoking post, Don. Thank you.

________-

I unplugged from the TV and Newspapers about 5 years ago. Now I follow patterns both globally and locally. Inevitably someone will tell me about something going on. I'm seldom surprised but I'm more equanimous. The illusion of choice is more apparent as an illusion as capital closes ranks and disarms debt/wage slaves, cutting services, education, health, welfare for I think two main reasons. 1 to manage a growing pool of unemployed in order to excert pressure on the employed and thereby control costs and maximise profits. 2 and this is probably very disturbing for many but that aside remembering history; create and control a large pool of cannon fodder as capitalism will seek to correct its contradictions and restart with destroyed infrastructure, new markets in land and resources with a new marshalled workforce.

If that is so, the two most important weapons that one can equip oneself with are a clear mind and a healthy body because correct decisions are going to be needed. Not un-calm or hysterical responses which is what an atmosphere of terror plays on, but an open mind that evaluates matters equanimously. Fear is what they want you to feel. Do not be afraid. Be happy.

Peace

edit typo

Edited October 6, 2012 by John Dolva

[Evan Burton]

David Corn, the author of Blonde Ghost: Ted Shackley and the CIA's Crusades (1994) has argued "out-there conspiracy theorizing serves the interests of the powers-that-be by making their real transgressions seem tame in comparison." Do you agree?

Absoluely, if I understand them correctly. The people who are continually claiming this and that do nothing but add to the noise, so that any real conspiracy simply gets hidden. Additionally, the general public hear all the bunk that gets promoted and becomes desensitised or distrustful. It's like the little boy who cried "Wolf!".

[Evan Burton]

At this point, I'm convinced that most of the theories of any popularity are bs, and that this bs is dangerous because it distracts us from the real issues of the day.

Well said.

[Len Colby]

and finally, the FBI NEVER LISTED 9/11 when describing and listing Osama's crimes

LOL I love that one, yes the USG orchestrated this giant conspiracy to murder thousands of people and fake huge amounts of evidence but were unwilling or able to include 9/11 on his wanted poster! It was not listed because he had not been indicted. He wasn't indicted presumably because it was unlikely he would every be brought to trial.

Such bs. You do not have to be indicted to be on the FBI's most wanted list.

Aren't lawyers supposed to have decent read comprehension skills? Where did I ever say you "have to be indicted to be on the FBI's most wanted list"? OBL was already on the list on 9/11. His wanted poster never listed 9/11 because he was never indicted for it. But perhaps Ms. Meredith as to list people who made "on the FBI's most wanted list." without being indicted.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted

EDIT - Added FBI link for Dawn

Edited October 9, 2012 by Len Colby

[Mark Gorton]

15 of the 19 hijackers were admitted to the US under a special CIA visas for terrorists program,

Wrong

Len, My source for the claim that 11 (sorry, I was wrong about the 15) of the 19 hijackers got their visas through a CIA compromised program is: http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a1987springmann#a1987springmann

Michael Springmann, head US consular official in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, later claims that during this period he is “repeatedly ordered… to issue [more than 100] visas to unqualified applicants.” He turns them down, but is repeatedly overruled by superiors. [BBC, 11/6/2001; ST. PETERSBURG TIMES, 11/25/2001] In one case, two Pakistanis apply for visas to attend a trade show in the US, but they are unable to name the trade show or city in which it will be held. When Springmann denies them a visa, he gets “an almost immediate call from a CIA case officer, hidden in the commercial section [of the consulate], that I should reverse myself and grant these guys a visa.” Springmann refuses, but the decision is reversed by the chief of the consular section. Springmann realizes that even the ambassador, Walter Cutler, is aware of the situation, which becomes “more brazen and blatant” as time goes on. On one occasion Springmann is even told, “If you want a job in the State Department in future, you will change your mind.” [CBC RADIO ONE, 7/3/2002;TRENTO, 2005, PP. 344-6] Springmann loudly complains to numerous government offices, but no action is taken. He is fired and his files on these applicants are destroyed. He later learns that recruits from many countries fighting for bin Laden against Russia in Afghanistan were funneled through the Jeddah office to get visas to come to the US, where the recruits would travel to train for the Afghan war. According to Springmann, the Jeddah consulate was run by the CIA and staffed almost entirely by intelligence agents. This visa system may have continued at least through 9/11, and 11 of the 19 9/11 hijackers received their visas through Jeddah (see November 2, 1997-June 20, 2001), possibly as part of this program (see October 9, 2002 and October 21, 2002). [BBC, 11/6/2001; ST. PETERSBURG TIMES, 11/25/2001; CBC RADIO ONE, 7/3/2002; ASSOCIATED PRESS, 7/17/2002 ; FOX NEWS, 7/18/2002]

[Mark Gorton]

"

The LBJ Body Count, the Clinton Body Count, the Bush Body Count, the Obama Body Count- each modern administration has a slew of unnatural deaths associated with it. There is a continuous line of corruption from LBJ straight through to Obama; the horrific leaders Americans have been saddled with prove Lord Acton's axiom about absolute power corrupting absolutely quite convincingly.

Don,

Thanks for a very nice post. You mention the Obama body count. I am not up to speed on the more recent incarnation of the organized corruption of our government. Most of my knowledge comes from reading books, and they tend to be several years out of date by the time they come out, and even more, by the time I get around to reading them. Could you give me a quick summary of the deaths associated with Obama? Or could you direct me to some good sources on the topic?

In addition, I am puzzled by Obama's stance on govt secrecy and releasing old govt docs. Superficially, Obama seems to me to be a pretty clean guy, but based on his actions, I have to assume he is somehow compromised, so I assume I am missing something. If you or anyone else could explain to me how Obama is caught up in this whole mess, I would appreciate it.

Thanks,

Mark

[Guest Tom Scully]

"

The LBJ Body Count, the Clinton Body Count, the Bush Body Count, the Obama Body Count- each modern administration has a slew of unnatural deaths associated with it. There is a continuous line of corruption from LBJ straight through to Obama; the horrific leaders Americans have been saddled with prove Lord Acton's axiom about absolute power corrupting absolutely quite convincingly.

Don,

Thanks for a very nice post. You mention the Obama body count. I am not up to speed on the more recent incarnation of the organized corruption of our government. Most of my knowledge comes from reading books, and they tend to be several years out of date by the time they come out, and even more, by the time I get around to reading them. Could you give me a quick summary of the deaths associated with Obama? Or could you direct me to some good sources on the topic?

In addition, I am puzzled by Obama's stance on govt secrecy and releasing old govt docs. Superficially, Obama seems to me to be a pretty clean guy, but based on his actions, I have to assume he is somehow compromised, so I assume I am missing something. If you or anyone else could explain to me how Obama is caught up in this whole mess, I would appreciate it.

Thanks,

Mark

"Saddled with" ???? A horse does not saddle itself. The "American people" chose Reagan over Carter and Bush and his son. The last "selection" could be debated, but then they chose Bush's son a second time. Obama should have been over when he flip flopped on his allegedly steadfast objection to telecom amnesty. I was done with him at that point. If you chose to live out your life in the midst of the :American people" and to vote for one of the two "choices" the pathetic, right of center, headed further right of center, American electorate chooses to root for, you really do not have much justification to complain unless it is about your own failure to emigrate.

Edited October 7, 2012 by Tom Scully

[Don Jeffries]

Mark,

The Obama body count began during the time period of the 2008 Democratic convention. Two delegates loyal to Hillary Clinton died unnaturally within a few weeks of each other. Obama sounds good, but his past is murkier than any president we've ever had. While the "birther" movement has been dismissed by the msm as Tea Party-inspired hatred, the questions surrounding all the myriad of Social Security numbers for Obama alone raise troubling questions. All of Obama's college records are sealed. Why?

Obama has invaded and/or bombed more countries than Dubya ever dreamed of. He signed the NDAA, which is probably the most dangerous legislation in American history. Like most of his Democrat and Republican peers, he wants to control the internet and restrict public access to alternative views. Never forget his aide Cass Sunstein's desire to literally outlaw "conspiracy theories." I don't see where he's done anything to improve things.

While Obama is not, to my knowledge, on the public record regarding the JFK assassination, I think it's a certainty that he would say that he believed Oswald acted alone. He is no "Muslim" or "socialist" or anything else his laughable right wing critics claim he is. He's merely another establishment pawn, completely subservient to organized corruption.