Watching Barack Obama’s Attempted Coup

18 Responses to Watching Barack Obama’s Attempted Coup

1. gator69 says:

   January 24, 2015 at 1:38 pm

   Maybe Skeeter should hire Miriam Goderich as his press secretary, since everyone seems to believe her explanations.

   Reply
   • Menicholas says:

     January 25, 2015 at 12:51 am

     Did he really take The Oath?
     He recited something, but what?

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdhrulfXib4

     Reply
2. philjourdan says:

   January 24, 2015 at 2:02 pm

   Good catch on the quote. Others have picked up on it.

   Reply
3. gator69 says:

   January 24, 2015 at 2:10 pm

   97% of US citizens agree:

   Climate change is real

   Congress is dangerous

   #DoNothing

   Fixed it!

   Reply
4. Neal S says:

   January 24, 2015 at 2:16 pm

   Not the mention that doing what he thinks is best for america is NOT part of the oath of office. And it seems to me that often he has done his best to bypass or ignore the constitution.

   Reply
   • gator69 says:

     January 24, 2015 at 2:21 pm

     “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may
     be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than
     under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes
     sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for
     our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of
     their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same
     time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with
     intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which
     we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet
     reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants,
     imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
     – CS Lewis

     Reply
5. Pathway says:

   January 24, 2015 at 3:42 pm

   According to the Little Dictator he did not swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, but rather an oath to do what he thinks is right for the American people.
   Big difference there.

   Reply
6. gofer says:

   January 24, 2015 at 6:28 pm

   Obama going to Saudi Arabia to meet with new king. Will he bow again? Shuns Israel prime minister and then meets with Arab dictator. This is whats called a clue.

   http://toprightnews.com/?p=8093

   Reply
   • Tel says:

     January 24, 2015 at 10:25 pm

     What is it with Washington and the Saudis? Not just Obama but GW Bush was a great buddy to the Saudis. There are a whole bunch of US arms getting sold into Saudi Arabia and not just that, but the USA is using Saudi Arabia as a training base for “moderate” Islamists who will be the next round of militants in Syria (and just as likely turn around in a week or two and start shooting at the people who trained them).

     http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/16/us/syria-rebel-training/

     You have to wonder whether it has occurred to anyone that this has ended very badly every other time.

     Reply
     • Gail Combs says:

       January 25, 2015 at 12:10 am

       It gets worse. Thanks to 9/11 the USA has the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA groping little wheelchair bound three year olds and old ladies in walkers.

       What about the Saudis? 15 of the 19 Hijackers were citizens of Saudi Arabia.

       28 pages were removed from the ‘Official Report’ on 9/11

       “There’s nothing in it about national security,” Walter Jones, a Republican congressman from North Carolina who has read the missing pages, contends. “It’s about the Bush Administration and its relationship with the Saudis.” Stephen Lynch, a Massachusetts Democrat, told me that the document is “stunning in its clarity,” and that it offers direct evidence of complicity on the part of certain Saudi individuals and entities in Al Qaeda’s attack on America. “Those twenty-eight pages tell a story that has been completely removed from the 9/11 Report,” Lynch maintains. Another congressman who has read the document said that the evidence of Saudi government support for the 9/11 hijacking is “very disturbing,” and that “the real question is whether it was sanctioned at the royal-family level or beneath that, and whether these leads were followed through.” Now, in a rare example of bipartisanship, Jones and Lynch have co-sponsored a resolution requesting that the Obama Administration declassify the pages.
       http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/16/911-the-saudi-connection/

       So what is the Obama Admin response?
       U.S. Grants Saudis ‘Trusted Traveler’ Privileges to Help Them Through Airport Security

       ….On January 16, 2013, Janet Napolitano met with Mohammed bin Nayef and announced the plan. Napolitano stated, “I am proud of the bond between the United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and today’s meeting marks another major step forward in our partnership. By enhancing collaboration with the Government of Saudi Arabia….

       Global Entry streamlines the screening process at airports, allowing customs to bypass “trusted travelers” … Those in the program can skip normal Customs and Border protection lines starting next year. Participants may enter the United States by using automated kiosks located at select airports….

       “….The Bush administration (which, created the DHS) had its own EZ-Pass system for Saudi elites. Called “Visa Express,” it permitted Saudis to obtain U.S. visas without being photographed or having to apply in person. It was the vehicle by which three of the 9/11 hijackers gained entry to the U.S.….”
       (wwwDOT)examiner.com/article/u-s-confers-ez-pass-status-on-travelers-from-saudi-arabia

       To add insult to injury while Napolitano lets Saudis by-pass checks and foreigners waltz across our Southern border, She was yapping to the News Media about ‘Homegrown Terrorists’

       Homeland Security: Everyone’s a Threat

       Feeling the heat from veterans groups, pro-life organizations, conservatives, and even Democratic members of Congress, President Barack Obama’s Secretary for Homeland Security Janet Napolitano was forced to make a slight about-face regarding a controversial intelligence report issued by her department for law-enforcement agencies, including federal-state “Fusion Centers.” In a string of media appearances in mid-April, Secretary Napolitano half-apologized for a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report that has drawn severe criticism for targeting conservative political opponents and associating them with dangerous terrorists.

       The DHS document that stirred up the political firestorm is a leaked ten-page report entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” The most harshly criticized section of the report concerns the finger of suspicion it points at military veterans. The report, which was distributed to law-enforcement agencies nationwide, warns:

       The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.

       “Returning veterans,” the report continues, “possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists.” It warns that the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis “is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.”….

       The MIAC report turned into an especially hot potato when it became known that it specifically named political candidates and political parties, implying that they and their supporters should be viewed as potential terrorists, and/or threats to law enforcement. The MIAC report states:

       You are the Enemy: The militia subscribes to an antigovernment and NWO [New World Order] mind set, which creates a threat to law enforcement officers. They view the military, National Guard, and law enforcement as a force that will confiscate their firearms and place them in FEMA concentration camps. [Bold emphasis in original.]

       The MIAC report then states: “Militia members most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups. It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitutional Party, Campaign for Liberty, or Libertarian material. These members are usually supporters of former Presidential Candidate [sic]: Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr.”….

       Reply
     • Hew Manatee says:

       January 25, 2015 at 1:46 am

       What is it with Washington and the Saudis?
       Do some research on the Carlyle Group.

       Reply
   • Gail Combs says:

     January 24, 2015 at 11:42 pm

     Not to mention that while he Shunned Margret Thatcher’s funeral Obummer and Michelle Obama flew to South Africa for Nelson Mandela’s funeral. Mandela was a member of the South African Communist Party.

     Not only did Obama fail to attend Margret Thatcher’s funeral he did not even send Vice President Joe Biden or Secretary of State John Kerry. Instead he sent tokens more appropriate to a third world dictator. Obama sent former Secretaries of State George Schultz and James Baker, former U.S. Ambassador to Britain Louis Susman.

     In 1982, PM Margaret Thatcher sent the British military to reclaim the Falkland Islands from an Argentinean invasion. The Falklands residents voted in March 2013, to remain British by a 99.8 percent margin. However Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have sided with Argentina even calling the Falkland Islands, “The Malvinas” and Clinton in June 2012, even went so far as to say “We would like to see Argentina and the United Kingdom sit down and resolve the issues between them across the table in a peaceful, productive way.”

     WTF? The issue WAS resolved by force and then by vote. CAN”T THESE FOOLS READ recent history? OR is the only reality the acknowledge the fantasies in their heads?

     OH and he insulted the Queen. As the Queen’s specially invited guest at a banquet he made a speech talking over the orchestra playing God Save The Queen. This is akin to a foreign head of state talking over the Pledge of Allegiance or the US National Anthem.

     Obama again insulted Great Britian by returning a bust of Sir Winston Churchill, by Sir Jacob Epstein. It was loaned to George W. Bush from the Great Britain art collection after the September 11, 2001, attacks. That same bust was returned to the British soon after Obama was elected. Great Britain offered to let Obama keep the bust for four more years, but Obama said: “Thanks, but no thanks.”

     Obama also gave the Russians, the serial numbers of every Trident missile sent to Great Britain by the US. This information undermines British nuclear secrets by telling the Russians exactly how many Trident missiles Great Britain has. The information was not Obama’s to give.

     That is only a partial list of Obummer’s diplomatic gaffs.

     Reply
7. Tel says:

   January 24, 2015 at 10:18 pm

   At least he admitted that is is NOT “scientists” who agree with him but “climate scientists” who are another thing all together.

   Reply
8. sabretoothed says:

   January 25, 2015 at 2:33 am

   Wasn’t there a science journal recently that debunked the 97% crap?

   Reply
   • Gail Combs says:

     January 25, 2015 at 8:21 am

     WUWT has been debunking the 97% all along.

     The first survey was a simple two question survey by Doran and Zimmerman.
     About that overwhelming 97-98% number of scientists that say there is a climate consensus…
     1027 surveys were sent to American Geophysical Union members. (Earth Scientists)
     3146 surveys were returned.

     Doran and Zimmerman cherry picked a small subset — just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals. So “98% of all scientists” referred to the 75 of those 77 who answered “yes” to the second question.

     That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

     The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?
     

     Of the 3146 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question.

     Note that over 6000 refused to respond to the idiotic questions.

     What else did the ‘97% of scientists’ say?

     “This was a very simplistic and biased questionnaire.”

     “..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides..”

     “..The “hockey stick” graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science..”

     “..I’m not sure what you are trying to prove, but you will undoubtably be able to prove your pre-existing opinion with this survey! I’m sorry I even started it!..” (Doran/Zimmerman feedback)

     (The article contains a link to the feedback comments)

     Then there is Cook’s more recent 97% survey.
     The 97% consensus myth – busted by a real survey
     The Kiddies at SkS looked at 12,000 papers written in the last 25 years. Tossed 8000 of the papers as not taking a position. (A silent NO!)

     ….They put people who agree into three different bins — 1.6% that explicitly endorse global warming with numbers, 23% that explicitly endorse global warming without numbers and then 74% that “implicitly endorse” because they’re looking at other issues with global warming that must mean they agree with human-caused global warming.

     …..Richard Tol has tried to replicate their study and it turns out they have done pretty much everything wrong. And they don’t want to release the data so anyone else can check it. Outrageous.

     Read Tol’s letter to the Peter Høj, University of Queensland: “the main finding of the paper is incorrect, invalid and unrepresentative.”

     The 97% consensus myth – busted by a real survey
     The survey is titled:

     Meteorologists’ views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members¹

     …. in January 2012 we surveyed all AMS members with known email addresses, achieving a 26.3% response rate (n=1,854). In this paper we tested four hypotheses:
     (1) perceived conflict about global warming will be negatively associated–and (2) climate expertise,
     (3) liberal political ideology, and
     (4) perceived scientific consensus will be positively associated–with
     ….(a) higher personal certainty that global warming is happening,
     ….(b) viewing the global warming observed over the past 150 years as mostly human-caused, and
     ….(c) perception of global warming as harmful.
     All four hypotheses were confirmed. Expertise, ideology, perceived consensus and perceived conflict were all independently related to respondents’ views on climate, with perceived consensus and political ideology being most strongly related.….

     Respondent options were:
     Yes: Mostly human
     Yes: Equally human and natural
     Yes: Mostly natural
     Yes: Insufficient evidence [to determine cause]
     Yes: Don’t know cause
     Don’t know if global warming is happening
     Global warming is not happening

     Here’s the kicker:

     Just 52 percent of survey respondents answered Yes: Mostly human.

     The other 48 percent either questioned whether global warming is happening or would not ascribe human activity as the primary cause.

     Reply
     • globalcooler says:

       January 27, 2015 at 1:55 am

       And the report found that the primary reasons for answering yes were a left leaning political ideology and a belief in the supposed 97% claim.

       Reply
9. Gail Combs says:

   January 25, 2015 at 9:12 am

   Not only did Richard Tol and Bjørn Lomborg rip the Cook survey to shreds but so did Dr William Briggs, “Statistician to the Stars” –

   “In any survey such as Cook’s, it is essential to define the survey question very clearly. Yet Cook used three distinct definitions of climate consensus interchangeably. Also, he arbitrarily excluded about 8000 of the 12,000 papers in his sample on the unacceptable ground that they had expressed no opinion on the climate consensus. These artifices let him reach the unjustifiable conclusion that there was a 97.1% consensus when there was not.

   “In fact, Cook’s paper provides the clearest available statistical evidence that there is scarcely any explicit support among scientists for the consensus that the IPCC, politicians, bureaucrats, academics and the media have so long and so falsely proclaimed. That was not the outcome Cook had hoped for, and it was not the outcome he had stated in his paper, but it was the outcome he had really found.”

   And so did Psychologist José Duarte SEE: (wwwDOT)joseduarte.com/blog/more-fraud
   A psychologist’s scathing review of John Cook’s ‘97% consensus’ nonsensus paper

   Psychologist José Duarte writes: The Cook et al. (2013) 97% paper included a bunch of psychology studies, marketing papers, and surveys of the general public as scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change. Let’s go ahead and walk through that sentence again. The Cook et al 97% paper included a bunch of psychology studies, marketing papers, and…

   Not to mention Brandon Shollenberger, Mike Hulme*** ?!? Shub Niggurath and Paul Homewood

   Dr. Richard Tol’s draft paper on this issue,The madness of 97% 98% consensus herds

   Authors are now reporting that their papers were categorized improperly:
   Dr. Morner, Dr. Soon, and Dr. Carlin are classified as SUPPORTING CAGW! Good grief just the names tell you they don’t support CACA.

   And finally: Cooks ‘97% consensus’ disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors

   PRESS RELEASE – September 3rd, 2013

   A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950.

   A tweet in President Obama’s name had assumed that the earlier, flawed paper, by John Cook and others, showed 97% endorsement of the notion that climate change is dangerous:

   “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” [Emphasis added]

   The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.

   The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.

   Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it….

   Dr Legates said: “It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%.

   “It is still more astonishing that the IPCC should claim 95% certainty about the climate consensus when so small a fraction of published papers explicitly endorse the consensus as the IPCC defines it.”…

   PAPER: Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change

   David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

   http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9

   ***NOTE: Hulme was an “employee of the University of East Anglia between 1988 and 2013, which included being a member of the Climatic Research Unit (1988-2000) and then the founding Director (2000-2007) of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.” Hulme was a ‘specialist’ in the Secret 28gate BBC meeting that led to censoring of skeptics.

   In one of the Climategate e-mails you find:

   Mike Hulme:

   “Did anyone hear Stott vs. Houghton on Today, radio 4 this morning? Woeful stuff really.

   This is one reason why Tyndall is sponsoring the Cambridge Media/Environment Programme to starve this type of reporting at source.” (email 2496)

   Reply
10. Gail Combs says:

    January 25, 2015 at 9:17 am

    Given all the evidence that not only is CAGW a tempest in a teapot, but that the ClimAstrologists have been lying through their teeth for years, one would think the beast would be dead and buried by now.

    No wonder the Fabian/Progressives using CAGW to push their One World Dictatorship, really really want to blew skeptics to he!! and gone. We are mucking up their nice neat plans for our future enslavement.

    Reply