Spirit In Action

Change IS coming. WE can make it GOOD.


Leave a comment

Obama Should Seek Legal Prosecution, Not Illegal War

Obama Should Seek Legal Prosecution, Not Illegal War

Saturday, 07 September 2013 14:28By Kevin Zeese, The Green Shadow Cabinet | Op-Ed

The most effective deterrent against the use of chemical weapons is not the mass bombing of Syria, an action that would be illegal under international law and counterproductive, but to use the international legal system that has been built since World War I and take legal action under the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Members of the Security Council should immediately pass a resolution referring the issue of the use of chemical weapons in Syria to the International Criminal Court. This would be an approach working within the framework of the rule of law to enforce the ban on chemical weapons that all members of the Security Council would agree on and would strengthen the international regimen that bans chemical weapons, rather than weaken it.

In his August 31st Statement on Syria, President Obama warned about of the “costs of doing nothing,” in response to the use of chemical weapons. The president asked:

“What’s the purpose of the international system that we’ve built if a prohibition on the use of chemical weapons that has been agreed to by the governments of 98 percent of the world’s people and approved overwhelmingly by the Congress of the United States is not enforced?”

Just as President Obama has complied with the constitution by seeking a resolution from Congress authorizing the use of the military in Syria, he should also respect the rule of international law by abiding by the requirements of the chemical weapons ban and referring the matter to the International Criminal Court for investigation and prosecution. Remarkably, the United States itself is not one of the 122 countries who have signed on as parties to the International Criminal Court. By withholding our support for this … (Read the whole article at the link below on Truthout- http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/18673-obama-should-seek-legal-prosecution-not-illegal-war )


6 Comments

Seven Chilling Facts About Retirement in America That Should Make Obama Tremble Before Cutting Social Security and Medicare

Tuesday, 09 April 2013 12:46 By Lynn Parramore, AlterNet | Report

We are headed for a catastrophic retirement train wreck. A Wall Street-driven financial crisis has stripped millions of people of things like jobs, pensions and home equity that were supposed to deliver a dignified retirement after a lifetime of hard work. The crisis has also provided certain interests the opportunity to make false claims about the unaffordability of vital social insurance programs like Social Security and Medicare that help the 99% make it. These opportunistic Raiders of Your Lost Retirement do not give a hoot if you starve in your golden years this is about money to them. American financiers hate Social Security, for example, because they want to push us toward private retirement accounts on which they can charge fees. A large swath of the wealthy does not like Social Security and Medicare because they do not like to pay taxes.

You might think Obama would be on the side of the citizens on this one. But it seems that the President will officially propose this week to cut Social Security and Medicare as part of his annual budget, despite the fact that this move would be economically irresponsible, socially disruptive and morally repugnant. Here are seven things that should make Obama tremble before he dares to announce such a betrayal of the American people.

1. Retiring on thin air: In a recent report by the Employee Benefits Research Institute (EBRI), we find that a whopping 57 percent of American workers have managed to put away less than $25,000 for retirement less than the one years annual income for the median American adult. In 2008, that number was 49 percent, and the problem is getting worse every year. Half of American workers are either not too confident or not at all confident that they will be able to make ends meet in their retirement. In her must-read New York Times op-ed, economist Theresa Ghilarducci doesnt mince words or numbers. She estimates that close to half of middle-class workers will be poor or near poor in retirement and reduced to living on a food budget of about $5 a day. That wont even buy a decent bag of cat food.

In the face of this bleak picture, the President appears to be poised to propose a cut to Social Security in the form of a chained CPI a way of calculating annual cost of living increases that does not keep up with the actual costs senior have to pay. Economists including Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, have discredited chained CPI. Baker warns that it can cost retiring 65-year-olds the sum of $650 per year, and that number can leap to twice that amount once seniors reach 85.

2. Pension perils: American workers like pensions better than higher incomes, more vacation time and bigger bonuses. And its no wonder: retirees with pensions have far more income security than their pension-less counterparts. In 2011, one out of three older adults enjoyed some form of pension, but thatnumber has been shrinking for decades. Since 1985, 84,350 pension plans have vanished. Corporate pensions have gone the way of the dodo bird and the precious few private pensions that remain are in jeopardy. Public pensions are the targets of cynical austerity hawks who use the excuse of state and municipal budget crises that have little to do with pensions (and much to do with Wall Street) to make war on workers retirements.

This puts an added strain on retirees, and we dont yet know how catastrophic its going to be because many affected by the pension killing-spree will not retire for many years. But we surely know this: pensions have been a vital part of retirement that have kept retirees afloat, and without them, more will sink into poverty.

While were on the subject, it may interest you to know that the President will receive a pension that will start at around 200k per year after his second term, and it will go up from there. Thats just the beginning other perks include travel, office expenses, and so on. And yet he is preparing to make it more difficult for those Americans without pensions to survive. Something wrong with this picture?

3. The 401(k) catastrophe: Its high time to face it: the 401(k) experiment, which started in the 80s, has been a complete disaster. 401(k)s dont even come close to providing the retirement security promised to workers. To expect Americans to morph into finance experts who can evaluate mutual funds and stockmarket choices may be one of the most absurd legacies of the last three decades. And, as Helaine Olen outlines in her book Pound Foolish: Exposing the Dark Side of the Personal Finance Industry, people trying to save for retirement have become a prime target of hustlers who push mutual funds with hidden fees and needless charges which pile up and rob the contributor of hard-earned money.

And lest we forget, Enron, like many other companies, put strong pressure on employees to invest in the companys stock. Result? Many employees lost most of their life savings when the company blocked workers from selling its stock held in 401(k) accounts, just as the stock price was taking a downward plunge.

401(k)s are volatile, complicated, expensive, and inadequate. Social Security, on the other hand, is simple, fiscallly sound, and prudently managed.

4. Political games dont wash: Social Security raiders tell us that the program needs to be fixed, with very little to back up their claims. There is nothing wrong with the program now, so they forecast and lets remember how good these same people were at forecasting the financial crisis some kind of future crisis.

Here are the facts: According to the trustees of the Social Security trust fund there might be a shortfall in revenues against predicted claims in 2033 ifeconomic growth is not good. You could reasonably argue that a tweak ought to be made a couple of decades down the road when we actually know how things stand, like making the rich pay Social Security taxes on the money they make over the current low ceiling of just over $100,000.

There is no justification for doing anything now, and the raiders know it. So they make things up. Economists Thomas Ferguson and Rob Johnson note this in their article, From New Deal To Raw Deal: The Real Economics Of Cutting Social Security. They observe that Peter Orszag, the former head of the Obama administration’s Office of Management and Budget, who now works at Citigroup, has admitted that Social Security has nothing to do with any budget crisis:

The first yellow flag is Orszag’s frank acknowledgment that Social Security features barely at all in any putative budget short fall: Social Security is not the key fiscal problem facing the nation. Payments to its beneficiaries amount to 5 percent of the economy now; by 2050, they’re projected to rise to about 6 percent.

Orszag knows the truth, but because he is aligned with the interests of financiers, he comes up with a stunning justification for making cuts:

As Orszag frankly confesses, even though Social Security is not a major contributor to our long-term deficits, reforming it could help the federal government establish much-needed credibility on solving out-year fiscal problems.”

In other words, politicians have to cut Social Security not because it has any negative impact on the budget, but to prove to the markets that they can. Hows that for logic?

5. Americans oppose cuts: The American people have made it abundantly clear that they do not want Social Security and Medicare cut. And yet the President has made your retirement a bargaining chip in budget negotiations with Republicans, smuggling the cuts through the customs of specious arguments about the need to govern and so on. Lets call this what it is: immoral. The social insurance that provides hard-working Americans protection against financial and health calamities should not be a bargaining chip any more than civil rights should be a bargaining chip. The dignity of our elderly, not to mention the health of our children and vulnerable citizens who rely on these programs to live, are part of the fundamental structure of a decent society and are essential to our economic prosperity. How, for example, is a person at peak working age to remain fully productive when she has to care for elderly parents who cant make ends meet?

A more cynical view of whats happening is that Obama is paying off his wealthy donors. A political scientist I know warned me when Obama was elected the first time that he would do very little on financial reform because Wall Street had always been one of his major funders. That same political scientist warned me this time around that Obama would make cutting entitlements a priority in his second term for much the same reason: a coalition of big business interests supported his reelection, and this is what they want in return. If Obama goes through with these cuts, he will have spelled out for all those who supported him exactly who he represents.

6. Means-testing Medicare is discredited: Reports say that Obama will propose to cut $400 billion from Medicare over the next decade. One idea that may appear in his plan is means-testing, a notion that has long been the golden dream of those who hate Medicare and Social Security because it tends to diminish political support for the programs.

A few months back, when a lot of Democrats and liberals were touting means-testing, I decided to ask several prominent economists, including a Nobel Prize-winner, to explain to me what they make of it. Please turn your attention to: 6 Reasons Joseph Stiglitz and Other Top Economists Think Means-Testing Medicare and Social Security Is a Destructive Idea. Their conclusion: means-testing is nothing more than a back-door strategy for taking away benefits earned by hard-working people. As Stiglitz explained, it undermines progressive values by going against notions of fairness and shared citizenship while promoting the false idea that Social Security and Medicare are welfare, which they arent. As James Galbraith explained, these programs are not charity; they are social insurance.

We dont means-test public education, Stiglitz told me, because we believe that we want people to have the same opportunities and we lose out on that with means-testing. Shouldnt that go for dignified retirement and adequate medical care in old age? Stiglitz thought so.

Healthcare costs are a terrible problem, but not because your grandmother receives benefits. The problems stems from monopolistic conditions in the insurance industry, ridiculously high prices for drugs charged by pharmaceutical companies, and a fee-for-service system that encourages doctors to charge for expensive and unnecessary services. If politicians were really interested in addressing rising healthcare costs, they would deal with those issues.

7. Women at risk: Woman were instrumental in getting Obama elected, and yet he is proposing to throw them under the bus. As Manisha Thakor points out, women live longer than men and need more support in old age. Thakor notes that recently, ABC World News Tonight anchor Charlie Gibson reported that when it comes to healthcare, male retirees required $170,000, while female retireres had to come up with $240,000. And yet how are they going to find this money when they retire with two-thirds of the assets of men?

Saving is particularly difficult for women because they still do more housework and have added childcare and eldercare responsibilities compared. Plus, they also earn less than their male counterparts. Proposing cuts to Social Security and Medicare will mean that more women will sink into the mire of poverty. Much has been said of the GOP war on women. How sad and cynical for a Democratic president to join them.

Lynn Parramore

Lynn Parramore is an AlterNet contributing editor.

(You can read the original story and many more important stories ignored by the mainstream press at Truthout-click the link below-

http://truth-out.org/news/item/15624-seven-chilling-facts-about-retirement-in-america-that-should-make-obama-tremble-before-cutting-social-security-and-medicare )


3 Comments

Letter to a Non-Voter …from Michael Moore

Letter to a Non-Voter …from Michael Moore

Sunday, November 4th, 2012

To my friend who is not voting on Tuesday:



I get it – and I don’t blame you. You’re fed up and you could care less whether Tweedledee or Tweedledumber wins on Tuesday – because on Wednesday, your life will be the same, unchanged, regardless who is president. Your mortgage will still be underwater. You will still owe $50,000 on your student loan. Your son will still be in Afghanistan. Your daughter will still be working two jobs to make ends meet. And gas will still be at $4.



Four years ago you gave in and voted – and you voted for Obama. You wanted to believe he would go after the Wall Street crooks who crashed the economy – but instead the banks that were “too big to fail” four years ago are now even bigger and more dangerous. You thought there’d be universal health care – but the new law only went so far (with most of it not taking effect until 2014). You were tired of war and homeland security measures that violated our civil liberties – but we’re still in Afghanistan, we’re sending in drones to Pakistan and basic constitutional rights to privacy and a fair trial have been ignored. And you thought you’d have a middle-class, good-paying job like your dad had – but you didn’t know that Goldman Sachs was Obama’s #1 private campaign donor in 2008, and well, he was beholden to corporate America in more ways we cared to think about. 



So, I get it why you’ve had it with all these politicians and elections. In the end, it doesn’t really seem to be our country any more. It’s run by those who can buy the most politicians to do their bidding. Our schools are made a low priority and women are still having to fight for just the basic human rights we thought they already had.



So, it’s hard for me to ask you for this very personal favor. It’s OK if you say “no,” but I’m hoping you don’t.



I cannot believe it is possible that, after a group of rich plutocrats wrecked the economy, threw people out of work and stole our future, we may actually hand the keys to our country over to…a rich Republican plutocrat who made millions by throwing people out of work! This is insane, and despite all the legitimate criticisms of Obama, he is nothing like the tsunami of hate and corporate thievery that will take place if Mitt Romney is president. As bad as it feels now, it will only get worse. I need your help to stop this.



I can’t promise you that your life will get better, easier under Barack Obama. I do think he cares and I know for sure that if the other guy is sitting in the Oval Office, I can guarantee you that not only will your life not get better, it will get much, much worse. Don’t take my word for it. Just ask your parents what life was like before a 30-year pillage by the Republicans of the middle class. Your parents bought a house and eventually owned it outright. They weren’t in debt. College was free. They bought a new car every 3 or 4 years. They took vacations and were home for dinner by 5 or 6 PM. They had a savings account in the bank. They didn’t live in fear of not knowing if they’d even have a job next year. 



That’s all gone. I don’t know if we can get it back, but I do know that Mr. Romney would love the chance to complete the final elimination of the middle class and the American Dream. 



He must be stopped. Take 20 minutes on Tuesday and go vote. If you don’t want to do it for your country, then do it for me! It’s the only favor I’ll ever ask of you.



Thanks for taking the time to read this. I know that you care, and care deeply, about your future and your kids’ future. You have every right to be cynical about all this. And you hold the power to stop the bastards who plan on squeezing every last dime out of you that they can. Take a stand. And make a statement to those who are hoping against hope that you’ll stay home on Tuesday. Your presence at the polls is what they fear most.



Go scare the s**t out of them! For me.

Yours,
Michael Moore
MMFlint@MichaelMoore.com
@MMFlint
MichaelMoore.com


Leave a comment

Obama Must Use Military to Ensure a Free and Fair Election

Obama Must Use Military to Ensure a Free and Fair Election
November 4, 2012
http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/obama-must-use-military-to-ensure-a-free-and-fair-election

Editor’s note: if you agree with this note, please call your local and national media and ask them to report on this appeal to Obama. They can speak to Tikkun staff at 510-644-1200.

Obama Must Use Military to Ensure a Free and Fair Election
By Jonathan Klate

Witnessing this presidential election drama is like a nightmare in which a catastrophic multi-car collision on a fog shrouded, rain-slicked interstate is developing in slow motion. You see it from above, the helicopter view. The cars begin to skid and spin slowly out of control, hurtling towards each other, the inevitable crunches of steel and cascades of splintered glass anticipated. You are powerless to stop it. And, what is worse, in the surreal dreamscape, you are also a passenger in one of the cars.

Newly enacted rules regarding who may vote, when they may register, what sort of never before required ID will be required and who faces discouraging obstacles in obtaining it, how underserved will be certain voting precincts resulting in lines and waits so long as to effectively disenfranchise many hoping to vote, and challenges to citizens rights by vigilante mobs are widely forecast to compromise and potentially cast doubt upon the outcome of this election.

The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School, featuring some of the most prestigious scholars in the field of voting rights, reports that the breakdown of those without government issued photo ID includes 6 million seniors, 5.5 million African Americans, 8.1 million Hispanics, 4.5 million eighteen- to twenty-four-year olds, and 15 percent of voters with household income under $35,000 a year.

There’s some double-counting due to group overlap, but the net result is that some five million voters are losing their civil rights, overwhelmingly in twelve “battleground” states.

This is compounded greatly by the purges in Florida, Ohio, and elsewhere of likely Democratic voters. And all of this comes before the actual voting and counting which is itself egregiously suspect due to privately owned, coded, and operated electronic voting machines by companies without federal oversight including notoriously those in Ohio where the election may well be decided by an outfit in which the son of candidate Romney has an influential financial interest.

Things are so ominous that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), a United Nations partner on democratization and human rights projects, will deploy observers from its human rights office around the country on Election Day to monitor an array of activities, including potential disputes at polling places and efforts to suppress minority voters likely to vote for President Obama.

All signs indicate that the election will be dramatically close and likely come down to a contest between Democratic turnout efforts and Republican suppressive action, according these corrupting factors the potential to be decisive. Obama’s strategy seems to be winning with enough of a margin to render cheating too problematic for the opposition to overcome his actual advantage. But, with current polls projecting a photo finish, this is a dubious game plan.

If the election process is compromised the only mechanism for remedial action will be in the courts and the only venue with sufficient authority to mandate adherence to a decision determining the outcome will be the Supreme Court. The justices perpetrated one of the grand travesties of American judicial history in 2000, and the right is lawyered up and ready to bring the fight across all of the swing states and to the Supremes in the event of disputed outcomes. If they do it again, will Obama deem it his solemn responsibility to enforce a blatantly political, extra-Constitutional decision, acquiescing meekly as did Gore and our president at the time, Bill Clinton? One is compelled to imagine that he would.

Thus Obama must pre-empt such an eventuality and use every mode and method of power at his command to guarantee the right of every citizen to vote wherever it is deemed to be threatened, whether by jurisdictional authority or by vigilante activism.

In 1958, President Dwight D. Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard and sent the 101st Airborne into Little Rock when the governor of that state refused to enforce the rights of all Americans to attend school together. It was the right thing to do then and similar action is required now. After the election devolves into dispute will be too late.

Here is the kind of speech I would hope to hear President Obama deliver, and the sooner the better.

“My Fellow Americans, When you elected me as your president, I placed my hand upon the Holy Bible, and I swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Nothing is more fundamental to our nation and its constitution than the right to vote.

Brave Americans have fought and died through the centuries and are doing so today to guarantee the right to free and fair elections in far flung places around our world, so important to us as a people is this principle, not just for ourselves, but for everyone.

Nobody should be able to vote who does not qualify to do so according to the Constitution of the United States of America. Fortunately, this has rarely happened. In our long national history, however, many people, whole classes of people, have been denied this right. We must ensure that those days of disenfranchisement of our citizenry never return.

Everybody who does qualify and wants to vote must not have that right compromised, hindered, threatened or violated; not by any state or municipal authority; not by accidental misapplication of constitutional law; not by inadequate facilities or personnel; not due to discriminatory difficulties in accessing polling places that privilege one group of voters over another; and certainly not by the intimidation of vigilante mobs. Furthermore, the counting of votes must be done without the slightest suspicion of discrepancy. This is how we determine the will of the people.

In my view, the obstruction or intimidation of one single American from exercising their right to vote must be regarded as akin to terrorism, and must be prevented from occurring anywhere.

In order to uphold and defend the constitutionally guaranteed right to vote I will, as your president and Commander-in-Chief, utilize any and all powers of our federal government to observe, monitor, and – when and if necessary – enforce this right if it is in the process of being infringed. Monitors, backed by any required presence of federal authority, will be sent to any jurisdiction where information suggests infringement may occur, according to information gathered by the Department of Justice.

We will rely upon local law enforcement to do its job in every jurisdiction. We will reinforce this presence, should in our judgment it be required, by the armed forces of the United States of America to guarantee the absolute integrity of our democracy as the foundation stone of our liberty and as a model for the world. In this way, we will ensure that our government truly still is and evermore will be of the people, by the people, and for the people, so help us almighty God.”

The presence of armed forces would underscore the serious nature of the threats to democracy posed by the tactics of disenfranchisement being deployed by those determined to wrest the presidency from Barack Obama by any means necessary. Is it radical? Of course. Is there another way? The petitions flying around the web urging the Department of Justice to “Do something!” are exercises in futility. And it must be emphasized again, once the election is stolen there will be no effective recourse. The theft must be prevented.

The troops would serve as observers and peace keepers to ensure that there is no intimidation of voters such as that which is promised by vigilante groups issuing “citizen challenges” to, for example, voters of color, in swing states. Local law enforcement cannot be relied upon to adequately prevent this particularly if these intimidators turn out to number in the thousands as they threaten to. Vigilantes would be monitored, controlled, and prevented from harassing citizens. Also, violence could erupt between the challengers and those challenged which could disrupt voting by perhaps even leading to riots at some polling places. This would be welcomed by the vigilantes since disruption of voting by any means required is the point. So federal troops would be charged with ensuring public safety by preventing such confrontational escalation.

In precincts with inadequate numbers of voting facilities yielding long lines and waits of many hours, the military could keep those polls open until all who wish to vote have done so.

Technicians would be deployed to monitor voting machines to ensure recording and counting is properly supervised, and they would be protected in turn and enabled to do their job by the military.

The precincts selected for deployment would be only in those swing state districts where justice department intelligence strongly suggests that violations of civil right are likely to occur.

If the deployment of the military seems ill advised, I would ask, what is the alternative? Is refraining from such a radical course worth the subversion of the election and the commandeering of the White House in what would amount to a bloodless coupe; or, depending upon one’s interpretation of the 2000 debacle, another coupe?

Recommending military presence in our streets does not make me happy. One can imagine what a Romney administration might do with such a president. But then, the imagination of that possibility, achieved through obstruction of the voting process to obscure the will of the majority of those who intend to vote and have their votes counted, is the ironic impetus animating this suggestion.

Jonathan Klate is a frequent contributor to Tikkun magazine.

http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/obama-must-use-military-to-ensure-a-free-and-fair-election


Leave a comment

President Obama Tours New Jersey Storm Aftermath With Governor Chris Christie

3CHICSPOLITICO

UPDATE:

From the New York Times:  <Snip>  The overnight transformation of Mr. Christie from political slasher to disaster governor is a reflection of the magnitude of the devastation in New Jersey. Asked on Fox News whether Mr. Romney might tour damage of the state, Mr. Christie was dismissive.   (MEMO to Mittens:  TAKE A HINT)

FROM THE WHITE HOUSE

How to Help the Survivors of Hurricane Sandy

As recovery and clean up begins along much of the East Coast, we know that people across the country are asking what they can do to offer to aid their fellow Americans.

FEMA offered a list of suggestions, including the most efficient ways to donate, best practices for volunteering, and a special reminder that the Red Cross has a need for blood donations right now.

If you’re a survivor of Sandy or know someone in need of shelter, see this

View original post 21 more words


Leave a comment

I Support Obama (Re-post from Aquarius Channelings)

This is a repost from Aquarius  Channelings (link is at the end of the article).

I pray what Obama, and others, are doing now to create change-from every level of society, Occupiers and other protesters, all the way up to those in positions of power whose allegiance is to the Earth and all living beings instead of to the power structure-will be enough. I pray that my copy of Deep Green Resistance will be something to read and think fondly of what we didn’t end up having to do-because change IS coming, NOTHING will stop it-the only question left is will it be quick, will it be simple and reasonably comfortable? Or will it take a lot more sacrifice, and work to get there?

 

I Support Obama

 

 

I have posted this in the ‘Making First Contact’ section because I believe Obama will be very instrumental in bringing disclosure and ‘First’ Contact to us.

“Every person I know who is on the inside, still in black-ops, reveals that there is great hatred of Obama within their ranks because he is NOT working on their side.”- David Wilcock

 “Regardless of celestial origin and current culture, age, skin color, religion, gender, ethnicity, or nation of residency, prior to birth all peoples now on the planet knew the soul who would incarnate as Barack Obama and joyfully agreed to his becoming president of the United States to lead that country and the world into the Golden Age”- Matthew Ward

Friends, there are many at this time who feel dissapointed in President Obama. There are many that feel he has not accomplished what he said he would for the United States, and there are many who send him outright hate on a daily basis. I personally understand the reasons behind disapointment, but pointless hate towards Obama benefits nobody, least of all We The People. You see, Barack Obama is and has always been truly trying to enact real change for the United States, and for the world. The problem is, he is facing extreme opposition from those who have held all of the power for so long. It is not easy for one person to stand up against an entire network of criminals who have had a tight grip on government for a century. These criminals know that the best way to weaken Obama and keep him from enacting real change is to get the public against him, and that is exactly what they have done.

These criminals have used the ‘news’ media networks that they own to constantly slam Obama, to use their age-old propaganda to sway the public on an issue. Propaganda has been their main method of control over people for a century now. Think about it. How did cannabis become illegal? Propaganda. How did we get tricked into senseless war after senseless war for decades now? Propaganda. They use fear to get what they want. They use fear to manipulate us, and make us think a certain way. It is the exact same with Obama. Remember the healthcare debate ‘coverage’?

They were actually trying to convince people that with universal healthcare for all, their grandparents would actually be put before ‘death panels’ that decide whether they live or die! I mean come on people! Clearly senseless fear-mongering. I remember they also used illusory ‘polls’ that stated that over half the country were against Obama Care, only to have those ‘polls’ exposed as hoaxes! People, I pray for those who are so anti-Obama to wake up and realize they are being manipulated by the very system they rebel against. It is one thing to feel disappointed in Obama for so far not being able to break through the seemingly invincible power structure of those who keep us down, but it is entirely another thing to accuse him of being one of those who keep us down. He certainly is not. There are so many people who send Obama extreme hate on a daily basis, you have to realize this weakens him and keeps him from being able to enact real change! Those who manipulate others to do their hateful bidding know this.

I leave you all with this song by Wyclef Jean, please listen, truly listen to the words as they demonstrate the power these shadowy cabals have over government:

If you look back in history you will notice that there were a few presidents who attempted (and in some cases succeeded) to enact real change and expose real truth to the public, and they ended up dead, usually before their terms ended. Coincidence? You decide.

http://aquariuschannelings.com/making-first-contact/support-obama/