It's been called: the Era of O'Bama

It's been called the Era of O'Bama: "My Country Tis of Thee, Land of the O'Bama Family, of thee I sing".

As of now, that's President Barack O'Bama.

First brought into the national public eye immediately after the 9/11/2001 disaster/tragedy, Barack shortly became in quick succession: Senator, Committee Leader, Presidential Hopeful, Candidate in Last Position, Rising Candidate, Winning Democratic Candidate, Back to Presidential Hopeful, then Leading Candidate, then President Elect.

In only 7 short years, Barack O'Bama went from Chicago Landlord Lawyer and Inner City Democratic Party Vote Organizer and SubPrime Loan / Acorn Promoter, to the highest office in the land and Leader of the Free World, with only three years of actual Senatorial experience.

Never before in the History of the United States has any candidate risen that quickly from being a businessman lawyer to President of the United States.

Part of the reason for his success was the weakness of other candidates. Hilary Clinton suffered from a scattered backing and weak public performances, and even less experience or demonstrated potential than she might have, the former first lady, and her husband Bill Clinton seems to have become something of a liability.

John McCaine, with skeletons in his closet about his alleged disposession of Natives from his home state of Arizona in Coal for Beer deals with the Las Vegas and Tahoe crowd: http://www.cain2008.org/ and his weak overall public speaking prowess, and age limited appearance of vitality, paled by comparison, ending up with a decent showing, but losing by a substantial margin. Public attacks on Governor Sarah Palin, his running mate, by a Press stage manipulated to promote O'Bama at any expense by the Oil Industry owners of those many TV and Radio and News Outlets, were orchestrated from the Board Room to undermine Clinton and McCaine.

So what was the appeal? Why all the rush to summon up images of "Kennedy Camalot"/"O'Bama Bamalot" comparing Michelle O'Bama to Jackie Kennedy? The imagery was quite clear, a young president, and first lady, Chicago Rockefeller Business backing (as in David Rockefeller, Jr., John D. Rockefeller, Senator, and the rest of the erstwhile 150 richest people on the planet), a Kennedy image in the making.

Since more money is made by business by dividing people than by uniting them, could it possibly be that there is a hidden agenda afoot?

The ACSA at the outset of Barack O'Bama's candidacy, predicted he'd win by a mid margin and that eventually, the financial resources who had backed him, would attempt to orchestrate an assassination or extremely pro-African American, anti-Caucasian American subdivision over his policies, or both, in an effort to divide White and Black America apart even further, further defining "cheap labor" for their businesses as 'black and minority labor', and further suppressing the middle class, redirecting its wealth to the upper class of, well, Rockefeller Family allies which permeate the top 4% of this country's wealth.

By making the removing of the US Military from Iraq and stiffening the resistance in Afghanistan to draw troops off even quicker, the Iraqi Government will strive to make alliances to protect its oil wealth and nation against a world full of sharks. In every other oil rich country in the world, the rules of the Red Line Agreement were imposed, and each country eventually conceeded a 40% tithe payment to the Rockefellers to distribute, pool, auction, refine and sell their petroleum products globally through a vast network of oil wealth distribution belonging to the erstwhile 150 members of the family. Today, Iraq distributes its wealth between and among its tribes. Will it, seeing itself no longer having American military presence to protect it in the near future, make the infamous Red Line type deal with the Rockefellers? It seems fairly likely.

Will there be an assassination attempt? The ACSA and CCUAT hopes not: we will support the President in any way we can, informationally, personally and presidentially. We pray for the safety of the O'Bama family, this country does not need another Presidential tragedy, atop everything else it would be devastating.

Nevertheless, ACSA and the CCUAT organization have been predicting the takeover of Iraq's oil by the top ten oil companies (or one of them anyway) under Rockefeller family control, once President Bush and the American Military were out of the way, for eight years now. So we do expect that to happen. Whichever oil company gets the deal, expect it's stock to skyrocket and the US Economy right along with it. Invest wisely.

Getting a Barack O'Bama elected requires a very claustrophobic economy which is squeezed into believing there is no real war on terrorism, agrees with Mr. O'Bama that our military in Iraq is inappropriate and that the Economy is the first and foremost instigation for fear in every American Household. So we've just had one of the biggest manipulations of the American Economy foisted upon us by that one and same group of the top 4% wealthy in this Country, just so they could gain access to Iraq's trillion or so barrels of oil wealth and other derivative things (such as control over a pipeline from Russia to India and the continued confrontations of Pakistan vs. India, Palestinians vs Israel, and so on).

Because Barack O'Bama DOES NOT (as he has stated publicly to remove them from Iraq) support American Military Security in Iraq, the threat to the Iraqis self-security will become so great to the fledgling democracy that arranging a concession with the all wealthy Rockefellers will be "an automatic" for them, ACSA believes. The Rockefellers do not just buy into everyone's oil and get a concession, they sell protection. That's what they were selling to Saddam Hussein, selling him protection in the form of Pakistani Nuclear Weapons, in exchange for a 40% concession on Hussein's oil, when President Bush and the US Military barged in on the "Rock's" little garden party with Saddam, and broke up the celebrations.

Those powers that be like to dangle hope in the very faces of Americans, in this case the left, the Democrats and a lot of very hopeful and supporting Black Americans, and then YANK IT RIGHT OUT FROM UNDER its most hopeful advocates and supporters, by implementing a coup,a scandal, assassination or incessent press political undermining by everyone from Keith Obermann to David Letterman. The end of his political reputation (much as they attacked Bush) only lurks around that next corner where in his unwitting youthfulness, Barack O'Bama steps inadvertently over that invisible line in the sand where the super wealthy will no longer support his 'uppity' ness, using their terminology for him if he ever does cross it. If he ever goes too far over that line, who knows what they'll do to him.

They are not known for their patience.

------

What do you think will happen next? What will be President O'Bama's first moves in office, his first moves with respect to the Economy, will he, like Bill Clinton before him, consider his first family to be an extension of the Rockefeller lineage of his past?

Express your opinion...

INAUGURAL TERROR THREAT?

WELCOME TO BOLO!

There have been major security preparedness activities underway regarding the alleged threat of a major attack on the continental United States during early 2009. Reportedly, despite having no concrete leads, some intelligence reportedly gathered by the major intelligence organizations over the course of the past six months has been strongly suggestive that an attack might take place during the Presidential Inauguration, when the US Government is undergoing an exchange of power.

Reports by such as Senator Joseph Lieberman and the candidates running for office themselves during the 2008 Presidential Campaign, have preceded Goverment Security Experts and Homeland Security and the FBI, the Capitol Police and the US Military Leadership, who are busy planning exhaustive security measures for Washington's Presidential Inauguration on January 20, 2009. Just to be safe, they are providing extensive security at the Inaugural itself and for the numerous celebrations surrounding it. But is that enough, is America truly safe? Are we leaving ourselves vulnerable due to the necessity to focus our attentions on the Presidential change of administration?

The Politics of Inauguration Day Terror Attacks is quite a tricky subject. There have been a number of studies after threats were taken seriously but no attack surfaced during past inaugurations, most recently in 2005.

The enclosure links associated with this Post takes us back to the 2005 era and a study of presumed Inaugural Attack Threats forecast at that time (then DHS Secretary Tom Ridge and others are quoted).

Speaking of Politics, there are those who feel it critical to establish themselves as a "true threat to Terrorism" by calling out claims that the "terrorists will attack as soon as I take office" (prophetic words if an attack takes place in January).

We have included a link to Hilary Clinton's campaign words regarding such an attack she forecast would take place moments after she (when she was running for President) was inagurated.

Last but not least, there are those in the Press who spend an enormous amount of time analyzing anti-terror preparations to such a degree that they might as well lay out a roadmap for Terrorists to follow when they are seeking a way around the security. Is America losing its sophistication borne during World War II, the old adage "loose lips sink ships?"

We've included an audio report from Ari Shapiro speaking in detail about the extensive security arrangements surrounding the Inaugural for the highly liberal National Public Radio. It is not clear NPR's political position, however they clearly are on the side of Freedom of Speech. There clearly is a conflict between Freedom of Speech and being Ready, the phenomenon known as 'war nerves' often hits those who think they've detected or seen a terrorism attack in progress or in planning, and it can be terribly difficult to differentiate between a report and reality.

In fact, due to the tendancy today by the Authorities to backlash at anyone offering an opinion or checking out a story (even among the Press) about such an attack, many have become fearful of reporting what they have observed to such as the FBI or their local police for fear of being automatically type cast as being among "the usual nutcases", a cliched behavior that Advances Magazine has verifiably determined is really quite common among the FBI and other counter terrorism groups. Many believe they really do not want to hear from the public or anyone even trying to verify whether a story told them was true or not, as likely to prosecute the reporting party as they are to investigate.

Is America now in a position where "the boy who cried wolf" syndrome, or, in reality, the belief everyone is "the boy who cried wolf" could prevent us from properly responding to a serious attack?

Are our Authorities so skeptical that one would ever take place, would the FBI, DHS and top government levels simply conclude that public reports were flights of fiction or fancy? Could terror groups or those with a negative agenda take advantage of the situation by getting proxies to spread hoaxes and plant false stories just to irritate the counter terror groups and get them to adopt a position of total disbelief?

Are international terror groups leveraging "boy who cried wolf" backlashes so as to keep US Security in the dark: so that once our guard is really down, they can hit the USA with another 9/11 magnitude attack?

An attack on the Inauguration has been labeled by some as being a "send off" for the Bush Administration and a "slap down" for the Obama Administration by rumorors and critics alike, BOLO has raised a few more questions for the General Public:

Do you think the Inauguration represents a target that Al Qaeda or other Terror Group might want to attack? What political gain will they have disrupting what might be a newer, more pacifist US administration? Will America look weak to the rest of the world?

How will the outgoing administration look, if terrorists succeed at attracting attention away from the Inaugural Celebration? The incoming administration which has expressed considerably less enthusiasm for an aggressive War on Terror?

Do you feel that America's domestic security programs are adequate, inadequate or do you believe that the whole terror program is just one big fairy story? There are some who think 9/11 was a setup, with theories ranging from the implausible: US Government involvement to the more likely: wealthy international business interests becoming wealthier by eliciting a massive US Government response to Terrorism (and associated aggressive buying policies), so as to supplement their business revenues which have been lagging since the end of the Cold War?

Your opinion is important to this blog. We are not interested in weird opinions, we're interested in EVERY OPINION... Here are the links to three key articles that frame the issue

===

Inclusion Links:

1.0 Hillary Clinton on Terror Attack on Inauguration
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/07/clinton-readies-america-f_n_80317.html

2.0 National Public Radio
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97629349

3.0 Tom Ridge and 2005 Study on Inaugural Threats
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/1/18/122749.shtml

Post your coments here...