Saturday, November 10, 2012
The New America was shocked today by the sudden resignation of Gen. David Petraeus as head of the CIA. Gen. Petraeus claimed his resignation was due to an extra-marital affair. While anyone privy to classified intelligence is expected to be removed from power immediately upon the revelation of an affair (for security reasons anyone able to be blackmailed loses their security credentials...or is supposed to), the timing of this resignation raises serious questions. One, while as mentioned, an extra-marital affair should always lead to a resignation of security clearance, this does not always happen within the Washington D.C. sphere. Numerous politicians, pundits, staffers, and governmental workers who have certain security clearance have had affairs that didn't lead to them losing their jobs. Do we need to look any further than Bill Clinton to make that point? If the president of the United States can do it, lie about it under oath, admit it, and come away more popular than before...then how the hell can it be a serious cause for anyone else to resign over!? Again, I get the security concerns...but again, Clinton could also have been blackmailed. Once the affair is made public, the ability to blackmail goes away and the issue dies, at least it did in Clinton's case.
Also, David Petraeus was the highest ranking official to challenge the reports made by the White House over the Benghazi incident. Remember that Petraeus himself said that the CIA gave no orders for anyone to "stand down" that night 4 Americans were murdered. The implication is that either the report from people who were in Benghazi that night was a lie...or that the order to stand down came from somewhere else. The other place it could've came from was the White House itself. (Btw, can I start calling it the Black House, not because Obama is black, but because I'm convinced whoever resides there from now on will be an agent of evil, or will I only be called racist for it??) So now that Petraeus has resigned, guess who won't be testifying at the congressional hearings about Benghazi?? That's right...the highest ranking official who could give an unfavorable account of President Obama's actions. Coincidence? I suppose it's possible...the way that a meteor could possibly fall on my head and crush me in the next five seconds.....nope, didn't happen, I'm still here!
And Andy Levy brought up a great point on RedEye tonight. He said, using his Army background as a reference, that when an official is compromised, they are stripped of command IMMEDIATELY! A currant Special Forces soldier backed him up on that. So if this affair was known about before, then why did it take until now for him to resign/be fired. No, no...the whole thing doesn't make sense. Unless.....
A lot of people have taken to referring to Barack Obama's politics as "Chicago Politics," a term used to denote the cheating, swindling, lying, do anything to win political attitude characterized by many Chicago-bred politicians. However, I don't think that's quite right in it's scale. Obama, while as corrupt as any Chicago politician, is bigger and badder than any dude coming out of Illinois...and that includes Jake Blues! No, Obama's politics are more akin to those of Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin, of Soviet Russian infamy. His politics are more closely aligned to his Communist philosophies than to any Chicago scandal. (Did you know if you look up the Wikipedia series on Communism, the second person on the list of "Leading Individuals" is Barack Obama?? Seriously. Go check it out before it's removed by one of the new Cheka. I have no idea how that slipped past the Obamunists, but it's pretty funny that it did.)
Obama's new government is more akin to Lenin or Stalin than anything from past America. They're not Chicago politics; they're Moscow politics. And remembering that Marxism was understood and applied differently by different socialist leaders, Obama's new socialism will probably also look different than Lenin's or Stalin's. It already does in many ways, with the slow revolution and indoctrination rather than the quick ones of the past. However, some policies will be the same. Take, for instance, the Petraeus resignation. Joseph Stalin, when he came to power consolidated more power in himself than Lenin did, and he also accused past compatriots of crimes in order to justify silencing them. Trotsky himself, a leading figure in the socialist revolution, was banished (and eventually murdered) at the will of Stalin. Many former leaders met the same fate. Fast forward to America today: Petraeus resigns, the press pounce all over the "scandal" even though their idol Billy Clinton was praised for the same thing. Petraeus now has no credibility to testify against the White House. Hillary Clinton, the second biggest name in the Benghazi scandal, has stated she will also resign early next year. Eric Holder, head of the Justice Department and chief figure in the Fast and Furious scandal, has announced he will resign as well. Notice a pattern here? Any known incident that could be pointed back at Obama will go down on those people's shoulders, far from his own. And they won't be brought up again. Stalin, in what was called "The Great Purge", blamed all his failures on others and had those others removed from office. Sound familiar? Get used to it. Because we've only just begun the second round of Moscow politics. Look for Obama, in this term, to blame all his failures on others in his administration and the Republican Party. Through that, he will simultaneously keep himself clear of any blame, and he will discredit all of his opponents until there is no chance the "mob" will ever believe in or admire a conservative again. The Republican Party will assimilate into Obama's government, or cease to exist. In this term, look for the opponents to be crushed, either by scandal (real or otherwise) or by the new Cheka (the head of Planned Parenthood has already told the GOP to lose the Pro-Life crowd). Look for the new "Great Purge," already begun by the firing of Rear Admirals and Generals who were known to disagree with the White House, to increase in this term until the security of the Democratic-Socialist Party is well in hand for the foreseeable future. That's the next step in the Communist playbook, and so far Obama has been following it all the way. There's no reason to believe he'll stop now.