Obama Plans Regime Change in November 2018 Elections

Former Democratic President Barack Obama recently spoke at the University of Illinois to give us our sanity back, as, according to him, something is not right in the current Whitehouse, or words to that effect. So Obama is out to foment an outright regime change during the U.S. House of Representatives election in approximately two months from now.

To say that Barack Obama is a Democrat-Socialist would be putting it lightly. It would be like saying that Bernie Sanders is a hardcore conservative constitutionalist.

In a 2014 article in The Western Journal, "Just How Radical Were The People Who Influenced Barack Hussein Obama?" Steven Baldwin clearly points to overwhelming documented evidence that Obama's entire life has been in the political company and association with Marxists and Socialists. Indeed, former President Obama made numerous appointments to these Democrat-Socialist-Marxists in both of his previous presidential administrations. (https://www.westernjournal.com/just-radical-people-influen…/)

Who remembers when in a televised meeting between former Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and former U.S. President Barack Obama that Chavez turned to the crowd and cameras and said, "He's more of a Socialists than I am?" The now deceased Chavez was in amazement that such a political radical was then President of The United States. We all saw it in Chavez' face expression.

It is hard to see how The United States of America was winning under the business-restrictive policies of Kenyan national former CIA operative Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. former President and Socialist-Democrat-Marxist-in-Chief, Barack Obama. Of course, Marxist Obama is coming out against a progressive, winning President Trump who is renegotiating Obama's bad trade deals that were not in the interests of America. On the other hand, anti-colonialist Obama gave billions in bribes to Iran and helped his Muslim Brotherhood allies, while Ambassador Stevens was tortured, and, eventually killed, and Stevens' NCIS agents were murdered in Libya. Former U.S. President Obama is the same man who created ISIS and did everything he could to ruin America. Now Obama says, in essence, that there is something wrong with President Trump's America.

Yes, that is correct. We are winning, again! -- like we have not done since Ronald Reagan and John Kennedy, arguably two of the best Presidents that The United States has ever had. The current Trump administration is not only renegotiating the bad trade and political deals of previous administrations, but President Trump has also delivered on his promises to the American people to create more jobs, bolster the economy, and he has brought back trillions of USDs from overseas holdings of U.S. corporations. Generally, our current President is running government like a business, not a "vote for me and I will give you any kind of largess you want to further ruin the credit of the U.S., while adding enormous debt to our nation." Actually, having the temerity to move our U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem is the favorite action of President Trump that many Americans love, both Democrats and Republicans.

The list of accomplishments of President Trump and his administration is too long to enumerate, but few Americans have been hiding under rocks. Our citizens know completely what those accomplishments are, though not all Americans are willing to give the Trump administration credit, even where credit is due.

Now deep state cheerleader Obama is fighting to have a mid-term regime change of the U.S. House of Representatives in favor of the Democrat-Socialist-Marxists so The United States of America will collapse, like Venezuela, the old Soviet Union, and Democrat-controlled Chicago. Eventually, that will usher in Obama's One World Government led by the UN.

It is not in the best interests of Americans for us to continue this political divide, those who want to destroy America and those who want to strengthen it. There was a time when all of us, on the left, in the middle, and on the right, politically, would fight for The United States, instead of tearing it apart for the vested interests of others.

Reference:

Just How Radical Were The People Who Influenced Barack Hussein Obama?. (2014). The Western Journal. Retrieved 19 September 2018, from https://www.westernjournal.com/just-radical-people-influenced-barack-hussein-obama/

Economic and political changes

by Arnie Webre, Jr.

I remember walking across the campus of The University of Texas at Austin as a 19-year-old student on a sunny day in August of 1971. What joy I had felt at that moment in having so few responsibilities, a little money in my pocket, and I looked forward to studying about the fall of Rome that evening.

Even then I loved history and its bed-fellows: economics and politics.

I had joined the Young Texas Democrats on campus that summer, Richard Nixon was then President of The United States of America and the Vietnam War was still going on.

As I came up to the main drag, that day, to cross the street to 2-Js hamburger joint (restaurant), I waited for a red light to change, while I read the last lines of a New York Times newspaper [the old paper version] article that continued about Nixon taking the United States off of the "gold standard."

Why does Nixon taking us off of the gold standard in 1971 matter to us today? Well, we need to know where we have been and compare that with where we are now, in order to know where we want to go in the future, right?

Might it not be valuable for us to not commit the same mistakes as in the past? Is it not fair to say that we have all been complicit in the reduction of the fortunes of the United States?

Have not most voters and consumers in the U.S. been trying to milk the system for everything it was worth, since the last time we had a real surplus was when John F. Kennedy was President of the United States?

Yes, you are right, for decades Republican and Democratic administrations have been changing the basket of commodites used to get the monthly and quarterly U.S. government inflation rates to make it appear that our deficits were not that bad or for deficits to magically become feel-good imaginary [political] economic surpluses.

On August 15, 1971, Nixon effectively ended the Breton Woods agreement and the U.S. dollar became a fiat currency. Due to the Vietnam War, the U.S. had a balance of trade deficit and domestic inflation had risen substantially.

America was not used to such things. Uncle Sam [read as "U.S. politicians"] had already mismanaged its home grown currency, and other nations had been exchanging U.S. dollars for gold in record amounts. In short, the U.S. had printed too many paper dollars, and there was not enough gold to redeem all American greenbacks.

While I ate my 2-Js double-cheeseburger, fries with a Coke, which I later paid for with fiat currency, I watched and listened to an American news commentator on 2-Js television. The newsman cut to everyday American citizens and Japanese politicians, who spoke about what a wonderful thing Nixon had done.

I wondered if what Mr. Nixon had done was more to the benefit of Japan than to the U.S. If the U.S. dollar became worth less and less, would not that make Japanese Yen more valuable? Would that put Japan in a better position than the U.S. in the flow of trade and balance of payments between our two great nations?

On the other hand, what does a 19-year-old student know, I thought?


It was not long before the realities of life came crashing down around my ears. After an unplanned pregnancy and a quick marriage and divorce, before the approximate end of my second year of college -- my son hates me to this day for leaving his, in my opinion, histrionic mother -- in later years I returned to finish college.


On February 21, 1972, Nixon arrived in Beijing [mainland China] to meet with Premier Zhou En Lai to establish detente between our two governments.


In 1979, I had taken a number of the history of Japan, Korea and China-type courses from Dr. Young-Ick Lew, who now chairs Korean History at the Graduate School of Yonsei University. He was a brilliant Harvard PhD whose every word I listened to, intently.

On the day in question, the exact date in 1979 has been lost to posterity, Dr. Lew, then a history professor at The University of Houston, Main Campus, had just given a stimulating lecture on Chinese history. After class I stayed as all other students left.

We spoke about his belief that Deng Xiaoping of China was shrewd and that he could very well re-energize China with his proposed economic zones, where it had been projected that a form of capitalism would be practised. He also spoke about cheap labor in China and how the Chinese could build submarines much cheaper than could American industry.

Dr. Lew said that the U.S. might want to re-think its flat-ship U.S. Navy policy, which might not be a match for cheaply made Chinese submarines -- the plans of which had likely been stolen from the United States.


Professor Lew was, and I am certain is, to this day, staunchly anti-communist, as they had killed scores of his relatives in South Korea during the Korean War and by later assassinations.

At the end of his after-class mini-lecture, where I listened to and weighed every word, the time had come for me to ask Dr. Lew my burning question. Could the Chinese get rid of their differences with the Soviet Union and challenge the United States economically and militaristically, within our lifetimes?


Dr. Lew said it was possible to challenge the U.S. economically in time, but militarily that would require China and Russia to be on the same page, and that was not likely to happen in a rock-solid way in our lifetimes. "China and Russia have concrete, serious issues with each other," said Lew, or words to that effect.

In my opinion, history has backed Dr. Lew's view about China challenging the United States economically. However, challenging the U.S. militarily is more problematic for the Chinese, though they seem to be working on that as well.


Some years back, I remember a UPI/AP article about the Chinese equivalent to our CIA director defecting to Canada. When the Canadian authorities asked him why he was defecting to Canada, his answer was, "I have rich relatives in Canada, and the Chinese communists are crazy, as they believe they might be able to militarily dominate the world," or words to that effect.

Yes, I know. I think that is crazy also, folks. Nevertheless, the fact that these comments came from a former head of the Chinese spy agency (the Chinese Guoanbu), means that they need to be taken seriously.

Yes, there really are people and nations out there who do not wish us well.

This same defector to the West said that mainland China has thousands of spies in the United States, Canada and Australia, often mainland Chinese students, professors, businessmen, delegations, and those who work in Chinese companies in the U.S., Canada and Australia. They are looking for human intelligence about the intentions of our Western governments, as well as looking to steal Western technology.

There is a direct correlation between the current economic over-indebtedness of the United States and the quick on-going build-up of mainland Chinese military forces, the never-ending collection of intelligence and the stealing of Western technology by Chinese who visit the West.


By the early 90's, I was more than one-half my way through 20+ years in the U.S. military, and for a part of the 80's, all of the 90's and until the early 2000's, I thought I was a Republican. Unfortunately, our last president, the one before Barack Obama, put an end to that notion.


It should be required that every U.S. president read The Prince, by Machiavelli, and that they memorize it word-for-word before assuming office. They should especially take note of the part about not having more than one war at a time, as your country's treasury cannot afford such an extravagance, no matter how much gold and silver you have, or, as is the case in the United States, no matter how much gold and silver your country does not have.

On the other hand, we do have lots of fiat money and debts in the United States, as far as the eye can see.


From January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001, Bill Clinton was president of the United States. During that time, he pressured government sponsored enterprises through the Freddie Mac organization to give sub prime mortgage loans to millions of Americans who could not have otherwise obtained them.

It was certainly the democratic thing to do, was it not?

Then in 2008 the sub prime mortgage loan system imploded and that caused a severe worldwide liquidity crisis that was most acute in the U.S. and Europe.


As a result of the above, information, it is now clear that we need to change our ways, if we expect there to even be a United States of America, in the future.

After reading the above short recounting of a small part of modern American history, if you do not now think that it was a mistake for the United States to go off of the gold standard and effectively remove all economic discipline, restraint and reality, when we now have nothing but debt as far as the eye can see, then you are not a part of the solution; additionally, your ability to survive the consequences of our past wanton ways is in question.

Next week, I will give you practical suggestions to survive in a weak dollar environment.


That is it for this week, dear readers. However, some administrative matters on the horizon: my brother Randy, a professional editor, is soon taking over editorial duties, as Mr. ADD, yours truly, is quite good at making clerical and grammatical errors.


My journalism professor, John Lenger, taught me just how valuable an editor can be. To this day, I remember him reading my articles, overflowing with ideas, helping me shape and give them form.

I still hate to throw away ideas that do not fit into the theme of an article, and I remember a number of conversations with John, who wears about seven hats in Harvard's publishing and journalism community, about story themes and hooks.


Now I am talking with Randy, and he is encouraging me to be more specific. Therefore, in future articles I will give you specific recommendations, economically and politically, for what I believe is in our immediate and intermediate future, as a nation.

On the other hand, other ideas will come from our interplay in this blog, and, as Americans, we are all responsible for turning this boat [USA] around.

Lastly, after I have given you brass tacks specifics, economically, in the future I intend to write about universal health care, needed changes in our political system [hint: viable third and fourth political parties would inject much needed competition in the American election system that would stop the poor results of business as usual, politically. Bull Moose Party, anyone?].

Yes, I know. No one likes to lose, but there is no other way to challenge the status quo, which will just give us more of the same [poor results] without viable third and fourth political parties in the United States.

I will also write about the U.S. tax system (needs some common sense changes), needed modifications in the thinking and behavior of us all (voters and politicians -- get personal responsibility and dump our political ideology for what works and what we can afford), the common wealth is more important than "Me," you plus all of us are more important than "Me," asset recommendations for an uncertain future with a flawed currency [the U.S. dollar].


When you think sub prime loans, think Bill Clinton -- ironically, other than the Lewinsky affair, Bill Clinton accomplished some constructive things for the United States and his heart was always in the right place.


Other than not reading The Prince [or, perhaps, reading The Prince, but not following its guidance], by Machiavelli, George Bush, who was not well-liked, did some notable things that were in the best interests of the United States, not the least of which was providing leadership at a time when America desperately needed it [that was and always will be his strong suit].

Yes! I am glad he was calm, cool and collected when he was told about 9/11, while he visited a school room of children in Florida.

I will review many more economic and political subjects in future posts; however, I am certain that I will not be able to resist, in future articles, writing blogs about three of the most interesting people I know of: Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. No matter what any of us thinks about them, mixed bag or not, in my opinion, they are the three most likable presidents of The United States in the last 45-years.