Obama as Lincoln

[temporal recon]

​

In Conviction of a Time Traveller (researched and written in 2009), I make the assertion that Barack Hussein Obama is the president that Titor commented on when he posted nearly 12 years ago in 2000.
Specifically, his statement was:

"...The President or "leader" in 2005 I believe tried desperately to be the next Lincoln and hold the country together but many of their policies drove a larger wedge into the Bill of Rights..."

Please don't misunderstand that I am holding up this photograph as "proof." I am not. But the general "meme" of Obama as Lincoln (more thoroughly studied in COATT) is becoming more and more pronounced as time wears on (pardon the pun).

Read the whole article at:
'Fiscal cliff' meeting at White House: Will it be 'Lincoln' moment for Obama? - CSMonitor.com

 

[Samstwitch]

I completely agree that Obama is the president that John Titor said "tried desperately to be the next Lincoln" and there are many reasons why. Just one example: At his Inauguration, Obama was sworn in with the same Bible that Lincoln used. Here is an article about it.

​

​

Obama chooses Lincoln's Bible for swearing in ceremony

WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama plans to take the oath of office with his right hand on the same Bible used to swear in Abraham Lincoln, the Presidential Inaugural Committee announced Tuesday.
Obama, who like Lincoln won the presidency after a stint as a state lawmaker and then a member of Congress from Illinois, has sometimes compared himself to the 16th president. He invoked Lincoln by announcing his presidential candidacy from the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Ill., as Lincoln did. And, like Lincoln, he plans to travel to his inauguration in Washington by train.

"Not only is Lincoln one of my political heroes," Obama told USA TODAY last year, "but, like Lincoln, I served for seven years in Springfield in the state Senate, and it's there I learned how to legislate; it's there that I developed many of my political ideas."

Doris Kearns Goodwin, who chatted with Obama during the primaries about her book on Lincoln's Cabinet, Team of Rivals, has said that both men share "an internal confidence and a certain serenity to not get rattled."

Sean Wilentz, a professor of history at Princeton University, called the Obama-Lincoln comparison "tortured" and "absurd" during the primaries, when he was supporting Hillary Rodham Clinton. In an interview Tuesday, he argued that, unlike Obama, Lincoln had been involved in national politics as a state party leader for 28 years before he ran for president.

Still, Wilentz said, there is no harm in Obama evoking Lincoln, as long as people realize Obama will rise or fall on his own merits. "Whatever works," Wilentz said.

The Bible is part of the collections of the Library of Congress. It was purchased specifically for Lincoln's swearing-in ceremony on March 4, 1861, the inaugural committee said in its statement. Obama would be the first president sworn in using it since Lincoln in 1861.

"President-elect Obama is deeply honored that the Library of Congress has made the Lincoln Bible available for use during his swearing-in," Presidential Inaugural Committee Executive Director Emmett Beliveau said in a statement. "The president-elect is committed to holding an inauguration that celebrates America's unity, and the use of this historic Bible will provide a powerful connection to our common past and common heritage."

The use of Lincoln's Bible fits the inaugural theme, "A New Birth of Freedom," a phrase Lincoln used in his Gettysburg Address that the inaugural committee selected to mark the 200th anniversary of Lincoln's birth.Obama would become the first president to use a historically significant Bible at his swearing in since George H.W. Bush, who placed his hand on the one that had been used to swear in George Washington as the nation's first president in 1789.

​

 

[Liberty]

Keywords and clues:

Released 3 DAYS after election day?

7 days after the election we asked for secession.

Hmmm

 

[Anonynez]

The comparison is appalling in my opinion. How is a man credited with bringing a divided country together, ending a civil war, and emancipating slaves compared to a man that has put the country in debt, sold off its national security, divided its people, and completely ignored the constitution? However, if the ridiculous ban on firearms that is being proposed passes, he might have a civil war to deal with. That would certainly allow the connection for his admiration to be the next Lincoln. Either way I don't think he can hold this country together, as he holds zero credibility with more than half of this country.

Politics aside, I agree that this is exactly who JT was referring to, and I think this is yet again another corroboration to the JT story.

Just my opinion...

 

[titorite]

Agreed

hmmmmm


So we all agree then that this is what it looks like.

Freaky....

 

[Liberty]

The comparison is appalling in my opinion. How is a man credited with bringing a divided country together, ending a civil war, and emancipating slaves compared to a man that has put the country in debt, sold off its national security, divided its people, and completely ignored the constitution? However, if the ridiculous ban on firearms that is being proposed passes, he might have a civil war to deal with. That would certainly allow the connection for his admiration to be the next Lincoln. Either way I don't think he can hold this country together, as he holds zero credibility with more than half of this country.

Politics aside, I agree that this is exactly who JT was referring to, and I think this is yet again another corroboration to the JT story.

Just my opinion...

I haven't seen the movie. I been investigating this Titor thing since 2009. There are clues in keywords and locations I'm starting to see. He swore in on the Lincoln bible. He is from Illinois. Today! America looks like pre civil war! Again Titor knew his stuff

Obama and Lincoln - A Comparison of Barack Obama and Abraham Lincoln

 

[temporal recon]

The comparison is appalling in my opinion. How is a man credited with bringing a divided country together, ending a civil war, and emancipating slaves compared to a man that has put the country in debt, sold off its national security, divided its people, and completely ignored the constitution? However, if the ridiculous ban on firearms that is being proposed passes, he might have a civil war to deal with. That would certainly allow the connection for his admiration to be the next Lincoln. Either way I don't think he can hold this country together, as he holds zero credibility with more than half of this country.

Politics aside, I agree that this is exactly who JT was referring to, and I think this is yet again another corroboration to the JT story.

Just my opinion...

Appalling, yes. But the comparison is not made by me or more than half the country, it is made by his enablers and willing stenographers for a specific purpose. The continued comparisons of BHO with Lincoln is likely an example of, what some might call, "Information Warfare" or "Influence Operations."
And the comparisons go beyond merely happening to be from Illinois or using Lincoln's bible. While I don't have COATT in front of me at the moment to run through all the examples I provided, they are there. But as one example I DO recall was Lincoln's description for his cabinet, "Team of Rivals." It was bandied about when Clinton was named secstate (a former contender for the WH) and a republican as well (whose name escapes me atm) who later resigned in disgust. I believe he lasted less than a year into BHO's "first" term.

Over these last couple years of research into the TT question in general (Titor was merely a starting point for me, COATT was the result), I have learned to steer clear of making predictions. TT'ers in general are under no obligation to tell us the "whole" truth. That being said, I am still confident in my analysis of Titor's statements that BHO will not serve a second term. And Anonymez, this speaks to your post above:

In 2000, Titor asked two simple questions. Specifically, he said:

1. According to the Constitution, who do you think has the final word on choosing a President and why?
2. Do you think the Electoral College should be continued?

So when Anonymez makes the statement that "more than half the country" disagrees with BHO's actions as president, how would a president be elected if the states (answerable to their citizens) refused to send their electors and participate and contribute to a likely fraudulent election?

As for my analysis, it is my belief that Titor thought he hid the identity of BHO as the president he was talking about sufficiently and to his own satisfaction at the time. But his own statements belie something that is fully explored in COATT: If BHO is the president he was referring to, then he will only serve one term. In Titor's own words:

The President or "leader" in 2005 I believe tried desperately to be the next Lincoln and hold the country together but many of their policies drove a larger wedge into the Bill of Rights. The President in 2009 was interested only in keeping his/her power base.

Ignoring the dates 2005 and 2009 for a moment (as this is intended for other purposes), Titor's own statement shows that whoever is elected in "2005" will not be elected in 2009 and only serve one term.

At the risk of sounding like I am making a prediction, let's not forget, BHO's second term hasn't started yet and the Electoral College hasn't voted yet...

To my eyes, I see a very large shoe that has not yet dropped.

As Always
Temporal Recon

 

[temporal recon]

All,

Speaking of other shoes dropping:

Hawaii State Registrar Alvin Onaka Has Publicly Certified To AZ SOS Ken Bennett That Barack Obamas HI Birth Certificate Is Legally Non-Valid And The White House Image Is A Forgery.

Hawaii State Registrar Alvin Onaka Has Publicly Certified To AZ SOS Ken Bennett That Barack Obamas HI Birth Certificate Is Legally Non-Valid And The White House Image Is A Forgery. | Opinion - Conservative

As Ever
TR

 

[Anonynez]

It just gets deeper and deeper. The obvious "face value" of Abe Lincoln portrays him as the great emancipator. What many dot realize or care to investigate, is that he more than likely emancipated simply for the sake of the country and nothing else. Below the surface Lincoln was a bit of a conspirator whom threatened voters with intimidation through his generals, and as any good lawyer does, he manipulated the system and denied habeus corpus to thousands of Americans while he held office. While I am at it ill add that he often lied to the American people and did so for political gain. This is the game of politics though, is it not? Regardless of these imperfections he gained the name of honest Abe by ultimately doing what was right for the same of the nation. So, although these comparisons can be made to Obama both positively and negatively, Im not betting my life on this BHO sacrificing his legacy for the sake of a country he was raised to hate. Don't think for one second that Barack Obama loves America. It has been indoctrinated in him that everything this country stands for is evil, and he has been placed here for one reason and one reason only. That is to END the America that WE know. Thus far he has greatly succeeded, but there are far too many sheeple that are far too ignorant to realize this.

I am not a neo conservative, either. I'm a former Marine. I'm a patriot. I despise anyone that blatantly and openly infringes on my personal freedoms and/or uses their own personal opinions as means to create laws as THEY see fit regardless of the constitution. Perhaps the constitution does need amending, but isn't that up to the people who inhabit this nation? Didn't that used to matter?

The government should fear the people! The people should not fear the government, and I for one will be part of the resistance.

 

[temporal recon]

It just gets deeper and deeper.

Oh yes. The rabbit hole goes quite deep.

The obvious "face value" of Abe Lincoln portrays him as the great emancipator. What many dot realize or care to investigate, is that he more than likely emancipated simply for the sake of the country and nothing else. Below the surface Lincoln was a bit of a conspirator whom threatened voters with intimidation through his generals, and as any good lawyer does, he manipulated the system and denied habeus corpus to thousands of Americans while he held office. While I am at it ill add that he often lied to the American people and did so for political gain. This is the game of politics though, is it not? Regardless of these imperfections he gained the name of honest Abe by ultimately doing what was right for the same of the nation.

Yes. History's truth has been "massaged." Might be a good example for the need for a time travel unit to learn the actual truth of history, no?

So, although these comparisons can be made to Obama both positively and negatively, Im not betting my life on this BHO sacrificing his legacy for the sake of a country he was raised to hate. Don't think for one second that Barack Obama loves America. It has been indoctrinated in him that everything this country stands for is evil, and he has been placed here for one reason and one reason only. That is to END the America that WE know. Thus far he has greatly succeeded, but there are far too many sheeple that are far too ignorant to realize this.

I agree with your assertion that BHO has been "placed" in his position. There are many lines of inquiry that point to this likelihood. Your other point is also well made. Many in the punditry class make the false assumption that BHO's motives are honorable and he wants what is best for the country (even though they may disagree on the specifics) and that he is bound or contrained by his desire for a favourable legacy to do what is right. This is a false premise.

Perhaps the constitution does need amending, but isn't that up to the people who inhabit this nation? Didn't that used to matter?

True. I have a feeling that eventually, this may happen. I find it extremely interesting when the sycophants tell us that X politician "is so smart," "his intellect towering," "he knows what is best...."
What they are REALLY saying, without saying it, is that X politician is smarter than YOU. That YOU don't know what's best. Does this sentiment reflect a representative republic?

As Ever
TR