Digging Into Michelle Obama's Past Under the Richard Daley Machine
(media.greatawakening.win)
🤔💭 Theory 😲💡
Comments (14)
sorted by:
There is a small error on "were working at". I should be "that both Obamas worked at".
Michelle Obama met Barak Obama at Sidley & Austin (so the story goes). She was assigned as his mentor and he fell in love with her at first sight. They were both working there at the same time that former Weather Underground leader and radical communist, Bernardine Dorn, (wife of Bill Ayers) worked in the Chicago office.
Later Michelle was hired by Valerie Jarret, Deputy Chief of Staff of the Chicago Mayor to work for City Hall. The Daleys have controlled Chicago for decades. His middle name was Micheal. Big Mike is a name used within the Daleys. It's a little confusing how it's used, but it gets used within the Daley circle.
It's actually very hard to dig it up now because all the "Michelle is Big Mike" stuff has buried most of the references to Richard Michael Daley.
As usual, nice work SS!
Back when I was in the trenches of the Birther movement, there was a suspicious void regarding "Michelle's" law license. At the time we assumed he/she did something inappropriate to prevent the renewal. Now it appears that he let it expire because making a name change from Michael to Michelle would leave more of a paper trail.
Have you come across any supporting evidence of that? Given that the C|A has had nearly 2 decades to hide the original documents and fabricate new material, the paper trail seems to have ended.
I wondered about the insistent use of the term, Big Mike; it seems it is used to bury the initial reference. Remember an earlier post from years ago claiming one of Michelle's college IDs was as a foreign student from the Bahamas.
Sticky for the good work Anon.
This is really good stuff fren. I had a completely different world view when experiencing the Obama "family" for the first time and you really see stuff with new eyes when you look back on it.
Would be fascinated for you to do a similar profile on George Bush Jr. Why did the media go so negative in him for Iraq? Was it part of the plan or did he divert from what he was supposed to do? I feel like his story isn't fully fleshed out.
Great question as always merf! Here’s an attempt to game some of this out:
It was always easily obvious that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
The patriotic “hook” gets conservatives to vote on the reaction. This took until well into the 2010s to undo.
The obvious misstep lost liberals - too many sweetheart contracts for obvious conflicts of interest.
The Afghanistan double-down move divided everyone further, keep those oil dollars going!
Backlash against oil drives push toward EV, which is 15 minute cities and massive loss of power
Everyone is now foaming at everyone. The conservative patriotism hook and Democrat misguided claims and patriotism never being satiated by constructive results keep conservatives from looking into what’s actually going on.
The blatantly obvious corruption keeps democrats from looking into the strategic plays that are going on.
Tons of patriotic individualists dead fighting a war intended to create goods and markets that will destroy them further (see: WWI, WWII, and probably Korea and Vietnam) helps power balance to improve central control with the reverse pendulum swing and anti-national policies while leveraging the anti-privacy and corruption policies that were already put in place under Bush Jr
Nobody knows how to do anything to oppose these people but vote and debate each other, which is rigged and disinfoed, respectively.
51 vs 49 49 vs 51 keep trying to win hearts and minds of that middle!
Saddam WHO is trying to get off the petrodollar?
“Poppy” Bush wants opium for which intelligence agencies? They’re doing what?
Libya is a terrorisms too! No not-dollar for you, Mr “TERRORISMS” Qaddafi! Stop gassing “your own people” who definitely aren’t [our] agents!
Syria is a terrorisms with new and improved terrorisms! (Who was ISIS intended to be pointed at?)
New drugs aimed at those who would fight [us] if we hadn’t broken them or they knew it was [us]
Obama is just so nice and congenital! He triggers my agreeability while also selling my empathy all sorts of stolen valor perks for the downtrodden and disenfranchised. How could anyone hate him he’s so sweet and the media never told me a single bad thing about him. Definitely not the ultimate Judas goat, that Obama. (Bidirectional Judas goat?)
Baghram may have been being set up to attack China or Russia as part of a false flag, or to leverage China to play along with threats of retaliation after they were brought up as the next superpower (pure speculation on my part)
“Nothing unifies like a common enemy”
My guesses are that it was cover for the actual operations, and that Jr. wasn’t running the main tent. Given the looks at the funeral, he may well have been the flip, too, but this whole thread was strategerical conjecturizations without sauces.
Good guys use kayfabe heels right now, why wouldn’t the baddies have done it? L
I'd certainly not dispute that they'd be willing and able to use kayfabe.
Let's explore your theory a bit, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to be that the Bush/Liberal conflict was created as a diversion.
Firstly, what did it divert us from? The Patriot Act? No, liberals used to be strongly against this. Moving the war into the next territory? No, it put liberals in opposition to the war.
If the media had continued to frame Iraq positively couldn't they have carried out subsequent invasions into Libya, Iran, etc. more easily, with the full weight of the military, backed by broad public support and taxes? Rather than having to do the sloppy drone strikes/funding the rebels bit?
My counter-theory is that the behavior of the media is explained more logically, not as a distraction, but as a disappointment and need to course-correct from some failure on Bush's part.
Or it could be that managing the public is a more complex art than I'm giving it credit for, and there's a need to alternate parties so that the public perceives their political actions have an effect.
Trump may play 4D chess, but they definitely play at least 3D chess.
I’m not saying I’m correct, either. Would take a lot of sauce before I’d consider staking that claim. Just throwing out some principles they seem to be after, some goals they did go after, and some actuals that were given cover by some of their moves.
One of the more frustrating things they would do from 2002-2016 was calling their shots - they’d say exactly what the were going to do, start working on hem, put out gaslighting narratives to their base, with the media repeating the gaslighting.
It was so frustratingly effective. It isn’t obvious yet exactly how the game board or engagement method got shifted, even with our favorite psyop. My best current guess is that key pieces to their objectives are taken out far upstream, a la Baghdaddi, that allowed for critical narratives and methods to be severely disrupted. With those potentials closed, it gives us the extra time we need to expose the intentions.
I didn’t know Big Mike applied to Daley. They all got started in one of the most corrupt cities...law firms hiring commie terrorists.
This is a good connector. This all connects
Thanks for your continued high effort posts SS! Loved the connection with Bernadine Dohrn...