content: Well, the other presidents are in the picture because they may be complicit. Bush and JFK are also shown in a way that seems to be significant. There may be a path from JFK to Bush and Obama. After MAD was assured and the Cold War began, we had a trend of foreign policy engagements involving regime change and insurgencies. Intelligence services rose in prominence and began to rely on advanced technology. They developed sophisticated but questionable tactics. Somehow, we eventually saw security theater appear and systemic decay begin. We readily sacrificed our individual rights for the sake of state security. No matter what you believe about the assassination of JFK, it is now obvious various truths are deemed too dangerous to be revealed to the public. How does this relate to Obama? Well, we were already engaged (in a series of conflicts) in the Middle East, but several things have culminated. He is known for extending the drone program. We assassinate our enemies like Bin Laden and any others we can find, but it's not clear how we made these enemies (that is, beyond initially funding Al Qaeda) nor how we are going to defeat them. It seems that, with the surveillance / police state, NSLs, disparagement laws, gun control, TSA, border control, and numerous anti-terrorism laws like the Patriot Act, citizens have not only lost their rights but have had these scary apparatus turned in on them. I personally didn't believe Obama would ever bring about change, nor, in fact, be any different from Bush. He furthered the unconstitutional policies surrounding the War on Terror. His lack of reservation amounted to executive overreach and abuse. He wielded his new power to the fullest extent without it ever being clear what was going to be accomplished. It seems that we were out to kill terrorists, but we lacked the ability to dismantle terrorism networks. We never won anything in the Middle East. We only made more enemies. People still do not feel safe from terrorists. From this viewpoint, Islam is not compatible with our society and has been called the greatest modern threat. Yet, we have allied nations where Islam is seated and we got involved in regime change in Islamic countries in which we expected to "win hearts and minds". What I am about to say sounds like a conspiracy, but Obama's father was a Muslim. Europe is allowing so many "refugees" (and some percentage of terrorists) that the population is becoming imbalanced. No integration is happening, so I don't think it can be compared to accepting past refugees e.g., Vietnamese war refugees. It sounds completely retarded, but it's like the West has accepted and welcomed our defeat by Islam and its terrorism. Can any of this be reasonably explained? I don't know, but no matter how great or powerful you think our next president will be (ATTN: Trump fans), he may still be a slave to the government machine. An authoritarian may not be able to redirect what should be dismantled. We need limited, constitutional government, that is fiscally responsible, to return. Yes, I am talking about Rand Paul, and if you accept the label of unelectable that was assigned to him, you are giving into the forces that will, by such apathy, remain beyond the control of any man.