"Science," the Greek word for knowledge, when appended to the word "political," creates what seems like an oxymoron. For who could claim to know politics? More complicated than any game, most people who play it become addicts and die without understanding what they were addicted to. The rest of us suffer under their malpractice as our "leaders." A truer case of the blind leading the blind could not be found. Plumb the depths of confusion here.


Postby admin » Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:15 am


Obama to Maine: "Drop Dead"

Augusta, Maine, Feb. 8. Barack Obama's chief economics adviser Austan Goolsbee today boasted that the Obama campaign had helped to prevent emergency heating assistance for low-income families from being included in the just-approved economic stimulus package which is now on its way to President Bush's desk for signature. An increase in federal low-income heating assistance (known as LIHEAP), Goolsbee pointed out, had been championed by Obama's opponent, New York Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton. Goolsbee's remarks came in an interview this morning with Carl Quintanilla of CNBC business news television.

Goolsbee stressed that the main difference between Obama and Clinton was that Obama was "more respectful of market forces." Goolsbee was adamant that Obama was opposed to expanding the stimulus package to include "money for low-income heating assistance through a bureaucratic program."

Goolsbee's statements came just one day after leaders of the Maine legislature had convened in Augusta to face the dire situation of low income families who cannot afford to heat their homes this winter, partly as a result of the sky-high price of heating oil. Some influential members of the Legislature spoke of taking money from Maine's Rainy Day reserves to help people who are running short of heating oil this winter. Supporters of the proposed move said the high price of heating oil is cutting into the size of deliveries to households receiving Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP), with many low-income families not being able to afford a full tank. This puts many Maine residents in danger of going without heat, as House Speaker Glen Cummings of Portland noted.

Cummings and other Democratic and Republican lawmakers want to take $5 million from the state's reserve funds to make sure that LIHEAP deliveries fill the tank. "With Maine facing a large-scale budget crisis, this is money that we can ill afford to spend. We need help from the federal government to face the consequences of George Bush's obscene love affair with Big Oil," said independent U.S. Senate candidate Laurie Dobson. "Mrs. Clinton wanted to send us some help right away, but Obama's circle of right-wing elitist economics professors stepped in to block that help. By bragging about this criminal swindle on CNBC to the Wall Street crowd, Obama's man Goolsbee is in effect saying to Mainers, 'Drop dead.' Many here will want to use the Maine Democratic caucus on Sunday, Feb. 10 to send Obama and Goolsbee a message and tell them what they think of this chiseling. I understand that Goolsbee like Bush is a Skull and Bones member, and a follower of Milton Friedman's Chicago School, the ones who worked with Pinochet in Chile. If this is what Obama will do in the White House, we don't want any part of it," Dobson added.

Goolsbee also used his CNBC interview today to repeat that Obama is opposed to solving "the mortgage crisis by freezing interest rates," a freeze which Wall Street is lobbying against. Such a "teaser freezer" would prevent rapacious mortgage bankers from re-setting upward the interest rates on Adjustable Rate Mortgages which they sold to unsuspecting homeowners. If there is no such freeze, monthly mortgage payments will suddenly rise for millions of current homeowners, forcing many of them out on the street through foreclosure because of their inability to pay the new, higher rate. "Mrs. Clinton has proposed a five-year freeze on mortgage interest rates," commented Senate candidate Dobson, "but that seems to be a voluntary program so far. I am proposing a compulsory federal law to block interest rate hikes and outlaw all foreclosures for at least five years, or for as long as this depression lasts. Once again, Mrs. Clinton goes in the right direction, but Obama's right-wing economists are offering nothing to the hard-pressed homeowners of Maine. Paul Krugman, a real economist, is right: the choice between Clinton and Obama could not be clearer," she concluded.

For the proposal to dip into the Maine Rainy Day fund, see: www.wmtw.com/politics/15245493/detail.h ... t&psp=news

For the Goolsbee interview, see: http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=643470081&play=1


On February 12, 2008, responding to postings on Undernews, including two allegedly by Goolsbee himself, Laurie Dobson replied with a call to fire Goolsbee:

By calling attention to Obama's cynical maneuver in blocking LIHEAP money for Maine and other states, I am trying to call attention to a human tragedy in the making. Goolsbee has responded with a mixture of cruelty and pedantry. In case the professor has not noticed, we are in the middle of a harsh winter up here. Money sent out through LIHEAP is sure to spent immediately -- on urgently needed fuel deliveries to poor families. Goolsbee's sophistries will not be much comfort to a parent whose child freezes to death this winter for lack of fuel. This man is clearly a heartless incompetent who should not be allowed anywhere near the White House. I call upon Senator Obama to fire him without delay. If Obama should fail to do so, voters in many states will learn something important about what lurks behind Obama's soaring rhetoric.
Site Admin
Posts: 31721
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Postby admin » Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:16 am

After Super Tuesday: Why Obama is a Sure Loser and the Prelude to a McCain-Lieberman Disaster

Washington, DC, Feb. 4. With David Swanson, Michael Moore, and David Lindorff (who should know better) all joining the swoon of the controlled corporate media for Obama, it is time to re-assert reality. The Super Tuesday results show conclusively that Obama could never win the general election in November. He would be yet another losing Democratic candidate, acceptable to wealthy elitists but not to the voters from working families of the middle class and lower middle class, doomed to go the way of George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, and John Kerry. He appeals to two groups -- well-off suburbanites and blacks, and these will not be enough to carry the general election.

Any Democratic candidate who cannot win California and New York should probably call it a day. That applies to Obama, but his situation is even worse. The voter pool for the Democratic primaries is notoriously not typical of the broader U.S. population. The Democratic primaries have been skewed for decades by the presence of large numbers of upper-middle class elitists concerned about environmentalism, race and gender quotas, balanced budgets, good government, corruption, gridlock, excessive partisanship, and related issues. They are not interested in the minimum wage, trade union rights, stopping home foreclosures, and other kitchen-table concerns of the less well-off. In this year's Super Tuesday, it was estimated that about 56% of the voters on the Democratic Party side had been to college -- about twice the level for the population as a whole. Yet, even with this voter pool, Obama could not win a single Electoral College megastate vital for any Democratic candidate, with the sole exception of his own home base of Illinois.


The list of states captured by Obama on Feb. 5 is largely a joke, except for Illinois and a couple of others. He proudly lists Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, North Dakota, and Utah. What do these states have in common? They are states which a Democrat could never win in a general election. Under the Electoral College system, Democratic votes in these states are worthless -- they will be thrown away. How many people are there in the Alaska Democratic party? The caucus turnout seems to have been below 10,000 people. Idaho is one of the most reactionary states -- the Democratic Party there could meet in a phone booth. The same goes for Utah. Delaware is a perfect state for Obama: rich Volvo-driving, chablis and brie elitists in the Philadelphia suburbs, but it does not look like America. Colorado is another Obama state where the well-off suburban voter can be decisive in a Democratic primary. True, Obama won Connecticut, which has some union voters, but it appears Greenwich, Cos Cob, and Yale carried the day. Missouri might fall to Clinton on a recount; in any case, the race was very close. Minnesota is a special case because of the Democrat Farmer-Labor Party; this was in any case a state that went for Mondale, for various reasons -- not a good bellwether.

To win an election, a Democrat must win the Electoral College megastates to get to the 270 plus electoral votes needed to eject the GOP from the White House. Mrs. Clinton carried these states convincingly, starting with California, where all of Obama's money could not save him. California is so huge, so crucial, and so much a symbol of America's future in the Pacific century, that the argument could well end here. A Democrat who cannot win California has no hope of entering the White House. But there is much more.


The Obama campaign looks very much like the past campaigns of Howard Dean, Gary Hart, Paul Tsongas, Bill Bradley, and other losers of the past. He appeals to wealthy elitists, and therefore has a fundraising base. He can turn out small numbers of dedicated liberal activists for caucuses, as we have seen in Iowa. He can use the Internet to get money in the same way that Howard Dean did. He enjoys the benefits of a collective media swoon, and the systematic fawning of the media elites. But none of this adds up to the ability to win a general election.

Obama lost Massachusetts, in spite of the effusions of the politically decadent Kennedy clan. Despite media hype, he lost New Jersey. He lost border states like Tennessee and Oklahoma that a Democrat might win. Mrs. Clinton had already won megastates Florida and Michigan. She is likely to win in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. What can we do with a Democratic candidate who cannot win California, New York, Texas, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida -- cannot win even the skewed Democratic primary voters of these critical states? The question answers itself. As sociologist Fabio Rojas has noted: "The Obama campaign assumed that winning big states, aside from Illinois, was simply impossible. [Obama's] strengths do not undermine Hillary's single most powerful asset: rock solid support among the white women, retirees, and unionists who make up the majority of the Democratic base. There is nearly nothing that Obama can say to sway those voters. ... Obama can continue to win his kind of state (caucuses, low union, small to medium size, heavily Affirmative Action) and have the money to continue till the end, but he can't deliver a knockout punch by winning in California, NY, NJ, Texas, Florida, Ohio or PA." Obama's campaign depends on creating the illusion of success when there is no real success.


Again, a Democratic candidate who cannot appeal to working women, retirees, and trade unionists is an exercise in futility. But Obama's situation is even worse. While winning California, Arizona, New Mexico (already), and likely Texas, Mrs. Clinton has demonstrated a superiority among Latino voters, now the largest minority group in this country and the key to the future for any political party. Here she won by a 2:1 margin. She also carried the best educated group, Asian-Americans, by a similar 2:1 margin.

It might be argued that these Latino and Asian voters will simply go to a Democratic candidate in the general election, whoever that candidate might be. But the Latinos might just as easily go to McCain, who has carefully built a public record of being sympathetic to them, as Rush Limbaugh repeats every day.

Therefore, it seems fair to say that while Obama may have a strategy to win the Democratic nomination, he has no strategy at all for winning the general election in November. Mrs. Clinton's results, by contrast, add up to something historically important in American and world history: this is the outline of a new national coalition in the United States, and a new geographical formula for carrying the Electoral College. During the four decades since Richard Nixon's victory in 1968, the Electoral College has been dominated by the so-called Southern strategy of Kevin Phillips, as refined by Lee Atwater and Karl Rove. This has meant that the Republican nominee generally starts off with a solid Southern block of reactionary states, initially due to a racist backlash against the civil rights laws, as well as resentments against the Vietnam and student protests of the 1960s. In sociological terms, the Southern strategy for the Reagan coalition has meant that the Republicans could build a majority around such groups as the South, white men, affluent suburbanites, Christian evangelicals, and ideologized factions like the neocons. We are now in the throes of a party realignment, that is to say of a qualitative transformation of the structure and dynamics of American politics, with the emergence of a new majority coalition. These events come rarely -- generally only once in about four decades. We have seen party realignments in 1828, 1860, 1896, 1932, and 1968. The 1932 party realignment ushered in the great progressive Era of the Roosevelt new deal. The 1968 disaster brought us Nixon and 40 years of reactionary politics. It is now clear that the old Southern strategy and Reagan coalition have collapsed as of 2006. The recognition of this collapse has even become an issue in the Republican primaries, with the comments by Ed Rollins of the Huckabee campaign.


If we want to usher in a new progressive Era, we must find a new national coalition, somewhat similar to Roosevelt's New Deal alliance, that will dominate American politics for the next four decades or so. We must also identify a formula for winning the Electoral College. Obama's crazy quilt of states, heterogeneous congeries of supporters, and odd assortment of potential Electoral College votes can never do this.

The key to replacing the old reactionary Southern strategy of the Republicans may well be a Southwest strategy for progressive Democrats. We have already noted that Mrs. Clinton has carried the Latino vote by a margin of two to one, and has also carried the Asian vote by a similar two-to-one margin. Latino voters and Asian voters represent two of the most dynamic classes of voters in the United States today -- they represent in many ways a wave of the future. If we add in women, trade union families, blue-collar workers, retired people, blacks, the lower middle class and the broad middle class, plus immigrant groups, we can see the outlines of a national coalition capable of dominating the American political scene for the foreseeable future. This national coalition will not be based on the wedge issues developed by Lee Atwater and Karl Rove over the last 40 years. It will be based on solid economic populist issues like a rising standard of living, the eradication of poverty, and expanded economic opportunity for all.

In terms of the Electoral College map, we must especially stress Mrs. Clinton's ability to carry California, Arizona, and New Mexico. Because of her ascendancy among Latino voters, it may well prove possible to add Texas to this voting bloc. If we can succeed in detaching Texas from the reactionary Republican solid South of the past 40 years, something that Latino votes will help to make possible, then the future path of virtually any Republican to the White House is permanently barred.

Hispanics distrust Obama. Asians also distrust Obama. As we will see, we all have good reason to distrust Obama. If Obama is the Democratic nominee, Latinos and Asians may be tempted to vote for McCain. A McCain/Lieberman presidency would abort the ongoing party realignment, creating disastrous consequences which we would have to live with for the next 40 years for many of us, for the rest of our lives. In addition, a McCain/Lieberman presidency virtually guarantees war with Iran within six months.


It is therefore imperative that we take the historically long view of current events. The choices of 2008 will determine the political playing field from now to the middle of the 21st century. It is vital that people look beyond their resentments concerning Senator Clinton; some of these are valid, but many are absolutely irrational. Yet the argument here does not turn on any personal qualities Senator Clinton may have or not have. We should not focus our attention on the number worn on the player's back, or on the color of the jersey being worn. We need to focus on the redesign of the entire playing field, since the players of today will in any case soon pass from the scene. The great task of 2008 is to prevent a catastrophic abortion of the party realignment now so clearly going on.


If Senator Obama possessed truly exceptional qualities of leadership or morality, it would not be necessary to make this argument against him. But he possesses no such superiority. Quite the contrary. He has called very explicitly for the bombing of Pakistan, a country two and a half times larger than Iran. Obama spoke against the Iraq war in 2003 when he was not required to vote on the issue, but he has also voted for every Iraq military appropriations bill in the Congress, until this year. Most important, he is a Manchurian candidate, reminiscent in many ways of the disastrous Jimmy Carter of 1976. Jimmy Carter had been chosen and groomed for the presidency by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski, the leaders of the Trilateral Commission. When Carter reached the White House, he turned U.S. foreign policy over to Brzezinski. The results were the seizure of power by Ayatollah Khomeini, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the founding of al Qaeda by the CIA as an Arab Legion to fight the Soviets in that country. Carter turned economic and financial affairs over to Paul Adolf Volcker of the Federal Reserve, who raised interest rates to 22%, thereby destroying the industrial potential of the United States, and contributing to a disastrous fall in the standard of living. Volcker, by the way, has just made a rare presidential endorsement -- of Obama. Our left liberal friends are in a united front with Volcker of the Federal Reserve. The chilling image of Carter as a failed puppet president who set the stage for two decades of reaction, labor rout, and national decline should remind us that a candidate like Obama must be carefully scrutinized.

The overall image consultant for Obama is none other than Zbigniew Brzezinski, now joined by his son Mark Brzezinski -- a veteran of the Clinton National Security Council plus Mika Brzezinski, who is leading the charge for Obama at MSNBC. Zbig is also Obama's foreign policy controller. Zbigniew Brzezinski's entire life has been dominated by his consuming, fanatical hatred for Russia. As he approaches 80 years of age, Brzezinski feels that he has one last chance to dismember the Russian Federation and to partition European Russia. This will be the great foreign policy project of a future Obama administration. It is certain that Zbigniew Brzezinski will join Napoleon and Hitler in failure, but what will become of our country? The Bush neocons have been addicted to aggressive war, but they were at least cunning enough to pick countries which had no ability to strike against the continental United States. Brzezinski lacks this cunning. He proposes to court confrontation with Russia, the one country which maintains the capacity to incinerate the United States several times over. The Brzezinski project to be carried out under an Obama regime is a project of incalculable folly, tailored to the obsessions of a clique of old central European revanchists left over from the 1930s, not to the needs of the United States in the twenty-first century.


In the area of economics, Obama's handlers and advisers are a group of right-wing thinkers. The first is Austan Goolsbee, a 1991 member of Skull and Bones at Yale. Goolsbee is a member of the monetarist Chicago school founded by Milton Friedman; he is a free trade ideologue. Another Obama advisor in economics is Jeffrey Liebman of Harvard, who has proposed the partial privatization of the Social Security system, in addition to increasing the regressive payroll tax, while lowering and delaying Social Security benefits. This is not materially different from the proposals of George Bush in 2005. Then we have David Cutler, who thinks that high health care costs are a stimulus to the overall economy. He has proposed more financial incentives in the healthcare field, meaning that he wants to transfer more and more money into the hands of insurance companies and pharmaceutical firms. Is this the politics of hope?

In every area of economics, Obama has turned out to be far to the right of former candidate John Edwards, and substantially to the right of Senator Clinton. Obama rejects the concept of universal health coverage. Obama's economics team has rejected the idea of a freeze on home foreclosures in the current crisis. Obama's economic stimulus package, as Paul Krugman has correctly observed, is skewed to the right. In a year marked, above all, by a rebirth of powerful economic populism in the electorate, Obama offers nothing in this crucial department.

Instead, Obama offers fatuous and fuzzy platitudes of the utopian and messianic sort. He favors the appeasement of adversaries. He wants to end partisan struggle in politics. He seems to conjure up a golden age or earthly paradise. He seems to want to restore an oligarchical consensus, and give a face lift to U.S. imperialism. It is no accident that left liberal activists who have signed on with Obama are dropping the impeachment issue like a hot potato. Impeachment is sure to be a very messy, very partisan, and very acrimonious process. In short, it will be a political struggle, and struggle of any kind is simply not found in the Obama playbook. The senator is a weak and passive figure, a quietist. Many can remember the refusal of Bill Bradley to defend himself against the lies of Al Gore in 2000, or the stubborn impotence of John Kerry as he was swiftboated by the Bushies in 2004. Obama raises that kind of impotence and cowardice to the level of a theory. The Clintons, by contrast, know that counterpunch is imperative. They deal in War Rooms. Whatever else may be said about the Clintons, they fight. That is no small advantage in the country in which the petty bourgeoisie will always incline to whoever appears stronger. That will never be Obama.


A controversy has now risen about the delegates of two critical mega-states, Michigan and Florida, at the Democratic National Convention. Once again, these are states that a Democratic candidate must win, so it would not make sense to offend voters there. However, Howard Dean, Donna Brazil, and a gaggle of elitists at the Democratic National Committee have decided that for some arcane reason, the delegates of Michigan and Florida should not be seated. Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that Senator Clinton has handily won both these big states. In Florida, she received 850,000 votes, and beat Obama going away. In Michigan, she received an absolute majority of voter support -- not just a plurality. Obama's hope of winning the Democratic nomination seems to come down to excluding Michigan and Florida in the same way that the Mississippi Freedom Democrats were excluded from the Democratic Convention in 1964. Now Howard Dean is saying that Michigan and Florida need to repeat their primaries, except now it must be in the form of caucuses. Anyone who says caucuses is saying Obama, since in caucuses small numbers of wealthy elitists and ideologues can exercise a political effect out of all proportion to their real numbers in the population. So Howard Dean is not an honest broker, but rather a partisan for Obama. Obama says he is the candidate of hope and reconciliation, but he seems quite ready to resort to some very dirty tactics to grab the Democratic presidential nomination that he can never hope to win in a fair fight. Any rational person would instead say, "Let the people decide!" And in this case, the people have already decided.

More broadly, Obama's hopes of grabbing the nomination seem to revolve around the prospect of a palace coup in a smoke-free room. Howard Dean is saying that if no clear front runner emerges in the next couple of months, he will convene a pow-wow and decide the nomination in connivance with a narrow oligarchy, while flaunting the will of the Democratic primary voters. It is superfluous to point out that Howard Dean comes from the wealthy elitist school of Democratic politics, and not from the blue-collar or working-class branch. He also has a well-known grudge against the Clinton machine. So American voters can have no confidence in Howard Dean.


The perspective for November can only be the destruction and break-up of the Republican Party as we have known it for the past four decades. The Republican Party has always been an uneasy alliance of four distinct, and even antithetical groups: the social conservatives or Christian evangelicals, the foreign policy conservatives or neocon warmongers, the fiscal conservatives or Wall Street plutocrats, and the anti-state Libertarians. Because of the onset of the Bush economic depression -- including dollar hyperinflation, the death agony of the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency, and banking panics breaking out all over the world -- the available pie has shrunk to such a degree that these competing interests can no longer all be satisfied. Lifeboat ethics have set in. Accordingly, they are now all at each other's throats in a hilarious spectacle of factional warfare. Romney, a hedge fund operator and asset stripper, has now dropped out -- which ought to remind David Swanson that money means very little in 2008. (Obama's millions will not buy him a single Electoral College mega-state outside of Illinois.) Huckabee is the wedge issue social conservative, but his appeal is strictly limited to the Deep South. McCain is the warmonger, and he now seems to be on his way to seizing the nomination. Ron Paul, of course, is the Libertarian, but can only appeal to a slender ideological minority since he has no elements of economic populist appeal. The traditional conservative leaders and spokespersons like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and James Dobson are all loudly denouncing McCain as a heretic and apostate to their strange reactionary doctrines: This indicates a party that is already severely fractured, and may be on the verge of an outright split.


If the Obama campaign subsides, the prospect for the Democratic Party is that of a colossal historical landslide victory on the scale of 1932 or 1964. The Republican Party may well emerge as a Southern regional party, limited to the deep South states of the old Confederacy, based primarily on racism and Mexophobia, and with little or no appeal in other parts of the country. It would be, in short the party of Huckabee. There is every reason to believe that the Republican representation in the House and the Senate might be cut by as much as one third to one half. This would have the effect of sweeping away the alibis and excuses that have been used by the bankrupt Pelosi-Reid leadership to explain away and justify their own countless crimes and betrayals, from the failure to end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, to the failure to roll back the police state, to the failure to impeach Bush and Cheney. The more the Republican Party collapses and disintegrates, the greater the potential for a split on the Democratic side between the reactionary neocon minority and the antiwar progressive majority. Any Democratic president will have to choose, and, if not a puppet, will likely choose the majority. This is the great promise of 2008. Obama's rhetoric seems to assume that the Republican Party will be around indefinitely in its present form, and therefore a compromise with them will be unavoidable. The party realignment now taking place suggests that a more effective strategy will be to aim at a radical reduction in Republican power on the basis of aggressive economic populism, making preventive concessions to the GOP needless and counterproductive. The main threat to such an historic Democratic Party victory is the Obama candidacy itself.


The Republican ticket right now looks like McCain and Lieberman. McCain is a borderline psychotic. Republican Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi says, "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine." McCain is known to be subject to transports of rage, which allow him to be cleverly manipulated by his unscrupulous handlers. Lieberman is one of the foremost warmongers in the Senate, and may well be a foreign agent. If this ticket were to take the White House, war with Iran would be guaranteed within six months. But because of McCain's immigration policies, he might be able to appeal to Latino voters and other recent immigrants -- provided of course that the Democratic nominee were Obama.

A final consideration is the danger of a puppet president. After the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1945, the financier oligarchy in Wall Street swore that they would never again permit an American president to actually exercise the powers prescribed by the Constitution. They did this because they saw a strong president as a lethal threat to the oligarchical system, which they intended to perpetuate. Accordingly, since 1945 we have had a parade of puppet presidents who have tended to carry out the orders of the Wall Street group. Whenever a new presidential candidate comes on the scene, especially when they are relatively unknown, the first question we must ask ourselves is whether or not they would function as puppets in some future White House. This is a critical question, because only a president who is not a puppet will be able to respond to the will of the people as expressed through the political process overall.


With a McCain/Lieberman ticket, the judgment on puppet status is clear -- a psychotic and a reputed foreign agent add up to guaranteed puppets. Obama also flunks this crucial test. Obama would be nobody without the investiture, financing, networking, media support, and other forms of assistance provided by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Trilateral Commission, Skull and Bones, and other members of the financier elite. He is a candidate who has been literally manufactured out of nothing in a very few years, through a carefully planned media campaign culminating in the hysterical media swoon of the past several months. Even so, he has proven unable to carry a single Electoral College mega-state outside of his own home base in Illinois. It is certain that Obama's potential for escaping puppet status is very, very low.

Obama is also afflicted with certain egregious scandals, which the media have so far covered up. First, Obama is closely linked to a slum lord and organized crime figure named Tony Rezko, who was jailed at the end of January, just before Super Tuesday. This explosive information has been totally covered up by the controlled media. Secondly, there are the Larry Sinclair allegations, contained in a U-tube video widely viewed online, and involving a cocaine orgy. Finally, some enterprising investigative journalist might make the connection between Zbigniew Brzezinski, the center of the entire Obama campaign, and Ilyas Achmadov, the current Washington ambassador for the Chechen terrorist organization. This ambassador of terrorism is currently living in the United States, at taxpayers' expense, thanks to the lobbying of Zbigniew Brzezinski. The Clintons may not use this material against Obama, but we can be sure that Karl Rove will not hesitate. Here we have the making of a swiftboating campaign far beyond anything seen in 2004. Even if the Rezko and Larry Sinclair allegations are not brought up, they can be used to blackmail Obama and keep him obedient in the status of a puppet.

As for the Clintons, they are a known quantity, for good and for ill. They have a well-established personal and historical identity. Bill was a protege of Pamela Churchill Harriman and her PAM-PAC, but she is gone now, and the Clintons cannot be said to owe their entire existence to any one person or faction in today's world, in the way that Obama may be fairly said to owe his entire existence to his Brzezinski-Goulsbee Trilateral/Skull and Bones handlers and backers. The Clintons were treated very roughly by the financier elite during impeachment ten years ago, and they fought back. They are getting a very rough treatment from the bankers and their controlled media outlets right now, and they are fighting back. They are also getting betrayed by an array of rotten elitist politicians like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, who owed the Clintons a great deal, and are now stabbing them in the back. The Clintons are not the beneficiaries of a CIA people power coup or flower revolution. It seems clear that Billary as a combat team are on the whole less likely to follow orders from the banking establishment than the Manchurian candidate Obama, who has no record, stands for nothing, and seems to have no loyalties to anything. This may not be much, but it is at least something, in the present terrible situation.

In short, our left liberal friends are demanding that we support a hand-picked Wall Street Manchurian candidate for another puppet presidency a la Carter, a man who probably cannot win the White House, whose economic profile is far to the right of his opponent, and who would probably provoke war with Russia if he ever did get elected. They are doing this despite the obvious fact that the controlled corporate media are signaling every day that Obama is the preferred alternative of the financier elite and the banking establishment. And, although they may not know it, they are supporting the only Democrat left standing whose ineptitude, incompetence, and narrow appeal will almost certainly cause the ongoing party realignment to miscarry, generating catastrophic consequences that will be felt for decades. Obama is manifestly the wrong choice. Under most circumstances, he is doomed to lose. If he wins, our likely reward will be that Zbigniew Brzezinski will get the chance to live out his twilight of the gods in all-out thermonuclear confrontation with Russia. All in all, this is the worst of all possible alternatives. As usual, our left liberal friends are out of sync with the American people, and out of sync with the imperatives of world history.
Site Admin
Posts: 31721
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Postby admin » Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:16 am

Barack Obama Fronts Wall Street's Infrastructure Swindle: What "Change" Really Means.

By Bruce Marshall

Do not be fooled! Barack Obama's call for a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank (NIRB) does not signal the return of the Democratic Party to the values of FDR and a revival of the Constitutional prerogative to 'promote the general welfare,' but would rather provide more welfare for Wall Street and worse. Obama's plan is nothing more than the direct means of instituting the Rohatyn-Rudman National Investment Corporation (NIC) plan called for in 2005, which in essence is a revival of Mussolini's methods of corporatist control of the state in a politically correct postmodern fashion.

When Senator Obama states that his National Investment Reinvestment Bank (NIRB) will magically turn $60 billion into trillions of dollars, as he did in his Feb. 13th Jamesville, WI speech, one can easily realize that the only way that this can happen is through the perverse magic of Wall Street. What would happen is that bonds floated by the NIRB will be bought on the open market, to then be speculated upon, securitized as derivatives, traded and ultimately used as collateral on the newly built infrastructure. What we will see is the emergence of an infrastructure bubble to replace the mortgage bubble, propped up by initial government expenditures towards infrastructure. This is just the start, as Obama will fund the feel-good 'carbon credit' swap to be the next blast of hot air to make Wall Street giddy. This is a key insight to a true understanding of what is going on. Bail-out the financial powers with a clever plan that will raise money to then buy up hard assets, in other words the remaining wealth of our nation, as the meltdown crisis of over a quadrillion in derivatives losses grows and grows.

Besides artificially propping up the markets, Obama's NIRB, as an initiation of the Rohatyn-Rudman infrastructure investment model, opens the door to the privatization of public assets. International predators and asset-strippers want to buy up public highways and impose cutthroat tolls, as they are already doing in many states. Then they run the turnpikes into the ground as cash cows while they mercilessly bilk the users. Privatization is a key goal of the Anglo-American financiers behind this scheme. Both the NIC and NIRB rely on the new darling of the markets, PPPs, known as public-private partnerships. PPPs are the means by which market forces will dictate, and that is the word, the implementation of these projects. The argument is that the PPP will keep costs down, but in reality only because the private corporations, now controlling the public sector, will own the assets of what is being constructed. The PPP model is none other than the model implemented by Mussolini in his fascist corporate state. The creation of NIRB funds hark back to Hjalmar Schacht's 'MEFO' bills, that created a speculative bubble of money so that the National Socialists could re-arm Germany and fight World War II.

Since 9/11, America has certainly turned into a top-down police state, but true post-modern fascism requires a popular movement to usher it into power. Bush has created a dictatorship out of the Presidency; now the next step towards fascism is being marketed to exploit the desire for change. The depressed national mood, due to the war and economic recession or depression, has compromised the sane reasoning and courageous opposition now needed more than ever. This has created the conditions for a newcomer to magically appear with a message of hope, using the mantra 'Change,' wrapped in a swooning fever that has infected the young and the left liberal excuse machines such as 'Move On' who were not very serious about stopping Bush/Cheney and the war.

Since he passed his audition at the Democratic convention in 2004, Senator Obama has been taken over by George Soros and other hedge fund millionaires to launch a campaign out of nowhere, based on nothing but rhetoric and Wall Street millions. As darling of the rich elitist Kennedy/Kerry/Dean wing of the Democratic Party, Obama's pseudo-Camelot will deliver Wall Street and the Anglo-American financiers the goods, while disguised in a patina of racial teflon and faux populism from the upper crust. For substance ask, where is the bill in the Senate by Kennedy/Kerry/Obama calling for a freeze on all foreclosures? Where's their filibuster against the war? Where is a real minimum wage, in the form of a living wage? Where is impeachment of Bush/Cheney? Why did Senator Obama move against raising heating oil assistance to the poor in the recent spending bill in Maine?

The answer to this last question, besides Rohatyn, is Obama's top economics controller, Austan Goolsbee, a sinister Skull & Bones, Friedmanite Chicago School free trade/free market economist who has delivered the real answer to the question of the difference between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton. Goolsbee stated on CNBC that Obama is more market friendly -- more in the pocket of Wall Street. This is precisely the establishment's secret fear of Hillary Clinton, that she might act as her heroine Eleanor Roosevelt, to implement a postmodern New Deal, opposing austerity measures against programs that help the poor. That she would fund essential public services, like hospitals and schools, and provide universal health care available to all. The greatest fear is that she might act like FDR to now start regulating the markets, starting with a 1% Tobin tax which could eliminate the income tax burden for everyone earning less than $125,000 a year, with plenty of money to fund the basic social programs of a civilized and truly decent society.

Now Obama has economic advisers such as David Cutler, who believes that rising health care prices are good for the economy, and Jeffrey Liebman, who wants to partially privatize social security. You see that Obama's MBAs will be quite good at implementing the vision of the Democratic godfather Felix Rohatyn (ex-Lazard Freres) and Republican Warren Rudman, a proponent of savage austerity and the wrecking of entitlements. Their obsession with balanced budgets, privatization, and asset stripping will be given new cover as the United States is dissolved into one great corporatist PPP.

Yes, we do need infrastructure, but the reason we have an infrastructure crisis is because people like Rudman and Rohatyn have influenced thinking against infrastructure projects which would get in the way of their balanced budget mania and plans to loot the economy. Now they have a new solution and salesman. Watch out!

Remember it was Rudman who was a key figure in the conservative revolution around Gingrich. The nefarious interest of Rohatyn is even more sinister, considering that this is the fellow who was part of the international team supporting fascist dictator Augusto Pinochet, where Rohatyn's social security privatization scheme was first tried. Soon a limited revised version of social security privatization will be introduced by Obama when the alarm is pulled by Wall Street during an Obama Presidency. In the 1970's Rohatyn became the actual dictator of New York City under Big Mac (the 1975 Municipal Assistance Corporation), trumping the city government as a financial czar who cared more about the city's bond rating than lives, and cutting essential services, including many inner-city hospitals, in a mad example of a PPP. Rohatyn, who is also recognized as the moneybags behind the pro-Obama Democratic Leadership Council, is also a big proponent of military privatization, which is another step towards feudal fascism. No wonder the Democrats have not stopped the war; it is good for their business arrangements too.

While Senator Obama says that he will stop the war and use that money to initially finance the NIRB and his green initiatives, this will do nothing to stop the speculative forces that are causing the present hyperinflationary bubble. Will Obama stand up to the speculators whose gambling is responsible for up to 40% of the price of every gallon of gasoline? Not likely.

To be sure, the NIRB will create some low-wage jobs, but the PPP arrangement will make certain that organized labor does not get assertive about living wages and benefits, all the while private companies welcome a work force of illegal immigrants who will do much of the work for virtual slave wages, as is already the case.

So what is to be done? First we need a real debate towards electing a President and Congress who will confront the crisis, the real issues surrounding the present meltdown of the derivatives bubble, and what that means for the entire economy. The sub-prime mortgage collapse is the tip of the iceberg. If Obama prevails, Americans will find that like the SS Titanic, the USA does not carry enough lifeboats that are not already owned by the bankers. Congress must come to reassert its constitutionally mandated sovereignty, by taking steps to nationalize the Federal Reserve, regulate the markets, save the essential banking interests of the people, and then create the money with which to create honest investment into our nation's infrastructure, to thus promote the general welfare of all.
Site Admin
Posts: 31721
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Postby admin » Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:17 am


Governor Deval Patrick: Brzezinski's Spare Obama

By Webster G. Tarpley

Washington DC, Feb. 18. The recent discovery by various functionaries of the Clinton campaign that Obama habitually lifts entire passages from the speeches of Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick points far beyond the issue of alleged plagiarism and gets us close to the central issue about Obama: the Illinois Senator is a synthetic Manchurian candidate who has been concocted over a period of two decades or more by a political intelligence faction associated with the Zbigniew Brzezinski clan, and Zbig's friends of the "color revolutions" faction at the National Endowment for Democracy and the Soros milieu. The striking fact revealed by the discovery that Obama and Patrick parrot the same type of utopian and messianic platitudes is not just that these two mellifluous demagogues habitually swap chunks of their speeches. It is rather that both of them are the product of the same process of programming, training, and indoctrination -- one might well say brainwashing -- on the part of the Brzezinski faction. They are both from the same stable, so to speak. The reason that there are two of them is that each is a backup for the other within the framework of the same overall intelligence community project, which is to bring the techniques of postmodern coup, otherwise known as the CIA color revolution or people power putsch, into this country in order to seize power in a soft coup d'etat. Both Obama and Patrick can be viewed as the dummies through which the ventriloquist Brzezinski speaks. They are both clones from a mother ship which the public, for the moment at least, does not see. The mother ship is the Trilateral Commission.

It is of course ironic that Obama, the professional word-monger, deals in words he has filched elsewhere. With no achievements, no record, no commitments, no promises, no loyalties, and no track record, Obama's stock in trade is oratory. How revealing that his only capability, his words, have been purloined. Here is an example, widely quoted on the Internet, of parallel passages spouted by Obama and by Patrick:

Obama: "Don't tell me words don't matter. 'I have a dream' -- just words? 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal' -- just words? 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself' -- just words? Just speeches?"

Patrick: "'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal' -- just words? 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself' -- just words? 'Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.' Just words? 'I have a dream' -- just words?"

The passages are interesting since they amount to a pre-packaged defense against the most obvious objection to the two politicians in question: they are short on concrete policy proposals, and long on vapid rhetoric. Since it would appear that Patrick made his remarks first, there is little doubt that Obama is indeed a mimic of Patrick. This discovery, however, is not new. Over the past year, the New York Times Magazine, the Boston Globe, and the Boston Phoenix have all published articles pointing to the fact that the babblings of these two politicians are astonishingly similar, to the point of being practically identical. What these passages reveal is that both Obama and Patrick are indeed Manchurian candidates, and that both are reciting from the same intelligence community print-out. They have memorized their lines from the same prompter. They have been programmed by the same software people. This points to the fact that both of these candidates come out of a laboratory, the same laboratory, and not out of any normal political process as the average person would understand that. Their rhetorical style and repertoire of themes are coherent with the same covert operation, in which they are both cogs.

As far as can be seen at this time, the roots of the Obama candidacy go back to a project begun by Zbigniew Brzezinski and his National Security Council subordinate, Professor Samuel Huntington of Harvard, in the early 1980s. This was the immediate aftermath of the catastrophic Carter administration, which Zbigniew Brzezinski had helped to wreck with the help of his fellow Trilateral Commission member Paul Adolph Volcker, whom Carter had appointed as head of the Federal Reserve System. For Brzezinski and the Trilateralists, the Carter administration had been a great success, one destined to be repeated. The Soviets had been enticed to enter Afghanistan, where they were destined to undergo a humiliating defeat in a long and genocidal war. The Shah of Iran had been ousted and replaced with Khomeini, thus wrecking the Iranian economy and permitting a second phony oil crisis. In Carter's State of the Union address for 1980, he had promulgated the so-called Carter Doctrine, namely that the United States would maintain supremacy in the Persian Gulf against all comers. This became the framework for the first Gulf War and the current Iraq war, not to mention possible future attacks on Iran. The entire U.S. economy was well on the road to de-regulation, and the de-industrialization of this country had been largely carried out. Carter had also left the office of the presidency far weaker and far more hated than it was when he found it.


At this point, Brzezinski, Huntington and their Trilateral associates were already looking ahead towards the prospect of a mass political upsurge, which they expected to emerge sometime between 2010 and 2030 in our own time today. They were already busily scheming to find ways to use this next political upsurge to further their favorite cause, that of totalitarian government in the United States. Huntington wrote in his American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony (1981):

If the periodicity of the past prevails, a major sustained creedal passion period will occur in the second and third decades of the twenty-first century ... the oscillations among the responses could intensify in such a way as to threaten to destroy both ideals and institutions. Yet the continued presence of deeply felt moralistic sentiments among major groups in American society could continue to ensure weak and divided government, devoid of authority and unable to deal satisfactorily with the economic, social and foreign challenges confronting the nation. Intensification of this conflict between history and progress could give rise to increasing frustration and increasingly violent oscillations between moralism and cynicism. This situation could lead to a two-phase dialectic involving intensified efforts to reform government, followed by intensified frustration when those efforts produce not progress in a liberal-democratic direction, but obstacles to meeting perceived functional needs. The weakening of government in an effort to reform it could lead eventually to strong demands for the replacement of the weakened and ineffective institutions by more authoritarian structures more effectively designed to meet historical needs. Given the perversity of reform, moralistic extremism in the pursuit of liberal democracy could generate a strong tide toward authoritarian efficiency. (p. 232)

Huntington, like his model Carl Schmitt, has always been looking for ways to institute a dictatorship. Obama is a means to that end.

It is evident that during these years, Brzezinski, Huntington, and company began the process of recruiting and indoctrinating promising young people who could, after a suitable process of training and indoctrination, be turned into political operatives to be deployed decades later, in the midst of a crisis which Brzezinski and Huntington were able to foresee, to ensure an outcome agreeable to the ruling finance oligarchy. There is every reason to think that Obama and Patrick are two examples of the assortment of candidates and political operatives which the Trilateralists began assembling at that time. This is the deeper reason why Obama and Patrick spout the identical platitudes of utopian reform, the abolition of partisan strife, and the healing of our "broken souls" by the touch of a false messiah.


This process was nothing new for Brzezinski and Huntington. Around the time of the Watergate crisis and the ouster of Nixon, they had begun planning to field a Manchurian candidate who would carry the program of the Trilateral Commission into the 1976 election campaign. After the disgrace of Nixon, it was evident that a Democrat would be needed. In addition, the Trilateralists wanted an outsider, untainted by the Watergate scandal and the corruption of Washington. They decided to select a southern governor with vague populist overtones. As Brzezinski boasts in his memoir Power and Principle, Carter was selected because he was more interested in international affairs. But at the same time, the immense investment in money, time, and work in assembling a political machine, developing position papers, purchasing and corrupting journalists and television personalities, preparing vote fraud options in battleground states like New York and Ohio, etc., etc., was much too great to let it depend on one person alone. What if Carter had another nervous breakdown? What if he got hit by a car? What if he were indicted? For these weighty but obvious reasons, the Trilateral planners decided that they would need a spare candidate, to be held in reserve and to be deployed in case their primary choice proved unviable or unworkable. As Brzezinski also points out, the spare Carter was Governor Reuben Askew of the state of Florida, who also had presidential ambitions. Without the financial backing of David Rockefeller and the rest of the Trilateral machine, Askew's ambitions were destined to remain a dead letter. But the point is that there was a spare candidate always available to be rushed into the breach.


There are indications that Obama was recruited by Brzezinski or his immediate circles in 1981-1983, when Obama was a student at Columbia University in New York City. The main problem that arises in investigating this issue is the obsessive secrecy on the part of Obama concerning this phase of his life. As New York Times reporter Janny Scott wrote last year:

Barack Obama does not say much about his years in New York City. The time he spent as an undergraduate at Columbia College and then working in Manhattan in the early 1980s surfaces only fleetingly in his memoir. In the book, he casts himself as a solitary wanderer in the metropolis, the outsider searching for a way to "make myself of some use."

He barely mentions Columbia, training ground for the elite, where he transferred in his junior year, majoring in political science and international relations and writing his thesis on Soviet nuclear disarmament. He dismisses in one sentence his first community organizing job -- work he went on to do in Chicago -- though a former supervisor remembers him as "a star performer."

Yet he declined repeated requests to talk about his New York years, release his Columbia transcript or identify even a single fellow student, co-worker, roommate or friend from those years.

"He doesn't remember the names of a lot of people in his life," said Ben LaBolt, a campaign spokesman.

Mr. Obama has, of course, done plenty of remembering. His 1995 memoir, "Dreams from My Father," weighs in at more than 450 pages. But he also exercised his writer's prerogative to decide what to include or leave out. Now, as he presents himself to voters, a look at his years in New York -- other people's accounts and his own -- suggest not only what he was like back then but how he chooses to be seen now.

In a long profile of Mr. Obama in a Columbia alumni magazine in 2005, in which his Columbia years occupied just two paragraphs, he called that time "an intense period of study."

"I spent a lot of time in the library. I didn't socialize that much. I was like a monk," he was quoted as saying." "Obama's Account of New York Years Often Differs from What Others Say," New York Times, October 30, 2007.


What is Obama hiding about his years at Columbia? Why the obsessive secrecy? It is likely that this is the decisive moment of his life, when he comes under the guidance of his protector and patron, Zbigniew. "Soviet nuclear disarmament" is a thesis title that has Zbigniew Brzezinski written all over it. Zbig was at this time the head of the Institute on Communist Affairs, where he was located from 1960 to 1989, apart from his time in the Carter White House. There is therefore a strong prima facie circumstantial case that Obama entered Brzezinski's orbit between 1982 and 1983 at Columbia. (Persons who knew Obama at Columbia during those years are urged to contact the author if they have information bearing on these questions.)

Today, the fact that Obama's and Patrick's utopian verbiage is basically identical points to the fact that an arrangement similar to the Carter-Askew one is in effect. This is not the place to illustrate the parallel lives of these two subjects. We can only mention the fact that they both come from relatively humble circumstances, both African-American boys grew up fatherless -- as did Bill Clinton -- both were selected to attend upscale prep schools, and both attended law schools. Their profiles are remarkably similar, to the point of being almost congruent. Everything points, in short, to the fact that they are both products whipped up by the same intelligence community operation. They have both been synthesized, groomed, indoctrinated, and programmed with the same demagogic political operation in view. As individuals, they may or may not be aware of all that has been done with and to them. For their part, voters have every right to be disturbed by the robot-like similarities of the sounds coming out of the mouths of these two operatives. They are both playing back the same tape. As time goes on, it should prove possible to reconstruct in much detail the specific sessions, drills, and other procedures which have been used to inculcate the ability to speak in this strange and singular manner. But even now, the lesson for voters ought to be clear: it would be very unwise to put the Manchurian puppet candidate Obama, the creature of Zbigniew Brzezinski and his gang, into the White House.
Site Admin
Posts: 31721
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Postby admin » Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:18 am

Brzezinski Seizing Control Over U.S. Policy in Slow-Motion Creeping Coup

By Webster G. Tarpley

Washington D.C., Feb. 23. Events of the past few days indicate that the Zbigniew Brzezinski faction of lunatic Russia haters have now won the upper hand inside the secret councils of the Anglo-American finance oligarchy, displacing the hitherto dominant George Shultz-neocon faction. Although George Bush and his cronies still occupy the White House, the policies that are being carried out are coming from the Brzezinski left CIA machine. Brzezinski has returned to public prominence in recent months due to his role as top establishment controller for the Obama campaign, but he is not waiting for the outcome of the November elections to take over key parts of the U.S. government. Brzezinski and his left CIA allies are already moving to assert their strategy, even as the neocons and their characteristic obsessions are moved to the back burner. The probability of an attack on Iran or Syria is declining, even as the danger of confrontation with Russia, China, and Pakistan -- all much more dangerous targets to trifle with -- increases exponentially.

1. KOSOVO: The independence of Kosovo has opened a new crisis front in Eastern Europe, with the potential for very nasty complications in regard to Russia. This is the essence of the Brzezinski anti-Russian policy. Kosovo independence is of course a flagrant violation of all existing norms of international law, most notably the Helsinki CSCE treaty of 1975, which finally put an end to World War II by declaring that all borders in Europe were to be considered final, unless and until any changes had been agreed through mutual consultation of the interested parties. Since the Serbian government in Belgrade is vehemently opposed to Kosovo independence, the unilateral actions of the U.S., British, and NATO are the very essence of international anarchy. The new regime in Kosovo goes far beyond the usual kleptocracy of NATO puppets favored by Brzezinski and his circles. This regime is essentially the terrorist KLA, an organization devoted to gun-running, drug-running, and trafficking in human slaves. The KLA is a Balkan version of al Qaeda, and both are wholly owned creations of the CIA and British intelligence. With Kosovo independence, the U.S., British, and NATO stand ready to use armed force to defend the right of a terrorist gang to assert sovereignty over a segment of modern Europe. The criminal obscenity of this policy could hardly be greater, but for Brzezinski all methods are legitimate provided that they increase tension with Moscow, and in that respect Kosovo independence is already a glowing success.

2. U.S. EMBASSY BELGRADE: The attack on the U.S. embassy in Belgrade, Serbia by gangs of drunken students is a classic Brzezinski operation. The tactic of having an incensed rent-a-mob of swarming adolescent patsies attack the U.S. Embassy in order to gin up a crisis is one of Zbigniew's signature specialties. During the time that Brzezinski was running the foreign policy of Trilateral puppet Jimmy Carter, there were bloody attacks on the U.S. embassies in Pakistan and in Afghanistan, both countries that featured prominently in Brzezinski's arc of crisis theory. Most famous of all was of course the attack on the U.S. embassy in Teheran, Iran, which led to the taking of hostages and the huge international crisis which helped to doom the Carter administration to extinction at the polls. If U.S. diplomats or State Department personnel are taken hostage anywhere in the world in the weeks and months to come, this must be attributed to Brzezinski.

3. SPACE WARFARE: The shooting down by the Pentagon of a U.S. satellite over the Pacific is a very provocative military stunt designed to intimidate both Moscow and Beijing, who happen to be Brzezinski's immediate targets. This reckless and irresponsible action has raised the specter of an uncontrolled arms race reaching into outer space.

4. SYRIA: Zbigniew Brzezinski himself, fresh from addressing a retreat of House Democrats in Williamsburg Virginia, is now in Syria at the head of a RAND Corporation delegation. The purpose of this mission should not be construed as peace in the Middle East, although some naive observers may read it in that way. Brzezinski's goal is immediately to lessen Russian influence in Syria, including the closing of certain naval facilities that the Russian navy has maintained in that country. In the longer run, Brzezinski would like to turn both Syria and Iran into components of the ring he means to forge around Russia for the purpose of the strategic encirclement of that rival superpower. Zbigniew's argument against the neocons is, why attack Iran and Syria, when you can turn them into kamikaze stooges, play them against Russia, and get rid of all of them that way? Europe and China are destined to play similar anti-Russian roles in Brzezinski's playbook.

5. BUSH IN AFRICA: President Bush may not know what he is doing on his current visit to five African countries, but Zbigniew Brzezinski knows exactly what the mission is. The Brzezinski policy is to foment destabilization and chaos in Africa under the auspices of the new United States African command (U.S.-AFRICOM), all for the purpose of driving the Chinese out of Africa. As Zbigniew announced on November 30, 2007 in the Washington Post, he intends to cut off Chinese access to oil, other energy sources, and strategic raw materials on the African continent. Since the Anglo-Americans control the Persian Gulf by direct military occupation, this is tantamount to a policy of driving the Chinese in on Eastern Siberia. Brzezinski believes that if the Chinese cannot get their oil from Africa, they will be forced to attempt the military seizure of Russia's oil wells in the Far East, where there is much oil and very few Russians. Both Moscow and Beijing know exactly what Brzezinski is doing in this regard. This is the kind of harebrained scheming by Lord Astor, Lady Astor and Sir Neville Chamberlain which helped to bring about World War II. The idea then was to play Hitler against Stalin and get rid of both of them that way. When that blew up in the faces of the British, the result was World War II. This time, it may well be thermonuclear World War III.

6. CIA UNILATERAL KILLINGS IN PAKISTAN: Back in July 2007, Obama attracted much unfavorable attention when he announced his plan to bomb targets inside Pakistan without conferring with the government of that country. He was vigorously criticized by Bush, McCain, and Mrs. Clinton. Obama turned out to be a bigger warmonger than Bush himself, since the tenant of the White House said that it was absolutely essential to work with the government of Pakistan against terrorism, and not humiliate them unnecessarily. Now it turns out that Obama's puppet master Zbigniew Brzezinski is more powerful than Bush on this issue. The Washington Post of Tuesday, February 19 revealed that a CIA Predator drone aircraft had attacked the Pakistani town of Mir Ali, killing a certain Abu Laith al-Libi, supposedly a leading figure of the al Qaeda patsy organization. The big news was that this time around, the CIA had not sought approval from the government of Pakistan. President Musharraf, weakened by the CIA destabilization of his country that is now ongoing, was only notified of the operation once it was underway, meaning that he was not even consulted in advance. Thus, the aggressive policy put into Obama's mouth by Zbigniew Brzezinski has become operational U.S. policy, regardless of what the lame-duck Bush had to say about this issue last summer. Pakistan is now being targeted because of President Musharraf's strategic understanding with China. Brzezinski intends to strip the Chinese of all their traditional allies as part of his campaign to smash the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and any other foci of resistance inside Eurasia against Anglo-American imperialism.

7. FALL OF ITALIAN GOVERNMENT: The European government most friendly to Russia and most reluctant to follow Brzezinski's lead into confrontation was the Italian regime of Romano Prodi. Italy had launched a program of large-scale economic cooperation with Moscow, much of it mediated through the Italian oil company ENI, a perennial outsider and rival of the Anglo-American cartel. Underpinning the cooperation between Italy and Russia was a far-reaching rapprochement between the Vatican and the Russian Orthodox Church aiming at forms of ecumenical dialogue with obvious overtones of political and economic cooperation. This dialogue between the Roman Pope and the Russian Orthodox Patriarch is something Brzezinski abhors. A few weeks ago, Prodi was overthrown through the actions of a Quisling political faction centered on the Bank of Italy. The other European governments, most notably Mrs. Merkel in Germany, and Sarkozy in France, are currently in the pocket of the Anglo-Americans. The British regime of Gordon Brown has of course taken the lead in fomenting confrontation with Russia through such transparent provocations as the Litvinenko-Berezovsky affair and the recent flap about U.K. subversive activities in Russia conduited through the British Council, supposedly a cultural exchange organization, but in reality a very aggressive arm of MI-6, which is now being expelled from Russia. The policy being imposed by Brzezinski is by its origins a London policy.


The campaign of scandal revelations against Senator John McCain in the New York Times suggest that the banking establishment is determined to remove all obstacles that might impede the March of Brzezinski's puppet Obama to the White House. In addition, Arizona Republican Congressman Rick Renzi, a McCain ally, has just been indicted on charges of extortion, wire fraud and money laundering in an alleged scheme to profit from a land deal. Renzi is an honorary co-chairman of McCain's presidential campaign. At the same time, the controlled corporate media continue to cover up the explosive revelations of Larry Sinclair, which have now been covered on numerous web sites and in the supermarket tabloid, The Globe. Since Karl Rove already knows all about these scandals, Democratic primary voters need to know about them too -- otherwise they risk choosing a candidate so thoroughly compromised as to be unelectable.

Obama is an intrinsically weak candidate, who might well be defeated even by McCain in a normal election, especially given the overwhelming suspicion about Obama among Latino, Asian, and Catholic voters. The motivation of the New York Times smear campaign against McCain by his former admirers and backers is to eliminate any serious contenders who might hinder the new Messiah between now and November.

This is not the first time that the intelligence community-police state apparatus has had to intervene decisively to provide assistance to the faltering ambitions of their puppet, Obama. During his quest for a seat in the United States Senate from Illinois in 2004, Obama received a scandal boost not once but twice. Obama's opponent in the Illinois Democratic senatorial primary of March 2004 was Marson Blair Hull, a wealthy securities broker who spent $28 million on television advertising and was heavily favored to defeat Obama in that primary. But Hull's campaign was torpedoed by a barrage of well-timed media charges that he had abused his former wife. Hull was therefore obliged to drop out of the race.

After Hull had been eliminated, Obama still had to face his Republican opponent in the November general election. Here his adversary was Jack Ryan, an investment banker from Goldman Sachs. Ryan had divorced his wife Jeri in 1999, and the case was sealed at their mutual request. Suddenly the Chicago Tribune and WLS television began undertaking mighty exertions to get these divorce records made public, even though they involved a dispute about child custody. On June 22, 2004, Los Angeles Superior Court judge Robert Schneider released the court documents in question. They revealed an accusation by Jeri Ryan against her husband, now Obama's political competitor, to the effect that Jack Ryan had induced her to visit sex clubs in a number of locations, and had attempted to coerce her into sexual intercourse in the presence of third parties. Judge Schneider's decision was all the more extraordinary because it was made in the face of the direct opposition by both parties to the divorce, and bore on a Family Court matter that is normally kept vigorously secret. It was as if some totalitarian invisible hand were intervening in favor of the beleaguered Obama candidacy. At this point Jack Ryan was compelled to abandon his candidacy at the urging of Dennis Hastert, then Speaker of the House. By now the Illinois Republican Party appeared to have gotten the message that Obama enjoyed divine protection, since they did not nominate a serious candidate to oppose him in the November election. Instead, they brought in a carpetbagger and well known windbag in the person of Allan Keyes of Maryland, who predictably went on to lose to Obama by the most lopsided margin in Illinois political history.

This process also recalls the 1988 elimination of top Democratic contender Gary Hart through a sex scandal. Hart's prospective opponent was Bush the Elder, another intrinsically weak candidate favored by the CIA who needed police state assistance to make it to the White House. Gary Hart was knocked out of contention by a scandal involving Donna Rice, with whom Hart had been embroiled with the help of underworld figure Don Aronow, an ally of the Bush family.

With U.S. missiles about to be installed in Poland under the direct supervision of Ian Brzezinski, the Pentagon's top man for Eastern Europe, the world is demonstrably moving towards a U.S.-Russian superpower confrontation with unmistakable thermonuclear overtones. The one missing ingredient in this pattern is a suitable demagogue in the White House who can make an appeal for national mobilization in this crisis, including quite possibly a restoration of the military draft, and a dimension of economic sacrifice and tax increases which Bush never proposed. This is the role of Zbigniew Brzezinski's puppet and Manchurian candidate, Obama. The anointed one can still be prevented from carrying out the Brzezinski-Soros plan to seize the Democratic presidential nomination through the domestic equivalent of a color revolution or people power coup.

The dynasty we need to worry about at this point is neither the Clintons nor the Bushes. The main concern today is an extension of the Brzezinski dynasty. Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the founders of the Trilateral Commission, member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and RAND Corporation operative, personally selected Carter as president of the United States in the mid I 970s. The resulting 1977-1981 Brzezinski Trilateral administration was an unmitigated catastrophe, leading to two decades of severe political reaction from which this country has not recovered. Given the ongoing breakdown crisis of the Anglo-American banking and currency systems, another Brzezinski administration would pose the threat of thermonuclear war with Russia in an infinitely more acute form than in the 1970s. After a few months of Zbigniew Brzezinski running the show, the era of Bush and the neocons might begin to look like the good old days. It is still possible to avoid this nightmare by timely action.
Site Admin
Posts: 31721
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Postby admin » Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:20 am

Elitist Obama Hysteria Broken by Votes of Working People in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island

By Webster G. Tarpley

Washington D.C., March 11. The media-fueled hysteria around the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama received a decisive setback this past week at the hands of ordinary American voters in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island. The forces of the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, the RAND Corporation, Skull and Bones, and the Friedmanite Chicago school, who control the Obama campaign, had fervently hoped to parlay Obama's successes in Republican and marginal states during the harrowing month of February into an acclamation of their Manchurian candidate as the pre-emptive Democratic nominee in the primaries of March 4. Obama's failure to wrap up the nomination now opens the perspective of prolonged political warfare, in which intensified scrutiny of Obama's personal history and campaign organization is likely to lead to a total or partial collapse of his synthetic candidacy. It may not yet be the beginning of the end for Obama, but it is the end of the beginning.

Obama's strategy has depended from the beginning on creating an irresistible tidal wave of hysteria, adulation, media swoon, and sense of messianic inevitability so as to stampede Democratic voters and the American people in general into capitulating to his cynical power grab. He has not been running for president, he has been running for Savior. His campaign does not offer political reforms, but rather the prospect of a golden age in which the lion shall lie down with the lamb. He does not ask to serve as president, he demands transfiguration. This approach clearly depends on the orchestration of a controlled environment through the media, the Internet, the press, and other avenues for the manipulation of public opinion. Everything depends on creating an aura of seraphic superiority, as the anointed candidate floats to power above the grimy mundane world of real political conflicts and real political and economic interests. Depending as it does on extraordinary gullibility, suggestibility, and manipulability on the part of the voters, this kind of strategy is exceedingly vulnerable to countermeasures tending to break the controlled environment, pollute the fantasy with reality, and force utopian dream time to yield to the world as it actually exists.


Time is therefore the most critical variable in the Obama strategy. Everything depends on wrapping up the nomination before the controlled environment of seraphic superiority, post-partisan purity, transracial transcendence, and nonpartisan sainthood is punctured and broken by growing awareness of the actual thuggery, duplicity and dirty politics practiced by the Obama campaign, and of the numerous scandals swirling around the candidate. All indications now suggest that the first week in March constituted the watershed between the time of Obama the beatific perfect Master and the current era of Obama the discredited, desperate demagogue slogging through the mud, the blood, and the sand of a real political campaign. Since so much of Obama's image has depended on completely artificial and unsustainable hype, it is now quite possible that he could collapse in a relatively short period of time like so many other ephemeral crazes. Obama may become a political Sanjaya, flashing like a meteor across the heavens and then flaming out into total obscurity and oblivion, and leaving his followers wandering what in the world his candidacy was all about.

Obama also started with a strategy for gaming the absurd and obsolete McGovern rules of the Democratic Party in order to carry out a people power coup or color revolution here in the United States, using the playbook of similar operations carried out by the Brzezinski faction, the left wing of the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, and the Soros foundations in such places as Serbia, Georgia, and Ukraine. These methods involve the use of an attractive and charismatic demagogue, fake polling, rent-a-mobs and dupe-a-mobs of swarming adolescents, catchy slogans, colors, and symbols, media whores, abundant cash from wealthy financiers, narcotics, Nuremberg rallies, balcony speeches, and related stratagems to orchestrate a coup d'etat, often under the cover of elections. With his eager desire to be the successful protagonist of a people power coup inside the United States, Obama takes his place in a rogues' gallery which includes Benedict Arnold, Aaron Burr, Jefferson Davis, and the Roosevelt-hating executives of the House of Morgan in the 1930s.


It is important to note that the Brzezinski-Soros Kiev-centered Orange Revolution in Ukraine in late 2004 brought that country to the verge of civil war as the pro-Russian eastern Ukraine balked at accepting the new regime of NATO puppets and kleptocrats, and threatened secession. The possible beginnings of something similar can already be observed here in the United States. Ironically, although Obama has pontificated ad nauseam about his ability to bring the country together, the concrete observed result of his postmodern multicultural candidacy has been to split the Democratic electorate six ways to Sunday: whites against blacks against Hispanics, men against women, rich against poor, and, with his notorious Joshua speech and youth cult operations, old against young. This gives some idea of how a possible future Obama administration would shatter the United States into a multiplicity of violently contending fragments. Could civil war ensue? No one could rule it out at the present stage.


The preferred strategy for Obama's handlers would have been to administer stunning defeats to Senator Clinton in both Iowa and in New Hampshire, forcing her and any other Democratic contenders to drop out of the race, thereby bringing the primary process of the Democratic Party to an early, abortive and apolitical conclusion, and avoiding the politicization and political education of a whole series of states through a prolonged primary campaign. Obama succeeded in winning the Iowa caucuses, thanks to the disproportionate weight of affluent suburbanites, academics, and Malthusian ideologues in the rarefied and ultra-left atmosphere of Democratic caucuses. After this defeat, the Clinton campaign was left reeling in disarray, but in New Hampshire, Obama received an important rebuff. In retrospect, Obama's defeat in New Hampshire can probably be best explained through the ability of voters in that state to observe the scandals enveloping Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts during his first year in office. Patrick and Obama share an almost identical public profile, and spout verbatim the identical utopian and messianic rhetoric, in lieu of positive and specific policy proposals. This is because both Obama and Patrick are clones of the same mothership, the Brzezinski faction. Having seen Patrick in action, New Hampshire voters had Obama's number as soon as he arrived on the scene, and they were not buying it. Patrick's rapacity and corruption -- spending large sums of state money to redecorate his office, insisting on a Cadillac limousine, and hiring a Chief of Staff for his own wife at a cost to taxpayers of $75,000 per year -- all this showed what greedy excesses of corruption might be expected under a future Obama administration. Patrick had promised to provide relief from onerous real estate taxes, but had entirely struck out in this regard, severely undermining his job rating on that score.

Obama's failure to knock Clinton and Edwards out of the race in New Hampshire meant that the primary season would continue until Super Tuesday in the first week of February. On Super Tuesday, Senator Clinton scored the most important victory of the entire primary season by winning the Electoral College megastate of California by a thumping landslide majority of 10%, while also winning in New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. Again, her Massachusetts win, representing a humiliating repudiation of the corrupt and decadent Kennedy political dynasty, had much to do with voters' familiarity with the Obama template, thanks to their dismal experience under the Patrick regime. The Super Tuesday results prolonged the contest through the month of February, giving Obama a chance to win a string of 11 victories in caucus states, Republican states, ultraleft states, and marginal states, each time stoking the hysterical adulation of fawning media whores on the controlled corporate television networks.

Obama's second chance to knock Mrs. Clinton out of the race and seize the Democratic nomination therefore came on March 4. His failure to win big on that date means that his postmodern coup d'etat will be on hold for seven weeks until the Pennsylvania primary, or until Puerto Rico votes in early June, or until the Democratic national convention in Denver in the last week of August. The protracted campaign which now opens up before us is in itself Obama's worst enemy, since the artificial enthusiasm of his deluded followers will be harder and harder to maintain as the weeks and months grind on.

Although he poses as an insurgent, Obama has been collecting endorsements from the most discredited elements of the Democratic Party, not just the Kennedy clan. Bill Bradley, elitist Wall Street investment banker, has now mobilized his own holier than thou rhetoric in favor of the South Side Savior. We can all remember Bradley for his impotence when Al Gore debated him during the 2000 primary campaign. Gore lied about Bradley's health care proposal, and Bradley lacked the courage to denounce Gore to his face. His impotence is yet another reason why there is no universal health care in this country. For Bradley, Obama's raising of political cowardice to the level of a virtue is doubtless attractive, since it re-interprets his own past failures as high-minded triumphs.

Senator Jay Rockefeller is also campaigning for Obama. With Brzezinski, Volcker, and Carter already on board, the Obama campaign is looking more and more like a Carter reunion. The Obama campaign remains a brutal and dangerous enemy which should not be underestimated, especially given the extent of its backing from the left wing of the U.S. intelligence community.


Ohio is of course the classic battleground swing state of recent years. It is the classic bellwether state, and an indispensable component in any Democratic candidate's formula for winning the Electoral College. The most important voting group in Ohio is the Reagan Democrats -- blue-collar, trade union, middle class and lower middle class voters who deserted the Democratic Party in 1980 after the horrors visited upon them by Zbigniew Brzezinski's puppet Jimmy Carter. Many Reagan Democrats are of Eastern European origin -- Poles, Hungarians, Slovaks, and others. Many are Roman Catholic. They cultivate strong family-centered values and are interested in New Deal style measures to help them maintain a middle-class standard of living, obtain adequate medical care, and educate their children despite the current George Bush economic depression. Many are working-class women. Many are retired.

These voters are not interested in Obama's vapid utopian rhetoric. They see him as the wealthy and condescending elitist and spokesman for banking interests that he in fact is. Joe Sixpack, in a word, is not falling for Obama. Senator Clinton racked up decisive 2:1 majorities among these Reagan Democrats, and this is a fact of vital importance for deciding who represents the most viable presidential candidate for the Democratic Party in the November 2000 election.


Senator Clinton's victory in Texas also has sweeping implications for the question of which political party might dominate the Electoral College over the next four decades. In Texas, it was working-class, lower middle class, and middle-class Hispanics and Latinos who voted for Senator Clinton over Obama by a two to one ratio. The Latinos are now the largest single minority group in the United States. Latinos had succumbed to the demagogy of George Bush in 2004, with 40% of them voting for the current tenant of the White House. Latino immigrants are by all odds the most important swing group for the political future of the United States in the 21st century, and here again they are not falling for Obama. Senator Clinton had won the Latino vote by a similar two to one margin in California, and also racked up two to one majorities among Asian immigrants. Obama's failure to penetrate the Latino and Asian voting blocs provides an exceedingly grim commentary on his chances for winning the Electoral College.

Another lesson of Texas is that Senator Clinton won the election, while Obama prevailed in the caucus. Many commentators are increasingly condemning the caucus form itself as an inherently elitist and undemocratic method of choosing candidates, since it tends to exclude working families who cannot devote so many hours to expressing their political preference, and who also feel repelled and intimidated by the snobbery and vitriolic class prejudice of many Obama supporters. In Texas, there were many reports of voter intimidation and harassment carried out, ironically, by those same Obama forces who claim to float in beatified detachment far above the normal, grubby, political fray. The secret ballot was one of the fundamental demands of the prairie populists of the 1890s, and the Democratic Party would be well advised to abolish caucuses and go back to the voting booth. The abuses of the caucus form represent a scandal every bit as big as the fraud committed in recent years with the help of electronic voting machines.


As for Rhode Island, here is another state where Governor Deval Patrick's personal greed and failed administration have tended to inoculate voters against Obama's trademark demagogy. Obama' s success in Vermont confirms the analysis offered here ex contrario: Vermont is notoriously the playground of rich elitists and affluent exurbanites. Similar demographics were doubtless at work in Obama's success in the Wyoming Democratic caucuses: this is a state where the Democratic Party can meet in the phone booth, which Democrats have no hope of ever carrying in the November election, and where the rich elitists who jetted in to Jackson Hole for the weekend also stopped off to caucus for the anointed one. Many hourly workers who might have voted for Mrs. Clinton in a fair secret ballot election were doubtless working through the weekend and could not take several hours to participate in a caucus in which they would be looked down on by Obama's well-heeled backers.

This dynamic is becoming more generally recognized. A veteran columnist for the London Times, concluding that Clinton was the only viable choice, wrote: "But Hillary Clinton now seems more likely than Mr. Obama to become the next president of the United States ... Mrs. Clinton has won by decisive margins in every big state that the Democrats must win to send their candidate to the White House. Mr. Obama's lead in the delegate count is based on his success in small states with little electoral significance or in Republican strongholds such as Alabama and Nevada where the Democrats have no chance of success. (Anatole Kaletsky, London Times, March 6, 2008)

As of this writing, Obama has failed to win a single closed Democrats-only primary election. Of the Electoral College megastates which are absolutely indispensable for any Democratic candidate, he has won only Illinois, and he is unlikely to prevail in any other of these big states. Mrs. Clinton has now won California, Texas, New York, Florida, Michigan, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Ohio. Obama's dubious exploits in such reactionary strongholds as Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, North Dakota, Utah, and similar places appear nugatory in comparison. It is nice to be popular with the rich elitists of Vermont or of Jackson Hole, Wyoming, but this does not have much to do with winning the presidential election.


The lesson of all this is that Mrs. Clinton's campaign so far adumbrates a durable winning combination for the Democratic Party among key sociological groups and in the Electoral College. Obama, by contrast, offers an odd assortment of states, an incongruous slapdash coalition, a random congeries, a crazy quilt or checkerboard of states where he might conceivably muddle through. By now it should be plain to all that 2008 will go down in history as a great watershed year in the latest party realignment of American politics, joining such landmark elections as the Jacksonian Democrats of 1828, the Lincoln Republicans of 1860, the Wall Street Republicans of 1896, the magnificent Franklin D. Roosevelt New Deal of 1932, and the abominable reactionary Nixon success of 1968. The house we build this year is the one we will have to live in until the midpoint of the 21st century, so it is imperative to step back from the Obama craze and its swarming adolescents and soberly measure what is at stake.

The old Democratic Party of the New Deal was destroyed first of all by Lyndon B. Johnson's incalculable folly in going into Vietnam, and then by the catastrophic presidency of Jimmy Carter, Obama's direct predecessor in the ranks of Trilateral Commission puppets. Fleeing from the horrors of Carter, Brzezinski, and Volcker, there emerged a group of voters known as the Reagan Democrats, heavily concentrated in the rust belt states of the newly de-industrialized Great Lakes region. These voters were largely Catholics, Eastern Europeans of Polish, Hungarian, and Slovak background, blue-collar former industrial workers, socially conservative but economically still looking for a return to the New Deal. Today many of the Reagan Democrats are working women, retirees, senior citizens, and working families. In order to win in 2008 and to build a lasting majority at the same time, it is absolutely indispensable that the Democratic Party win back these Reagan Democrats. Without them, states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, will always be vulnerable to the latest Republican demagogue.

The message from the Ohio primary is that Senator Clinton has by far the best chance of reincorporating the Reagan Democrats into their traditional Democratic Party home. Senator Clinton wins this group by better than two to one. Since so many Reagan Democrats are also Catholics, it is relevant to recall that Senator Clinton has been winning Catholic voters, the most important single swing religious group, by similar to 2:1 margins. Obama, by contrast, is viewed with deep suspicion as a candidate whose soaring inspirational rhetoric has nothing to do with the gritty realities of daily life in Sandusky, Altoona, and Flint; Obama is the rich man's candidate. Polling indicates that up to 25% of Democrats who voted for Senator Clinton in Ohio would never cast their ballots for Obama, but would rather defect to Senator McCain. Tepid support for Kerry from Reagan Democrats and Catholics helped doom the Democratic ticket in 2004. Why should the wealthy parvenu elitist Obama fare any better?


There is therefore the gravest doubt as to whether Obama could ever hope to carry Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Without these states, any Democratic candidate is doomed to defeat. The nationwide polls touted by the Obama public relations machine are meaningless: Presidents are chosen state-by-state in the Electoral College, and not by nationwide votes -- ask Al Gore.

The Texas results in particular confirm Senator Clinton's lock on about two thirds of all Hispanic and Latino voters. An attempt by the controlled corporate media to gin up a generational split among Latinos fell relatively flat, especially among the vast majority of Latinos who have to work for a living under difficult circumstances and who need effective help, and not vapid utopian rhetoric. A look back at the California primary confirms Obama's inability to appeal to Chinese, Korean, and other Asian voters. Based on the results from Texas and California, it is fair to say that Obama is a very inferior vote-getter among the newer immigrant strata who represent the fastest growing ethnic groups in the United States, and who therefore embody a large part of the political future of this country. Latinos do not vote for the Democratic Party automatically; we stress once more that in 2004, 40% of Latinos voted for Bush, giving him a significant part of his margin of victory. Here is a group which clearly merits the most sustained and sympathetic attention on the part of anyone proposing to win the presidency, and here, once again, Obama strikes out. This means that Obama has little hope of carrying Florida, another state that a Democrat must win. For Florida, factor in the important Jewish vote, where Obama's left CIA connections into the Middle East are causing him serious trouble.


Retired people and senior citizens have the highest levels of voter participation, and this is a demographic which has been extremely skeptical of Obamaphilia and its utopian expectations. Here lies the potential for a backlash that would add one more nail to Obama's political coffin for November. As a British observer noted, "Finally there is the matter of maturity and experience. This is Mr. McCain's biggest gift to the Clinton campaign. An Obama-McCain contest would be seen as a match of inexperience against old age. Mr. Obama hopes to win this competition by invoking the spirit of John F. Kennedy. What he forgets, however, is that Kennedy was swept to power on the crest of the baby boom, when the largest group of voters was in its twenties. Today these boomers are in their sixties or seventies -- and will not take kindly to the charge that Mr. McCain is too old to be president. Given the high propensity to vote among the elderly, this election will not be decided by a baby boom but by a senility surge." (Anatole Kaletsky, London Times, March 6, 2008) Try winning Florida, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan against that tide.

The only way that Obama might conceivably seize the presidency is through the kind of scandal assistance which has so notoriously been employed to catapult him into the Senate in the first place. But even in this case, Obama's own vulnerability to scandal (Tony Rezko, Larry Sinclair, Bill Ayers, Bernard Dohrn, Ilyas Achmadov, etc.) is so massive that at this point no one could be certain that even the most massive scandals unleashed against Senator McCain could guarantee success for Obama. The Illinois Senator truly represents damaged goods, and those seriously interested in evicting the reactionary Republicans from the White House need to dump him while there is still time.

If we combine Senator Clinton's proven appeal to the Reagan Democrats, plus her hegemony among Latinos and Asian voters, we can then turn to the Electoral College map. With Clinton as the candidate, California stays locked up for the Democratic Party for the entire foreseeable future, thanks to Asian and Latino voters there. Arizona and New Mexico move permanently into the Democratic column. Florida ceases to become a battleground state, and begins to tend heavily Democratic. Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan are no longer vulnerable Republicans, and also join the Democratic column. Texas by contrast, begins to leave the Republican deep-freeze, and becomes much more of a battleground swing state in which the GOP must expend large amounts of precious resources in order to have a chance all thanks to Latino voters. In this way, a solid Democratic majority emerges, destined to last until the middle of the 21st century, and destined to provide a political playing field automatically biased in favor of progressives and against the benighted reactionaries who have been in command since the advent of Nixon. A new political world, not utopian but realistic, opens up.

These changes, it must be stressed, are of an objective rather than a subjective order. The personality of Mrs. Clinton is only incidental to them. Like a sacrament, they work independently of the state of mind of the person who is bringing them about. A positive outcome of the ongoing party realignment will shape events for many decades, long after the politicians of today have departed from the scene. Those who do not like Mrs. Clinton should recall that she represents neither the cause nor the final fruition of this party realignment, but rather the transitional figure who serves as a vehicle to make it possible.

Under the Clinton scenario, the Republican Party ticket of McCain-Lieberman or McCain-Condoleezza Rice or any other McCain variant undergoes a catastrophic loss of both White House and Congress in 2008, reverting to the status of a regional party primarily concentrated in the deep South, and trading prevalently in Mexophobia and racism. It becomes a party of the states where Governor Huckabee has won primaries, and ceases to be a true national party.

Under the Obama scenario, however, these same hypothetical Republican tickets can win Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan with the help of the critical swing factor represented by the Reagan Democrats, and also take Florida thanks to disaffected Latinos who cannot stomach Obama. Texas belongs to the GOP. California becomes a battleground state, draining Democratic Party resources that are needed elsewhere. A U.S. attack on Iran occurs within six months after McCain's inauguration, followed by a likely escalation towards all-out thermonuclear confrontation with Moscow and Beijing. Martial law and dictatorship are imposed on the home front, and we discover that the potential of the 2008 party realignment has been aborted into dictatorship and world war. This is what it means to succumb to the siren song of the Obama propaganda machine. Especially because some parts of the black community have become infatuated with Obama, it would be well to prepare a series of measures to heal the rift that may result as the Senator sinks into obscurity. One very concrete progressive reform would be to admit the District of Columbia into the Union as the 51st state, virtually guaranteeing two black senators and an additional black member of the House. That is a reform that would keep on giving forever, and which would materially improve the voting balance in the Senate. More broadly, the black community would benefit most from class-based measures for economic recovery. Although the numerical majority of the beneficiaries of such programs would probably turn out to be white, a greater portion of the black community -- specifically of the black underclass -- would benefit as compared to any other group in the population. The class-based criterion is decisive in making sure that economic development assistance actually reaches the sidewalks of the black inner-city ghetto, and is not absorbed by members of the black overclass, as has so often been the case in the past.


Obama's failure had much to do with the fact that he had been defeated in several media cycles before the Texas and Ohio voting. This was something new and unusual. It is clear that the Obama supporters are extremely labile and suggestible, requiring hour by hour maintenance and support in the form of a steady diet of adulation, fawning, and idolatry by the stable of kept media whores. Even the temporary disturbance in this support system leads to disorientation and consternation among these lemming legions.

The trial of Obama's underworld friend Tony Rezko had been in the news for several days before the March 4 voting. On March 3, Obama had beat a hasty retreat from a press conference in which some Chicago reporters had pushed aside Obama's usual fawning traveling press corps, and asked tough questions about his meetings and fundraisers with Rezko, and about the amount of money this gangster had injected into the Obama campaign. As he often does under these circumstances, Obama began to stutter and stammer, whining that eight questions was all that he could be expected to answer, and then ran out the door as fast as his legs could carry him. With that, the reverential decorum of Obama's usual media adoration session was abruptly broken. The press contingent who habitually travel on the Obama campaign plane were exposed as contemptible lapdogs, experts in softball questions, and shills for the Obama campaign.

Obama's hissy fit was a sign that he really did not have the stamina, grit, and determination necessary to overcome the vaunted Republican attack machine in the fall. The Huffington Post website, dominated by a rich cosmopolitan elitist who was an eager participant in the attempt to remove Bill Clinton from office, and whose open love affair with McCain she is now trying to put behind her, is normally the inner Temple of Obama cultism. But even here, the hypnotic spell of this Manchurian candidate was being broken: on March 6, Rachel Sklar posted a perceptive article discussing the obvious weakness and fecklessness of the anointed one. Many Obama skeptics offered comments, pointing out that "Egobama" was a petulant whiner, too brittle to take on the GOP. Both Time and Newsweek put Senator Clinton on their covers.


Even worse were the vicissitudes of Austan Goolsbee, the Skull and Bones member and Chicago school free-trade fanatic who serves as Obama's top economic policy handler. Under pressure from Ohio voters who are deeply disillusioned with the free-trade sellouts of recent decades, Obama had tried the rhetorical gambit of announcing his intentions to renegotiate the NAFTA free-trade pact among the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Goolsbee had contacted the Canadian consulate in Chicago to reassure the neocon regime of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper that Obama's sallies against NAFTA were simply demagogic ploys designed to get him votes, and that he did not mean any of this seriously. Obama was lying, so the Canadian bigwigs had nothing to worry about. Naturally, Obama's lies were difficult to reconcile with the much touted politics of hope, and this incident had helped many Ohio voters solidify their vague suspicions of Obama into a firm resolve to reject him at the polls.


Some commentators noted that if Obama wanted to be taken seriously in the future, he needed to immediately fire Goolsbee. But this misconstrues the essential nature of the Obama campaign: it is Brzezinski and Goolsbee who have selected and recruited Obama for his current role, and not the other way around. Brzezinski and Goolsbee own Obama, it is they who are the bosses of this puppet candidate. Obama cannot fire them; if anything it is they who might decide to fire him, and it might not be pretty.

During these critical days, a number of websites revealed that, during Obama's campaign for the United States Senate in 2004, he had met with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune to announce his support for U.S. bombing attacks against both Iran and Pakistan. As David Mendell of the Chicago Tribune staff had reported, "U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs." (Chicago Tribune, September 25, 2004)

Coupled with Obama's more recent enthusiasm for bombing strikes on Pakistan, this provided a useful reminder that Obama, despite his rhetoric of opposition to the Iraq war, is in reality the most adventurous warmonger in the entire Democratic field, far more bellicose than Senator Clinton, and indeed more aggressive and dangerous than Bush himself. Thanks to this timely reminder, voters were able to see that Obama's self-serving narrative of his own clairvoyance in regard to the Iraq war was worse than a fairytale -- it was the cover story for a coming nightmare of aggression scripted by the revanchist and Russia hater Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Other attacks on Obama took their toll during these days. The supermarket tabloid The Globe published a story on accusations from Larry Sinclair that Obama had consumed crack cocaine during a homosexual encounter. A Yahoo search on the eve of the March 4 voting disclosed that the Larry Sinclair allegations had been mentioned on over 800,000 websites, and were continuing to spread rapidly across the Internet. Paul Krugman condemned Obama in the New York Times as an unscrupulous demagogue for his use of classic reactionary Republican arguments against Senator Clinton 's plan for universal health care. Sean Hannity of Fox News hammered away at Obama's close association with the Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers who, according to the Obama campaign, was still a friend of the senator. The London Times revealed Obama' s intention of choosing a Republican as his vice presidential running mate or else as secretary of defense, mentioning the names of GOP senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Richard Lugar of Indiana in this connection. The sanctimonious Hagel had used voting machines manufactured by his own company to filch his Senate seat in Nebraska. Lugar had run for president well before 9/11 on a platform of generating fear of a coming terrorist attack in the United States. Obama's post-partisan sellout was already beginning, even before he had the nomination in his hands.


The distinguished Princeton history professor Sean Wilentz attacked the pervasive media legend that Bill Clinton had somehow been guilty of racist tactics during the run-up to the South Carolina primary. Wilentz showed conclusively that the shoe was in fact on the other foot: it had been the Obama campaign and its media cheering section who had cynically played the race card. Wilentz wrote:

While promoting Obama as a 'post-racial' figure, his campaign has purposefully polluted the contest with a new strain of what historically has been the most toxic poison in American politics ... The Clinton campaign, in fact, has not racialized the campaign, and never had any reason to do so. Rather the Obama campaign and its supporters, well-prepared to play the 'race-baiter card' before the primaries began, launched it with a vengeance when Obama ran into dire straits after his losses in New Hampshire and Nevada -- and thereby created a campaign myth that has turned into an incontrovertible truth among political pundits, reporters, and various Obama supporters. This development is the latest sad commentary on the malign power of the press, hyping its own favorites and tearing down those it dislikes, to create pseudo-scandals of the sort that hounded Al Gore during the 2000 campaign. It is also a commentary on how race can make American politics go haywire. Above all, it is a commentary on the cutthroat, fraudulent politics that lie at the foundation of Obama's supposedly uplifting campaign. (Sean Wilentz, "How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton," The New Republic, February 27, 2008)


Obama's speech in the wake of his decisive defeats in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island showed how quickly his demagogy was wearing thin in the new climate of adversity. Obama came across as frowning, angry, saturnine. He spoke of his desire to create a new world in which Americans could be proud of their own nationality when they traveled abroad -- hardly a leading preoccupation for Joe Sixpack, who does not get over to Paris quite as often as the senator and his wealthy elitist backers. He told the story of one of his supporters from Uganda, who had stayed up late to watch the Iowa caucus. He suggested that Americans needed to be on their best behavior when voting because this man from Uganda was watching how they conducted themselves -- a peculiar thesis, to say the least. This speech, as so often with Obama, was a script read off the glass plates of a Teleprompter. He seemed to be overcompensating for defeat, and the effort fell flat.

Commentators are now suggesting that Obama needs to abandon his characteristic Nuremberg rally or balcony speech style, and begin listening to voters about their needs, showing that he understands the economic situation, has a specific economic program, and possesses the guts and determination necessary to fight for the needs of his base. But that, of course, might sully his carefully cultivated seraphic image. Many observers noted that Obama was a politician with a glass jaw, who could not absorb a haymaker and then come back up off the mat. A journalist from Texas wrote that her friends had concluded that Obama had no balls. All these observers were right: Obama had raised cowardice, appeasement, and preventive capitulation to the status of positive virtues. His announced intent of giving the vice presidency or the Pentagon to a Republican amounted to throwing away the fruits of Democratic victory even before it had been gained. Hard-pressed working families were taking note.


The disarray in the Obama campaign was underscored in the wake of his defeats in Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island by the flap around Samantha Power, who appears to have assumed the role of schoolmarm, governess and nursemaid in foreign policy questions for the superficial Senator. One commentator propounded the comparison that Samantha Power was to Obama as Condoleezza Rice was to Bush. The Obama campaign talks reconciliation but runs on pure venom, and this was illustrated once again when Professor Samantha Power told The Scotsman that Senator Clinton is "a monster." "We f***** up in Ohio," she added, with a refinement that would have made the foul-mouthed terrorist Bernardine Dohrn proud. "In Ohio, they are obsessed and Hillary is going to town on it, because she knows Ohio's the only place they can win." What are they obsessed with in Ohio? The savage destruction wrought by free trade? Jobs? Health care? Wages? One wonders what world the elitist jet set professor lives in.

She also told the BBC that Obama did not intend to be bound by his solemn campaign promise to engineer a departure of U.S. combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office; Obama would act according to an operational plan developed in agreement with the generals, she suggested. This meant that Obama was blatantly lying on Iraq as well as NAFTA, even as he assured foreign bigwigs and media that he did not believe a word of his own campaign demagogy. The politics of hope, indeed. Top Obama controller Zbigniew Brzezinski, never the brightest political bulb, faulted his protege's handling of this affair: "I think an expression of regret for using an inappropriate description of Senator Clinton should have sufficed. And I don't think she should have resigned." Things were not improved when Susan Rice, Obama's hate-filled, bellicose, and trigger-happy advisor on African affairs told an interviewer that it was true that Obama was not ready for an emergency 3 a.m. phone call, but whined that Mrs. Clinton was not ready either.

Some observers have noted that when Goolsbee embarrassed the Obama campaign, he was not reprimanded in public. When Professor Samantha Power did the same thing, she was immediately given the sack. The main reason for this is that Goolsbee belongs to the inner circle of controllers, while Professor Samantha Power was there to provide a kind of daycare support for the labile protagonist. But others saw a large dose of sexism in the obvious double standard for male and female advisors.


The figure of Professor Samantha Power should remind us of the pervasive presence of the left wing of the CIA and of the U.S. intelligence community generally in the Obama campaign. Professor Power is the self-proclaimed "genocide chick" whose book about Bosnia made her famous. She has also written about the Portuguese United Nations functionary Vieira de Mello, who was blown up in Baghdad in 2003 in an incident that more than one commentator attributed to Achmed Chalabi, the darling of the neocons and a leading U.S. agent. Professor Power has also been beating the drum on Darfur, attempting to create the preconditions for U.S. military attack on Sudan that would serve the Brzezinski strategy of driving the Chinese out of Africa; Sudan is one of the main oil exporters to China on that continent.

Professor Power is interested in genocide, but mainly when that genocide can be pinned on a country the U.S. wants to attack. She is not interested in the genocide created by the U.S. in Iraq, with the butcher's bill already in excess of one million defenseless civilians slaughtered. She is not interested in the ongoing U.S. genocide in Afghanistan, where reckless bombing of civilian targets is now the norm. She is not interested in the greatest genocide of them all, the 40,000 human beings who perish every day from malnutrition, starvation, and diseases which can be cured for pennies -- all thanks to the savage conditionalities of the U.S.-dominated International Monetary Fund and the U.S.-dominated World Bank.

In an interview with the London house organ of NATO intelligence, Professor Power argued in effect that Obama would be a more effective salesman for the discredited war on terror and for recruiting Europe into future U.S. aggressive campaigns. She boasted: "Obama can go door-to-door in Europe and say, 'Look, like you I opposed the war in Iraq, but what are we going to do together about al Qaeda?"' She also hinted that Obama's ability to demand blood, sweat, and tears from the American people would far exceed that of Bush: "The Bush years have left the American people looking for visible change. There was this post-September 11th yearning, people were waiting for a call to do good -- instead of getting the call we were told to go shopping. What the Obama movement has shown is that that yearning still exists in people." (London Daily Telegraph, March 8, 2008) In effect, when it comes to breaking strikes, imposing a new military draft, mandating forced labor, or demanding sacrifices and austerity for new wars, Obama would doubtlessly have more demagogic power than the discredited Bush.


The deplorable antics of the media whores for Obama deserve special attention. Lying, distortion, manipulation, and blatant partisanship have reached scandalous levels at all the networks and in the mainstream press, but perhaps nowhere is the situation worse than it MSNBC and NBC. MSNBC starts every morning with the sleazy Joe Scarborough -- who has never yet answered the relevant questions about the dead woman whose body was found in his congressional office -- joined by the obvious partisan Mika Brzezinski in a tendentious spectacle which has been dubbed Obamavision by insiders. This is also the network of Chris Matthews, whose pro-Obama tirades have violated any objective reading of the Federal Elections Commission regulations on unpaid political advertising.

Most hypocritical of all and therefore worst of all is the hypocrite Keith Olbermann, who attempts to cover up his reactionary and pro-Wall Street instincts with his opposition to the Iraq war and his facile contempt for Bush. Olbermann is no journalist, but rather a ham-handed booster of Obama. He is appropriately joined on many evenings by the effete British snob Richard Wolfe, whose claim to understand the political dynamics of the United States is as impudent as it is absurd. Wolfe would be more qualified for reporting on the British House of Lords.

Then there is the atrocious Andrea Mitchell, Mrs. Federal Reserve and a mouthpiece for finance capital if there ever was one. Olbermann is also frequently joined by Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, notoriously the house organ of the Federal Reserve system. Milbank is a member of the infamous Skull and Bones secret society of Yale University, a monstrous conflict of interest which he does not routinely disclose. The scurrilous David Shuster has been rehabilitated and continues in his partisan metier. Olbermann's line of nonstop groveling adulation for Obama exposes his moral, intellectual, and political bankruptcy in the harshest light. Whatever credibility he might have built up over the years with his criticism of the Iraq war has now been erased by his current meretricious activities in support of the current flagship covert operation of the intelligence community. Brian Williams and Tim Russert and NBC occupy the same plane of media degradation. Most Air America broadcasters have turned out to be so corrupt as to be practically worthless.

The boor and philistine Ed Shultz has also become a water boy for Obama. Shultz preens himself on being the leading progressive radio talk show. Shultz is closely associated with former Democratic Senate majority leader Tom Daschle, who lost his seat ignominiously because he was so closely identified with the interests of Citibank, the Wall Street concern which is at the same time one of the largest employers in South Dakota. The milquetoast Senator from Citibank made betrayal, capitulation and cowardice into a fine art during his time as Democratic Senate leader.

Ironically, it is just this kind of craven appeasement of the reactionary Republicans which Obama elevates to the status of an article of faith. Since Daschle is one of the national co-chairs of the Obama campaign, Ed Shultz's membership in the Media Whores for Obama is no surprise. Some members of the controlled corporate media are now encountering spontaneous outbursts of rage and resentment on the part of middle-class voters on the campaign trail due to the outrageous favoritism for Obama shown by their so-called "news organizations." It is a salutary phenomenon.


We must always remember how weak Obama is as a candidate. He would not hold his Senate seat today without the providential deus ex machina of his reactionary backers at the Chicago Tribune, who conveniently smoothed his path into the Senate by demolishing his two main opponents of 2004 with the help of well-timed scandals. First there was Marson Blair Hull, who had spent some $12 million on television advertising in hopes of winning the Democratic nomination for Senate. A gaggle of Chicago media led by the Chicago Tribune insisted on opening the sealed court papers relative to Hull's contentious divorce, swiftly destroying his chances. Then came the turn of Republican senatorial candidate Jack Ryan, a credible and formidable opponent heading towards the November election. The same rat pack of media led by the Chicago Tribune demanded that Ryan's divorce papers be opened, leading to salacious revelations that knocked him out of the race too. Instead of fielding a serious candidate, the Illinois Republican Party at that point decided to punt, trucking in the well-known buffoon and windbag Alan Keyes as a carpetbagger from distant Maryland. After that, Obama floated to victory.

This is why Obama is such a hypocrite when he complains about dirty politics; he is one of the biggest beneficiaries of dirty politics to be sitting today in the United States Senate. This is why Michelle Obama is such a cynical hypocrite when she boasts that her husband comes from the rough-and-tumble world of Chicago and Illinois politics: so far, the rough-and-tumble has been largely directed against Obama's hapless opponents, and seldom against the arrogant and pretentious Senator.
Site Admin
Posts: 31721
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Postby admin » Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:22 am

Obama's Oligarchs


At today's Obama rave in Oregon, the Manchurian candidate was loudly defended by retired U.S. Air Force General Merrill McPeak, one of Obama's high-profile handlers. McPeak accused Bill Clinton of McCarthyite tactics (or was it lese majeste?) for remarks in which Obama's holy name was not even mentioned. Who then is Obama's new defender?

McPeak is a Republican Bush family appointee who was named as Air Force Chief of Staff by President George H. W. Bush in October of 1990. McPeak took over during the time of Operation Desert Shield, and assisted in the overall target selection and strategic planning for the First Gulf War ("Operation Desert Storm") of January-February 1991. During that time McPeak's forces flew about 130,000 sorties over Iraq, bombing that country back into the stone age as part of a Bush-Kissinger operation. It was estimated at the time that if each sortie had killed just one Iraqi, then 130,000 Iraqis had already died when the bombing stopped. In particular, McPeak was the mastermind of the cowardly and infamous "bomb now, die later" strategy which targeted civilian drinking water and sewage treatment facilities, plus civilian transport infrastructure and irrigation systems needed for farming. This was a strategy of deliberate genocide which resulted in hundreds of thousands of delayed action deaths caused by polluted water and concentrated among old people, infants, and the sick. McPeak thus provided an important contribution to the harvest of hatred against the United States, which is about to result in the 4,000th death among the occupying forces. McPeak helped to prepare the current Iraq debacle more than a decade in advance.

According to recently broadcast accounts, McPeak was also a part of the mass killing in East Timor: "Another Obama adviser, General Merrill McPeak, an Air Force man, who not long after the Dili massacre in East Timor in '91 ... I happened to see on Indonesian TV shortly after that -- there was General McPeak overseeing the delivery to Indonesia of U.S. fighter planes." (Allan Nairn, Democracy Now, January 3, 2008) Yet, with this record, McPeak has the gall to lecture Democrats on whom they should vote for. Among air power genocidalists, McPeak is up there with Bomber Harris of RAF Bomber Command and Gen. Curtis LeMay of the Tokyo firestorms. Is this change we can believe in?

McPeak is a typical reactionary Republican, having served as Oregon state chairman for the Bob Dole campaign in 1996. In 2000, he enthusiastically endorsed George W. Bush, and worked for Bush as co-chair of Oregon Veterans for Bush. Maybe McPeak should keep his election advice to himself. Instead of pontificating at Obama rallies, he should be standing in the dock at Nuremberg to answer for high crimes against humanity, including genocide in Iraq.

Maybe McPeak's admiration for Obama is due to Obama's status as a trigger-happy warmonger who was ready to bomb both Iran and Pakistan during his U.S. Senate campaign (David Mendell, "Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran," Chicago Tribune, Sept. 25, 2004). Obama now wants to bomb Pakistan -- maybe McPeak is drawing up the plans for that one already. (Jake Tapper, "Anti-War Obama Pushes Pakistan Invasion," ABC News, August 1, 2007). Or maybe it is just that McPeak likes Obama's plan to choose a Republican running mate or Secretary of Defense like Hagel or Lugar. (Sarah Baxter, "Barnstorming Obama plans to pick Republicans for cabinet," London Sunday Times, March 2, 2008).

With the Obama campaign in desperate straits over the last several weeks, a shocking parade of the candidate's elitist backers have been forced to rush to his public defense. Just over the past few days we have seen the following: Zbigniew Brzezinski (Pol Pot supporter who created the 1979 Afghan-Soviet and 1980 Iran-Iraq wars), Jay Rockefeller (Bush's man on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and son of genocidalist John D. Rockefeller III), Joseph Nye (Trilateral-Bilderberger theoretician of imperialist "soft power"), and now "Bomb Now, Die Later" McPeak. Is this what a future Obama confrontation cabinet would look like? McPeak, for his part, looks like Death Warmed Over.

Brzezinski, Rockefeller, Nye, and McPeak are a hard act to top -- who will be the next to come forward for Obama? (March 22, 2008)


Any lingering doubts about Obama's status as an abject puppet of Zbigniew Brzezinski and the Rockefeller Trilateral Commission ended this morning when the withered mummy of imperialism himself appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe to campaign for Obama, urged on by his own moronic daughter, Mika Brzezinski, an Obama groupie and sycophant.

Zbigniew, a low-level Polish aristocrat whose life has been devoted to hatred for Russia, lauded Obama for his 2002 speech opposing the Iraq war, saying that he himself was the source of Obama's arguments back then -- thus confirming Obama's long-term status as his puppet, which probably began in 1981-1983, when Obama was a student at Columbia University, and Zbig was directing the anti-Russian institute. The aging revanchist showed all the misogynism of his szlachta origins with a scurrilous attack on Sen. Clinton as a mere housewife, a Mamie Eisenhower running against a charismatic JFK played by Zbig's own Manchurian candidate, and as a woman whose foreign policy experience was worth as little as that of Zbig's own travel agent.

Zbig, who was kept in the closet for many months during the Carter administration because of his hideous Dr. Strangelove persona, portrayed Obama as a peace candidate who wanted to end the Iraq war and usher in peace in the Middle East. Zbig is an infamous Cold War hawk who has managed to re-invent himself in the eyes of some dupes by opposing the Iraq adventure, mainly because it is bad for imperialism.

Zbig did not mention that the reason he wants to downplay certain aspects of U.S. aggression in the Middle East is to free up resources for use in the much bigger and more dangerous adventures which the Trilateral Commission is now directing.

Zbig is the mastermind of the Kosovo secession under KLA terrorist auspices, a gambit against Serbia and Russia to prepare a coming Operation Barbarossa II against Moscow. With the help of his son Mark Brzezinski, another top foreign policy controller of Obama, Zbig is also behind the new Euromissiles crisis involving U.S. ABM installations in Poland. Zbig is the enforcer for the new CIA policy of killing Pakistanis (as "terrorists") without consulting the government of that country, a nuclear power twice as big as Iran.

Most dangerous of all, Zbig is the obvious mastermind of the massive destabilization of China now ongoing, starting with the CIA/MI-6 Tibet insurrection, which has placed the U.S. on a collision course with China, a superpower with 1.4 billion people and thermonuclear weapons which can strike U.S. cities, a far cry from the helpless and defenseless targets preferred by the neocons. It is an open secret that Zbig intends to attempt a color revolution or CIA people power coup in China under the cover of the Beijing Olympics later this year. He may also make the Taiwan crisis explode. The dangers of these lunatic policies are infinitely worse than anything that could ever come out of the Middle East.

Senator Jay Rockefeller and Trilateral/Bilderberger boss Joseph Nye are also actively campaigning for Obama. Nye is the theoretician of "soft power," a new form of imperialist aggression based on economic warfare, subversion, deception, divide and conquer, and people power coups. They want Obama to mobilize soft power to give a face lift to U.S. imperialism.

Brzezinski's goal is confrontation with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the main world center for resistance to U.S.-UK global domination.

Anti-war activists are still fixated on Iran, but Brzezinski is not -- his target is China, TWENTY times bigger than Iran, with ICBMs ready to launch, followed by Russia, the world's biggest nuclear power. Such confused activists need to focus on stopping the next war -- the final global showdown with Pakistan, China, and Russia. That means rejecting Brzezinski's puppet candidate Obama. (Friday, March 21, 2008)


Obama's mother, the anthropologist Stanley Ann Dunham, worked for the Ford Foundation (along with the World Bank and USAID). Obama himself worked as a counterinsurgency organizer in Chicago for the Gamaliel Foundation, a satellite of the Ford Foundation. Until 2002, Obama sat on the board of the Woods Fund, another satellite of the Ford Foundation, where he rubbed elbows with his friend, Weatherman terrorist bomber Bill Ayers. At Obama's church, a key official and spokesman is Dwight Hopkins, a Ford Foundation operative who serves as Communications Coordinator for the International Association of Black Religions and Spiritualities, a Ford Foundation sponsored global project. The new pastor at Obama's church is Otis Moss Ill, who attended Morehouse College as a Ford Foundation Scholar.

Obama is best understood as a multi-contractor puppet with hardware from the Ford Foundation and software from the Rockefeller Trilateral-Brzezinski circles. Obama has never won public office by way of a contested election. Jay Rockefeller and Joseph Nye (Trilateral-Bilderberger) are actively campaigning for him, along with USAF General Merrill McPeak, who masterminded the "bomb now, die later" genocide policy of Bush's First Gulf War ("Operation Desert Storm"), when the U.S. Air Force which he headed singled out water purification and sewage treatment plants, causing the deaths of untold Iraqi civilians. (March 22, 2008)


Today Senator Jay Rockefeller (Senate Intelligence Committee chairman who backs Bush on the FISA bill) is campaigning for Trilateral Commission puppet Obama in West Virginia. Jay Rockefeller is the son of genocidalist John D. Rockefeller III, the founder of the Population Council. Jay Rockefeller is also the nephew of the late Nelson Rockefeller, and of David Rockefeller, the founder of the Trilateral Commission with Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1973. Jay Rockefeller's desperate bid to deliver the poor and blue collar voters of impoverished West Virginia for the arrogant elitist Obama is likely to fail, but it should leave no doubt about whom the Wall Street banking establishment and the Rockefeller faction of the CIA are supporting.

At the same time, Professor Joseph Nye, the North American Vice Chairman of the Trilateral Commission and an important leader of the Bilderberger group, is blogging for Obama on the Huffington Post, a sewer of hysterical oligarchical propaganda (see below). Nye is the leading theoretician of soft power, the new form of insidious imperialist subversion and deception which Obama is expected by his controllers to mobilize to stave off the collapse of U.S. imperialism.

The Obama campaign has thus far been shown to represent: the Ford Foundation, the Trilateral Commission, the New York Council on Foreign Relations, the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberger Group, Skull and Bones, the RAND Corporation, the Soros foundations, the Rockefeller family, and the Friedmanite Chicago School of economic genocide. Obama is the Manchurian candidate groomed and indoctrinated by these financier-controlled groupings. As president, Obama would impose a regime of crushing economic austerity and a new set of foreign wars far worse than what has been seen under Bush. (March 22, 2008)



Washington D.C., Feb. 3. Barack Obama's top economics adviser is a member of the super-secret Skull & Bones society of Yale University, of which George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, and John Kerry are also members, reliable sources confirmed tonight. Goolsbee is widely reported to have told Obama not to back a compulsory freeze on home mortgage foreclosures to help the struggling middle class in the current depression crisis, as demanded by former candidate John Edwards. Hillary Clinton has advocated a one-year voluntary freeze on foreclosures. Obama has offered counselors to comfort mortgage victims as they are dispossessed, citing the "moral hazard" of protecting the public interest from Wall Street sharks.

By adding the infamous Skull & Bones secret society to his campaign roster, Obama, who bills himself as the candidate of change and hope, has attained a prefect trifecta of oligarchical and financier establishment backing for his attempt to seize the nomination of the Democratic Party for 2008. Obama's main overall image adviser and foreign policy adviser is Zbigniew Brzezinski, the co-founder of David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission. and the mastermind of the disastrous Carter administration. Obama's wife Michelle is reputed to be closely linked to the Council on Foreign Relations. Behind the utopian platitudes dished up by the Illinois senator, the face of the Wall Street money elite comes into clearer and clearer focus.

George Will, in an October 2007 Washington Post column, saluted Goolsbee's "nuanced understanding" of traditional Democratic issues like globalization and income inequality; he "seems to be the sort of fellow -- amiable, empirical, and reasonable -- you would want at the elbow of a Democratic president, if such there must be," wrote the arch-oligarchical apologist Will.

From Wikipedia: "Austan D. Goolsbee is an economist and is currently the Robert P. Gwinn Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business. He is also a Research Fellow at the American Bar Foundation, Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a member of the Panel of Economic Advisors to the Congressional Budget Office. He has been Barack Obama's economic advisor since Obama's successful U.S. Senate campaign in Illinois. He is the lead economic advisor to the 2008 Obama presidential campaign."


With this morning's 75% cut in the Federal Reserve discount rate, the biggest Fed move since 1984, Helicopter Ben Bernanke has telegraphed his panic and incompetence to deal with the world financial crisis. This ill-considered move came in obvious response to the perspective of a 600-point dive in the Dow Jones "industrials," with the danger of much more to follow. With today's panicky stampede, Helicopter Ben and the majority of the Fed governors have left no doubt that they are the thralls of the most reckless and irresponsible Wall Street hedge fund speculators and derivatives salesmen. By cutting the discount rate in this fashion, Helicopter Ben is risking the short-term solvency of the U.S. banking system, and is setting the stage for a new and critical phase in the death agony of the U.S. dollar, without being able to shore up the stock market in any meaningful way. Cataclysmic economic and financial events over the short term are now in sight.

The only adequate answer to today's foolish decision, deliberated in secret by a clique of unelected and unaccountable private bankers, flailing about in flagrant violation of the U.S. Constitution, is the immediate nationalization of the Federal Reserve and its incorporation into the U.S. Treasury in the form of a national bank.

The reality of world economic depression has raised the issue of a "stimulus package," better referred to as an emergency economic recovery program to deal with Bush's new Herbert Hoover debacle. Senator Edwards had the merit of proposing the first such program in December, and was followed by Hillary Clinton and Obama. Now Bush and Treasury Secretary Paulson are proposing their own stimulus package, over which they are haggling with Pelosi and Reid.

The following draft program represents a series of measures capable of seriously addressing the present economic breakdown crisis and financial disintegration in the United States and worldwide. It is offered as a contribution to the current discussion. Background for these proposals can be found in my book Surviving the Cataclysm.

Webster G. Tarpley



1. Stop all foreclosures immediately for at least five years and for the duration of the depression by means of a compulsory federal law carrying criminal penalties. No foreclosures on homes, family farms, factories, public utilities, hospitals, transportation and other infrastructure. Outlaw adjustable rate mortgages.

2. Raise the federal minimum wage immediately to a living wage of at least $15 per hour, with the short-term goal of attaining a federal minimum wage of at least $20 per hour.

3. Immediate enactment of a securities transfer tax (STT) or Tobin tax of 1% to be imposed on all financial turnover in all financial markets, to include the New York Stock Exchange, the NASDAQ, the Amex, the Chicago Board of Trade, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, the market in federal securities, the foreign exchange market, the New York Mercantile Exchange, and all other financial markets. This tax will be paid by the seller. This tax will be extended to the notional value of all derivatives, including over-the-counter derivatives, exchange traded derivatives, structured notes, designer derivatives and all other financial paper. Derivatives will become reportable under penalty of law. It is conservatively estimated that the securities transfer tax will yield approximately $5 trillion of new revenue in its first year of application. This new revenue will permit a stabilization and consolidation of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and will permit the expansion of Head Start, the Food Stamps program, WIC, the Veterans Administration hospitals, while extending unemployment insurance up to an initial total of at least 52 weeks, to be prolonged as needed. Provide revenue sharing to deal with the looming deficits of states, counties, and municipalities.

4. Using the new revenue obtained from the securities transfer tax on Wall Street financiers, provide comprehensive tax relief for all small businesses, thus permitting them to pay the new living wage. Small business will also be aided by the provision of national single-payer health care, as described below.

5. Implement Medicare for all in the form of a single-payer, universal-coverage, publicly-administered system to provide health care for all. No rationing of care will be permitted under any circumstances. Cost-cutting will be achieved through eliminating exorbitant corporate profits, through administrative reform, and above all through a federally-funded crash program, on the scale of the Manhattan Project, of biomedical research designed to discover new and more effective treatments and cures for the principal diseases currently afflicting humanity.

6. Simultaneously, enact comprehensive income tax relief for working families, raising the standard deduction for married filing jointly and the personal exemption to at least $25,000 each. This would mean that a family of four would pay no federal income tax on their first $125,000 of income. Expand the earned income tax credit (EITC) to approximately 4 times its current level, with at least $150 billion paid out. Increase EITC payments to persons living alone as well as to families with children. Make all college tuition and fee expenses deductible, and remove the limits on the Hope and Lifetime Learning tax credits. Return to the FDR-Ike-JFK 90% top marginal rate for unearned income -- capital gains, interest, dividends, royalties, etc., not wages or self-employment -- of taxpayers with federal adjusted gross income over $25 million. Roll back the scandalous Bush tax cuts for the rich. Favor progressive taxation over proportional and regressive taxation at every level. Phase out the most regressive taxes, like the poll tax and the sales tax.

7. Nationalize the Federal Reserve System and establish it as a bureau of the United States Treasury. The current privatized status of the Federal Reserve System constitutes a violation of the United States Constitution. The size of the money supply and interest rates will henceforward be decided not by cliques of private bankers meeting in secret, but rather by public laws passed by the House and Senate, and signed by the president. Use this authority to immediately issue an initial tranche of $1 trillion of new federal credits at 1% yearly interest rates and maturities up to 30 years, to be repeated as needed. Consider credit as a public utility. Make this initial credit issue available on a priority basis to states, counties and local governments for the purpose of infrastructure modernization. Distribute credit to the private sector for high-technology re-industrialization in plant, equipment and jobs, manufacturing, mining, farming, construction, and other production of tangible physical wealth and commodities only. Aim at the creation of 5 to 7 million new productive jobs at union pay scales per year to achieve full employment for the first time in decades.

8. Federally-sponsored infrastructure projects will include a new nationwide network of magnetic levitation railways, as well as light rail systems to facilitate commuting in all urban centers. These economical and attractive light rail systems will allow a large portion of the vehicle miles by private automobile using internal combustion engines to be phased out of use in daily commuting. Launch a public works program of highway and bridge reconstruction, water management systems, electrical grids, hospitals, schools, cultural facilities, and public libraries.

9. Comprehensive re-regulation of the entire financial and banking system. Regulate the current non-bank banks. Bring all the hedge funds under the oversight of the Securities and Exchange Commission, thus effectively ending their special outlaw status as hedge funds. Begin aggressive enforcement of all applicable antitrust and securities fraud laws, as well as all existing labor legislation, including child labor, wages and hours, etc. Repeal the Taft-Hartley law with its anti-union "right to work" provisions, re-affirm the inalienable right to collective bargaining, and revive the National Labor Relations Board as an effective ally of working people. Full Davis-Bacon Act enforcement for all federal contracts, without exception. Tax leveraged buyouts and private capital deals, including all profits deriving from them, in whatever form. End corporate welfare, and establish consumer protection. Revive Glass-Steagall to prevent nationwide banking oligopolies combining commercial banking with investment banking.

10. Free college for all qualified students. Any student earning a high school diploma will be entitled to free tuition and fees at a community college or state university, High quality remedial courses to give high-school dropouts a second chance, no matter what their age. Without investment in the human capital of a highly trained work force, there can be no economic survival in the 21st century. Federal aid to raise teacher salaries through revenue sharing.

11. Announce the intention of the United States to abrogate NAFTA, WTO, and all other international free trade agreements which have destroyed employment in this country, while increasing the poverty levels of the third world. Introduce a low protective tariff, starting at 10% ad valorem on manufactured commodities to prevent reckless dumping.

12. Investment tax credit for purchases of modern technology in the form of new physical tangible capital goods. Tax breaks for the creation of new jobs in physical commodity production. Severe tax penalties for the export of jobs to third world sweatshops.

13. Immediately impeach and remove from office both Bush and Cheney, since otherwise all effective measures to deal with the Bush economic depression will be crippled by presidential vetoes. Prepare the impeachment of the RATS (Roberts-Alito-Thomas-Scalia) cabal of the Supreme Court, if they should attempt to sabotage this emergency economic recovery program under the color of judicial review.

14. Protect the family farm by a program of debt moratorium for farmers, no foreclosures, 1% long-term federal credit for spring planting needs and capital improvements. Restore parity prices at 125% of parity. Rebuild farm surpluses and food stockpiles. Food for Peace for famine relief abroad.

15. Keep open the options of capital controls and exchange controls if required by further deterioration of the crisis. Prepare to freeze most categories of financial debt (debt moratorium) for the duration of the crisis. Revive Defense Production Act powers to mandate production of needed commodities by private sector, as needed.

16. Call an international economic conference of sovereign states to deal with this unprecedented world economic depression. The United States should take the lead in proposing a new world monetary system based on the alienable right of all nations and peoples to modern economic development and to the enjoyment of the fullest fruits of science, technology, industry, progress, and rising standards of living. The new monetary system should be based on fixed parities with narrow bands of fluctuation among the euro, the dollar, the yen, the ruble, and other world currencies, including emerging Latin American and Middle East regional currencies, with periodic settlement of balance of payments discrepancies in gold among national authorities. The goal of the new system is to promote world economic recovery through large-scale export of the most modern high-technology capital goods from the U.S., EU, and Japan to the developing countries. Create a Multilateral Development Bank with an initial capital of 1 trillion euros from U.S., UK, Japan, and other exporters to finance investment in the poorest countries with 1% revolving loans with maturities up to thirty years. Immediate, permanent, and unconditional cancellation of all international financial debts of the poorest countries.

17. Revive international humanitarian, scientific and technological cooperation for the benefit of all nations. Roll back epidemic, tropical, and endemic diseases with an international program of biomedical research. Join with all interested nations in a joint international effort to develop new energy resources in the field of high-energy physics. Fund and expand an international cooperative commitment to the exploration, permanent colonization, and economic development of the moon and nearby planets. The spin-offs from these three science drivers will provide the new technologies for the next wave of economic modernization.

18. Revive the Franklin D. Roosevelt "freedom from want" provision of the Atlantic Charter as elaborated in the Economic Bill of Rights from the State of the Union Address of January 1944, and incorporate these economic rights of all persons as amendments to the U.S. Constitution: "The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation; the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; the right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living; the right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad; the right of every family to a decent home; the right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; the right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; the right to a good education."

Webster G. Tarpley, 21 January 2008
Washington DC, USA



By Webster G. Tarpley

Washington, D.C. -- May 19. As some have noted, Brzezinski has been attempting to conceal his actual domination of the Obama campaign, for which he is the chief guru and controller. Now a rhetorical outburst by Obama on the campaign trail in Oregon has once again pointed to the reality that Obama is a ventriloquist's dummy, with the Russia-hating fanatic Brzezinski, a barbarous relic of the Cold War, acting as the ventriloquist.

At a recent campaign stop in Oregon, Obama stated:

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,' Obama said. "That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added. If India and China's "carbon footprint gets as big as ours, we're gone." (AFP)

This remarkable statement reveals the true program of a future Obama administration: savage austerity, brutal economic sacrifice, and a massive further reduction in the standard of living of the depleted and exhausted U.S. population -- as demanded by David Rockefeller, George Soros, and Obama's Wall Street backers. This will be done under left cover -- through a global warming tax, a third world solidarity tax, and other demagogic frauds, with the revenue going to bailout Goldman Sachs, Citibank, and JP Morgan Chase. The tired, discredited post-9/11 "war on terror" slogans will be dumped. Most interesting is that Obama's sound bytes are actually a sloganized version of a key passage from Zbigniew Brzezinski's recent book "Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower" (New York: Basic Books, 2007), pp. 198-199. This book contains Zbig's desperate strategy for preserving the crisis-ridden U.S.-U.K. world empire, including by making the U.S. "social model" more attractive to developing sector publics. Zbig writes:

"In mutually compounding ways, material self-indulgence, persistent social shortcomings, and public ignorance about the world increase the difficulty the American democracy faces in formulating a globally appealing platform for effective world leadership. Americans must recognize that their patterns of consumption will soon collide head-on with increasingly impatient egalitarian aspirations. Whether through the exploitation of natural resources, excessive energy consumption, indifference to global ecology, or the exorbitant size of houses for the well-to-do, indulgent self-gratification at home conveys indifference to the persisting deprivations of much of the world. (Just try to imagine a world in which 2.5 billion Chinese and Indians consume as much energy per capita as Americans do.) That reality the American public has yet to assimilate. To lead, America must not only be sensitive to global realities. It must also be socially attractive. That calls for a broader national consensus in favor of correcting the key failings of the American social model."

Obama has thus unmasked himself as the exterminating angel of super-austerity dictated by the elitist Trilateral bankers' clique. Will he cut the current U.S. standard of living by 40%? By 50%? When he does, will he still call it the politics of hope? Obama has been trained to hate the American people through two decades of association with hate-mongers like Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, and Brzezinski himself. For Rockefeller and Soros, Obama's hatred of the American people is a positive guarantee that he will enforce Wall Street's austerity decrees with a vengeance. Forget the utopian platitudes and the messianic rhetoric: Obama's real economic program is now clear for all to see. It is a path that leads to genocide against the U.S. population, among others.

Obama's Oregon outburst needs to be read in the light of earlier unguarded statements by Michelle Obama, who has said at various times in her stump speech: "... before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls -- our souls are broken in this nation. If we can't see ourselves in one another, we will never make those sacrifices ... We need a different leadership because our souls are broken. We need to be inspired ... to make the sacrifices that are needed to push us to a different place ... The change Barack is talking about is hard, so don't get too excited because Barack is going to demand that you too be different." Here the theme of purification and redemption by means of sacrifice and economic austerity is clearly conveyed. Now Barack has begun to fill in the details.

Insiders have long recognized that Zbigniew Brzezinski (helped by his son Mark) owns and runs Obama. David Ignatius has pointed to Second Chance as a scenario for a future Obama administration. Ignatius commented over a year ago: "Zbigniew Brzezinski has written a new book that might be a foreign policy manifesto for Barack Obama ... The most intriguing part of Brzezinski's book is what I would describe as the Obama manifesto. (David Ignatius, "A Manifesto for the Next President," Washington Post, March 14, 2007) It has also long been known that Zbig does the thinking for Obama; the London Economist last year hailed "a new brain for Barack Obama! It's 78 years old and it still works perfectly. It belongs to Zbigniew Brzezinski, the peppery ex-national security adviser to Jimmy Carter." ("A New Brain for Barack Obama, Economist.com, March 14, 2007)

Obama's campaign has long been attacking Bush from the right, criticizing the current regime for not exploiting 9/11 to impose savage economic austerity, as seen in Samantha Power's "monster" interview. We now have good evidence that Obama will flay the American people alive with his elitist economic policies. Obama has committed a major error by showing his hand. Will voters react in time to stop him?
Site Admin
Posts: 31721
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Postby admin » Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:23 am

Chairman Ho Ho supports the War Ho: Why the Democratic Party Rules are not a Suicide Pact.

By Bruce Marshall

The travesty of the Democratic primary circus and its ultimate outcome is now being engineered towards a veritable world tragedy by that pugnacious hypocrite and Wall Street political trollop, the man known in Vermont as "Ho Ho" -- Howard Dean, the screaming Robespierre of the rich white elitists who ultimately run the Obama campaign. Yes, it does look like Howard Dean, as chairman of the Democratic Party, is maneuvering the nomination process towards helping Barack the "War Ho" Obama, as Glen Ford of the Black Agenda Report refers to Wall Street's political artful dodger, to become the Democratic nominee or ultimate party wrecker.

The rules of the Democratic Party have been dysfunctional for decades, but that is what you get when you consider the Democratic Party to be a private country club, as wealthy elitist Howard Dean does. The issue before us is the absurdity of what has become a stalling tactic and deliberate sabotage by Howard Dean as regards the discounting of the Florida and Michigan primaries. These primaries did happen and were fair and open, resulting in a record turnout in Florida. Now we have a situation where a sore loser, Obama, wants the votes shredded, or else wants half the delegates. Such nonsense is nothing other but affirmative action for weak politicians. What is happening is the deliberate disenfranchisement of voters' rights, something the Democratic Party has become quite adept at in capitulating to Bush's stolen elections. This constitutes a deliberate wrecking operation against the Democratic Party that should not be tolerated. Perhaps Dean was brought in as Chairman of the Party because of the way that he helped split the Democratic Party in Vermont, because it was his elitist policies on social issues and the environment that contributed to the weakening of the Democrats and the rise of the Progressive Party in Vermont.

The rules of the Democratic Party should not be a suicide pact, but this is exactly what Howard Dean is forcing on the Party. The fact that the dates of these primaries were changed is a non-issue, but one that Dean is pretending to be bent out of shape about. In Florida, the Republican attitude is to goad the Democratic National Party to punish Florida Democrats by ruling the Florida primary invalid. The earlier primary dates constitute a legitimate push by Michigan and Florida to play a meaningful role in the selection of candidates. The primaries were as fair as primaries can be. Obama kept his name on the ballot in Florida, and lost. In Michigan, he deliberately pulled his own name from the ballot. He avoided what he thought would be a beauty contest which he would lose, and spent all that money in Iowa, where he won. He paid his money and he took his choice. He buttered his bread and now -- everybody knows the rest. One might ask whether or not this whole primary calendar issue would be called into question had Obama won these contests? Senator Clinton has responded by saying she would accept a new primary; Obama knowing he would lose, rejects and sabotages a new primary, and would rather have a caucus that would favor him, because caucuses attract affluent voters who have time to participate in caucuses. Failing that, Obama wants to simply be given half the votes, just because he is the divine Obama.

Placing entitlement above democracy is what typifies elitist oligarchs like Howard Dean, a man who comes from Wall Street money and has never betrayed The Street. Dean regards government as the avenue to securing the entitlements of his class over the concern for the common good. When he was Governor of Vermont, Ho Ho -- as the widely read Vermont columnist Peter Freyne referred to him -- was in essence a Republican, fiscally very conservative; he was not the environmentalist nor progressive that he thought he was, other than in his health care initiative. Dean of course was very guarded about his real record in Vermont when he had his gubernatorial records officially and hermetically sealed before he ran for president in 2003-4. One speculation was that he had been using his position as Governor to further his political aspirations. There is more to the story. There is some question as to whether Dean ever took the oath of office as Governor of Vermont. Discovery in an unrelated legal proceeding failed to turn up any proof that Dean was ever actually a 'subscriber' to the Oath of Office, and photo ops of Dean taking the oath do not count. Does this explain the unconstitutional conduct of such an occupant of high office, which has continued with the present Republican Governor of Vermont? Does this not say something about the disregard for the Constitution across the nation, especially in Washington? Dean helped private business developers, but he did not work to save Vermont's once famous machine tool industry, the "Precision Valley" along the Connecticut River, the type of vital manufacturing capabilities America desperately needs. Perhaps this disregard explains Dean's elitist class prejudice against Michigan's overwhelmingly blue-collar voters, who realize that the current economic depression is a reality that goes beyond a bad day on Wall Street.

The Dean/Obama "hedge fund" does not understand the economics of the real world, but their respective political operations are in essence political hedges for the finance oligarchy. The Dean presidential campaign of 2004 (remember the Deaniacs?) has in essence been carried over tactically and demographically by the Obama campaign, which has copied Dean's signature ploy of using the Internet to suck in money and hype voters. Both Dean and Obama are fakes, demagogues. One must remember that Howard Dean was not the antiwar candidate that he wanted you to think he was. Dean only opposed the way the Iraq war was started, and had no objection to the occupation; in fact, Dean thought we should have attacked Iran instead! Likewise Obama, who said he was against the war in Iraq, has certainly voted repeatedly to fund the occupation, and refused to support even Kerry's tepid pullout resolution.

Obama's real character is revealed by his repeated calls to bomb Pakistan, and if need be Iran. Glen Ford of The Black Agenda Report was absolutely correct in characterizing Obama as a "War Ho," not only for his bellicose and aggressive statements, but also for being complicit with Bush in funding the war. Now that Gen. Merrill McPeak, the architect behind the First Gulf War's "Bomb Now, Die Later" air slaughter campaign, has actively joined his campaign, Obama the "War Ho" has real creds. Democrats always seem to have the weakness of wanting to show that they are macho, and this applies to the Clintons as well. The issue though is that Obama is a direct asset and puppet of Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the world's most dangerous men.

The question of the present election is an existential one for America because of perpetual and contagious war and the systemic economic breakdown crisis. Survival requires the emergence of strong leaders in this country who will stand up to Wall Street hegemony as the quadrillion dollar derivatives black hole swallows everything in a hyperinflationary depression. The financier elite and their controlled media have turned against Hillary because she might become the woman who would revive the legacy of FDR, whom she has invoked against Wall Street. She might promote the general welfare over financier welfare. Remember Austin Goolsbee, the Skull and Bones-Chicago School economic handler of Obama, if you have any doubts that Obama would not be more "market friendly" than Clinton. Michael Bloomberg, who now praises Obama, tells you all you have to know about the reality of Obamanomics.

Obama is a wrecking operation against the Democratic Party and the revival of the tradition of FDR in this time of crisis. Dean considered Harry Truman to be his political hero. Truman, an earlier rage-filled war ho and puppet of Skull and Bones operative Averell Harriman, began the demolition of the New Deal. Today Bloomberg is also part of the wrecking operation against the Democratic Party, and might even be Obama's running mate and Cheneyesque overseer. Obama's reported openness to Republicans for running mate and cabinet officials suggests that he will indeed carry out the Felix Rohatyn-Warren Rudman swindle of privatizing what remains of U.S. infrastructure.

The crisis of leadership in the Democratic Party will only be solved when the grassroots of the party says "Enough!" Certainly people need to learn from the betrayal by the Pelosi Democrats of the antiwar majority that elected them to Congress in 2006 to stop the war. Obama has stepped into the vacuum left by that betrayal with his message of hope, which has duped and pacified many. But Obama never seriously fought the war as a Senator. When it comes to impeachment, it has been the Democratic leadership that has repeatedly stopped it. Dean has said he is against impeachment because it will get in the way of the election. In Vermont, where the impeachment movement based on article 603 of Thomas Jefferson's manual of the House of Representatives rules first started, we saw the state Democratic leadership swayed by pressure coming directly from Senator Leahy's office against impeachment. The blatant sabotage against impeachment was repeated by Democratic Representative Peter Welch, a machine hack who said impeachment would get in the way of the Democrats stopping the war and investigating Bush and Cheney. Both Leahy and Welch are, like Dean, Obama supporters.

Today, Dean is using stalling tactics as concerns Florida and Michigan. In the background is the whole question of the super-delegates that Dean is manipulating as a way for Obama to win the nomination. Dean is now trying to coerce and stampede the super delegates into supporting Obama. In essence this tactic is working to say that the whole primary/caucus process is illegitimate if Dean's chosen candidate does not win.

Certainly there is grave doubt that Obama could ever win the general election against McCain, especially after the Jeremiah Wright revelations. To give Obama the election through disenfranchisement and strong-arm tactics could well alienate many voters, who would then be impelled to vote for the self-styled maverick moderate McCain. Since Obama did not win the big states like California, New York, Florida, Michigan, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio and Texas, and is likely to lose heavily in Pennsylvania, how can he win a general election, especially if he alienates independents and the important Reagan Democrats, not to mention the Latino and Asian vote? Of course, Obama' s policies do nothing for inner city, low-income blacks, but offer a great deal to social climbers like Dean's DNC handmaiden, Donna Brazile. It would seem that Democrats are preparing for another loss in the tradition of McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry.

What this country needs as an antidote to such chicanery is a real debate. The present controversy that has kept the nomination up for grabs has some important benefits, as it is forcing Hillary Clinton to fight, while pushing her towards New Deal and populist economic measures to broaden her appeal to the ever-expanding number of voters who are getting seriously hurt in this economic crisis. She needs to be in touch with what is really going on with people and this nation and she is slowly responding, having invoked FDR's anti-foreclosure policies in a recent speech in Pennsylvania. Perhaps she is waking up to the Federal Reserve's attack against the American people's economic future and economic sovereignty, now being carried out by means of outrageous and illegal bailouts, as in the Bear Stearns scandal. The defining issue is this: will the government support the interests of bankrupt Wall Street, or will We the People prevail? Will the Democratic Party be democratic, or continue to be a ... private country club controlled by rich elitists who are willing to employ puppets of any color to ensure that financiers will continue to rule America?

The Old Rogue B52 and the new Rogues in Power:

Air Force Purge Confirms Brzezinski/Obama Faction in Control; Neo-Cons are Out

From Frying Pan to Fire: Not Little Iran, but Giant Russia, China, Pakistan are Trilateral Targets

Within 48 hours after the Brzezinski candidate Barack Obama claimed the nomination for president, the Trilateral faction moved to consolidate their power, toppling neo-con holdovers in the USAF.

Two generals were apparently implicated in an attempt to supply rogue nuclear weapons for an attack on Iran during last September's Israeli raid on Syria.

The Trilateral faction instead want to use Iran as a pawn against Russia, just as they used it in the 1980-88 war against Iraq, which began on Brzezinski's watch during the Carter administration.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who replaced the neocon Rumsfeld, goes back to the Carter era. He created al-Qaeda to fight Brzezinski's Soviet-Afghan war.

Barack Obama's role in this is to be the new Jimmy Carter whose human rights rhetoric will provide cover and fuel to Brzezinski's dangerous divide-and-conquer games.

Washington D.C., June 6. Yesterday's extraordinary simultaneous ouster of the Secretary of the Air Force and the Air Force chief of staff, followed by the naming of Trilateral Commissioner and Carter administration veteran James Rodney Schlesinger to purge USAF generals and colonels, dramatically documents the fact that power in Washington D.C. is no long in the hands of the Bush-Cheney-neocon clique, but has passed to the Brzezinski Trilateral faction.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced the firing of Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley, citing the failure of the Air Force to maintain the security of strategic nuclear forces, as shown in the infamous rogue B-52 incident of late August 2007, when a B-52 intercontinental strategic bomber with six nuclear armed cruise missiles flew from North Dakota to Louisiana totally outside of the purview of the USAF command control and communications systems. Gates also mentioned that four high-tech electrical nosecone fuses for Minuteman nuclear warheads were sent to Taiwan in place of helicopter batteries, along with other failures.

Gates is a leading member of the Principals' Committee, an interagency group which now runs the U.S. government from day to day with scant reference to the discredited outgoing lame ducks Bush and Cheney, who stay on mainly as figureheads. The Principals' Committee has been in charge of the U.S. government since no later than early May, around the time of the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, when the controlled corporate media began trumpeting that Obama was the winner of the Democratic nomination. The Principals' Committee is made up of Pentagon boss Gates, Secretary of State Rice, NSC director Hadley, Joint Chiefs of Staff head Mullen, intelligence czar McConnell, along with a few others. These figures are now marching to the tune of Trilateral Commission bigwigs like Zbigniew Brzezinski, Joseph Nye, and the Rockefeller family. These are the same forces who own and control the Wall Street Manchurian candidate Obama. It is notable that the high-profile purge of the USAF came less than 48 hours after Obama had unilaterally proclaimed himself the Democratic presidential nominee.

The rogue B-52 flew with six nuclear cruise missiles from Minot AFB North Dakota to Barksdale AFB Louisiana last August 30. Source reports published by Wayne Madsen suggest that the B-52 was stopped by patriotic low-level USAF personnel. As the issue of whether to allow the plane to fly on to the Middle East went up the chain of command and expanded to involve the intelligence agencies, it transpired that the majority of the government and the establishment did not want the plane to attack targets in the Middle East. The scandal of the rogue B-52 broke on September 5, and a stand-down and nuclear census of the entire USAF soon followed. According to all indications, the B-52 was under the extra-legal control of the Cheney faction, which evidently planned to fly it to the Middle East and quite possibly use one or more of the nuclear cruise missiles in an attack on Iran and/or Syria, probably in cooperation or coordination with the Israeli air attack on Syria which occurred on September 6. The fact that the B-52 was blocked may have represented the last gasp of the Bush-Cheney-neocon faction, and the beginning of the hegemony of a different and far more dangerous group, namely the Brzezinski-Trilateral faction.

The Gates purge indicates that the new Trilateral masters of Washington D.C. do not trust the USAF generals who are so deeply compromised with the Bush-Cheney-neocon faction. The USAF was up to its neck in 9/11, and then in the rogue B-52 affair. The Trilaterals are accordingly driving out the old rogues, and replacing them with new rogue generals of their own, who are loyal to the insane Trilateral agenda. Brzezinski does not want nuclear weapons wasted on Iran, which he intends to turn into an expendable puppet or kamikaze pawn in his apocalyptic showdown with Russian and China. This is what Obama's appeasement of Iran actually aims at: Iran as a U.S. asset to be played against Russia and China. Brzezinski wants to be in control of those nukes, since he may soon need them for use against Russia and China. Those who might celebrate the defeat of the Bush-Cheney-neocon group must rather face the fact that the U.S. has just jumped out of the frying pan of conventional invasions and into the fire of looming thermonuclear confrontations among the great powers. This is the real nature of the change for which Obama is the public symbol.

Obama's foreign policy will be dictated in every respect by Trilateral co-founder Brzezinski. Obama is now supported and surrounded by Trilateral members David Rockefeller, Jay Rockefeller, Joseph Nye, Paul Adolph Volcker, Jimmy Carter, and many more. With James "Rodney the Robot" Schlesinger now helping to purge the Pentagon, including its associated intelligence agencies, the Trilateral grip on Washington D.C. is tightening. Obama's choice of a vice president will be dictated by long-time Trilateral stalwart Jim Johnson.

The rogue B-52 incident was forecast by me in an essay entitled "Cheney Determined to Strike in U.S. with WMD This Summer," issued on July 21, 2007, and widely distributed on the Internet and in print form. This was followed by the Kennebunkport Warning, which was posted online in the evening of August 26, 2007, less than 72 hours before the rogue B-52 nuclear missiles were loaded. By September 3, the Kennebunkport Warning was posted on 110,000 web sites worldwide. The precision and timeliness of this warning represent an unprecedented intelligence achievement.

But now, the danger of a U.S. attack on Iran is very low. Brzezinski's hit list is much more ambitious, and includes Sudan, Pakistan, Burma, and China, all stepping stones to the final reckoning with Moscow. The main possibility of an attack on Iran in the present situation comes from disgruntled Israeli factions like the one around Netanyahu who are aghast that they are being demoted from their previous role as the hub of U.S. strategy to the status of just another expendable pawn in Brzezinski's lunatic plan for confrontation with Beijing and Moscow. The Israelis are horrified by Obama, just as everyone in the world should be. The winning faction of the U.S.-U.K. establishment does not want the attack on Iran, and the Israelis would be foolhardy to try it on their own. The threats today from former IDF chief and Israeli Transport Minister Shaul Mofaz about an Israeli solo attack on Iran because of the failure of economic sanctions to stop nuclear development are indicative of deep discontent, but the guess here is that they are a bluff. We will soon find out: if the Israelis do not strike Iran in the next few weeks, they will have lost their chance as the Trilaterals continue to consolidate their power.
Site Admin
Posts: 31721
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Postby admin » Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:30 am


A Mirror For Obama: The Catastrophic Presidency of Trilateral Puppet Jimmy Carter, 1977-1981

Better the occasional faults of the government that lives in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of the government frozen in the ice of its own indifference.

-- Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1936

Stop protecting those receiving welfare benefits!

-- Jimmy Carter to HEW Secretary Califano (Leuchtenburg 14)

The catastrophic Trilateral presidency of James Earl Carter offers a not-so-distant mirror for Obama as he strives to seize the White House. Carter's disastrous tenure has tended to be eclipsed in recent years because of the long reactionary nightmare under Reagan which followed him, because of the horrors of Bush the Elder, because of the impeachment and right-wing hatred aroused against the Clinton presidency, and because of the terrible years of Bush the younger. But because the Carter administration was so completely dominated by such Trilateral Commission figures as David Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Paul Volcker, and others -- some of the same people who are functioning today as the puppet masters of Obama -- the Carter years will repay our study as we seek to look into the future and chart the course of a possible future Obama administration. The memories of the Carter years have also been repressed because they were so intrinsically painful and represented such a colossal waste of the golden post-Watergate opportunity. There can be no doubt that Jimmy Carter is a strong contender along with Herbert Hoover and George Bush the elder for the opprobrium of being the worst one-term president of the 20th century.

The most important fact to understand about the Carter administration is that it was not a product of a normal political process as most people would understand this term, but was rather the artificially orchestrated outcome of a multi-year commitment by a faction of bankers, think tanks, professors, sociologists, economists and psychologists who sought to carry out a program which served the imagined interests of Wall Street, but which was so destructive to the average person and to the United States as a whole that it could not be avowed in public. Carter did not improvise or make up his lunatic policies as he went along; rather, he was pre-programmed as an exercise in Shumpeterian creative destruction before he ever got close to the Oval Office.


For those who are able to read between the lines, Brzezinski has never made a secret of the fact that he personally chose Carter as the Trilateral candidate for president in 1976. As Brzezinski writes in his book Power and Principle: Memoirs of the National Security Adviser 1977-1981: "I first met Jimmy Carter at one of the early meetings of the Trilateral Commission, which I directed in the early 1970s. I remember discussing his membership with my two principal Trilateral Commission colleagues, Gerard Smith and George Franklin. We wanted a forward-looking Democratic Governor who would be congenial to the Trilateral perspective. Reubin Askew of Florida was mentioned as a logical candidate, but then one of them noted that Jimmy Carter, the newly elected Governor of Georgia, courageous on civil rights and reportedly a bright and upcoming Democrat, was interested in developing trade relations between his State of Georgia and the Common Market and Japan. I then said, 'Well, he's obviously our man,' and George Franklin went down to Atlanta to explore his background further and came back enthusiastic. Jimmy Carter was invited to join and he accepted." (Brzezinski 1985, p. 5) Carter had won office in Georgia as a segregationist and friend of arch-racist Lester Maddox, but the point is clear: Carter was the Trilateral choice for 1976.

David Rockefeller of Chase Manhattan Bank and his associates had been the masterminds of the phony oil crisis detonated by Henry Kissinger's Yom Kippur war in the Middle East in the autumn of 1973. Viewing the impact of this crisis, they then set about studying ways that artificial emergencies or scarcities of this sort could be used for the imposition of dictatorial and authoritarian rule. The actual research into these topics was assigned to academics like Brzezinski and his sidekick Samuel Huntington of Harvard. In the words of two investigative journalists, "In one of the earliest Trilateral Commission reports, 'The Crisis of Democracy,' published in 1975, Huntington demanded that democratic government be curbed in times of economic crisis. 'We have come to recognize that there are potentially desirable limits to economic growth,' he stated. There are also potentially desirable 'limits to the indefinite extension of political democracy.' ... 'A government which lacks authority ... will have little ability, short of cataclysmic crisis to impose on its people the sacrifice which may be necessary.'"


Various accounts have attributed the Carter administration policy playbook to some smalltime lawyers, but the reality is that the Carter script came from a group of elite think tanks associated with Wall Street.

In 1973, the Council of Foreign Relations launched its "1980s Project," which it called the "largest single effort in our 55-year history." By its own account, the 1980s Project was aimed at "describing how world trends might be steered toward a particular desirable future outcome." Zbigniew Brzezinski belonged to the 1980s Project's governing body, and Samuel Huntington served on its coordinating group. Among the most important products of the project was "Alternatives to Monetary Disorder," by the late Fred Hirsch, senior adviser to the International Monetary Fund. Hirsch wrote: "A degree of controlled disintegration in the world economy is a legitimate objective for the 1980s and may be in order. A central normative problem for the international economic order in the years ahead is how to ensure that the disintegration indeed occurs in a controlled way and does not rather spiral into damaging restrictionism." "Controlled disintegration" became the policy of Jimmy Carter's Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, whose high interest rates wrecked the U.S. industrial and farm base during the Carter and Reagan years. (Kathleen Klenetsky and Herbert Quinde, "FEMA's structure for fascist rule," EIR, Nov 23, 1990)

Even honest observers who do not understand the central fact that Carter was a puppet of the financiers of the Trilateral Commission have no doubt that this administration was a colossal failure. The journalist Haynes Johnson describes the Carter presidency as a "tragedy" in his book In the Absence of Power. In Carter's speeches and actions, we can see the hand of his partially cloaked Trilateral masters, and gain insight into what genocidal bankers like David Rockefeller actually think and what their real program includes today.

The Carter presidency had many stumbling blocks. Among them was an aggressive and imperialist foreign policy that depended on blatant meddling in the internal affairs of sovereign states under the guise of concern about human rights. The second, reflecting the dominant role of Brzezinski, was a course towards confrontation with the Soviet Union in Iran, Afghanistan, and over the question of limited nuclear war in such places as central Europe. Another fatal defect of the Carter presidency was a commitment to a Malthusian, zero growth, and neo-Luddite energy policy, that rejected nuclear power out of hand on the domestic front and sought to sabotage peaceful nuclear development worldwide as a means of perpetuating dependence on the oil and coal controlled by the U.S.-U.K., while betting the future of the United States on such technologically backward options as coal-fired power plants and a Synthetic Fuels Corporation.

Carter posed as an outsider who wanted to reform the corruption of the Washington fleshpots, and at the same time as the high priest of the presidency as a civic religion based on austerity and sacrifice. Scholars of the Carter presidency have concluded that he "told the American people what they did not want to hear that they would have to renounce their profligate lifestyles." (Kaufman 1) Here we see a clear foreshadowing of an Obama presidency, which will demand painful sacrifices from working families in the name of global warming, a wholly unproven hypothesis which appeals to the Malthusian instincts of rich elitists and oligarchs worldwide.


Carter, like Obama, promised to end the partisan haggling in the Congress and in Washington generally. Carter felt that he was morally superior to the Congress, with its atmosphere of horse trading, log rolling, pork barrels, and earmarks. But in doing this, he courted his own worst defeats. During his time in office, Carter enjoyed a congressional majority for the Democratic Party of two to one in the House of Representatives, and of three to two in the Senate. Nevertheless he was constantly squabbling with Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill and other Democratic congressional leaders. As Burton I. Kaufman has pointed out, "For better or worse, there is a political process in any system of representative government which no leader can simply ignore on the basis of being above the fray." Carter imagined that he was a tribune of the entire American people and that he embodied the national interest. Naturally, the Congress had other ideas. Congress was intent on re-asserting itself after the outrageous abuses of the Nixon presidency -- the same thing that the self-styled uniter Obama would face in a Democratic Congress eager to reverse the destructive precedents of the Bush regime. Some scholars have pointed out that even if Carter had been the legitimate tribune of the people that he claimed to be, this was all the more reason "to operate in a tandem-institutions world," meaning to work closely with Congress. Some historians of the Carter years have suggested that Carter wanted to act as a trustee of the interests of the American people, or perhaps as a "common cause monarch." (Jones, passim) It would be more accurate to describe him as a kind of bankruptcy administrator and austerity enforcer running the country after the dollar collapse of August 15, 1971 in the interests of the creditors like David Rockefeller, in much the same way that Felix Rohatyn (another Obama backer today) in 1975 became the virtual dictator of the City of New York under the Mutual Assistance Corporation.

Today, Obama claims that he will be able to float like a seraph above the nasty fray of partisan haggling on Capitol Hill. The traumatic experience of the Carter years suggests that this is pure utopia, as long as the Congress exists as a co-equal branch of government with decisive control over the power of the purse and taxation, where real economic and political interests inevitably clash by day and night, and all the more so now that the pie is shrinking. The main innovation offered by Obama in this context is that he proposes to establish national harmony and suppress partisan bickering by an almost mystical process centering on the beatific and transfiguring powers of his own personality. As Paul Krugman has pointed out, the Obama campaign is indeed a personality cult, with a strong dose of venom thrown in for those who do not appreciate the candidate's magical appeal.


Carter, like Obama, marketed himself as someone who stood apart from the government in Washington, rejected its prevalent values, and proposed to reform it from top to bottom. Both candidates have devoted a special blather about the prevalence of special interests in the capital. This is an obvious form of demagogy with highly destructive implications for any notion of activist government or maintenance of the social safety net. Even Hubert Humphrey in 1976 was lucid enough to point out that "candidates who make an attack on Washington are making an attack on government programs, on blacks, on minorities, on the cities. It's a disguised new form of racism, a disguised new form of conservatism." (Leuchtenburg 11) This is of course a good diagnosis of the monetarist-Friedmanite demagogy of Ronald Reagan in 1980 -- or of Ron Paul today. But it was pioneered before Reagan by Carter.

Catastrophic Presidency of Trilateral Puppet Jimmy Carter

203 Carter, like Obama, presented himself as a leader with the capacity to transcend the conventional left-right spectrum. In reality, Carter belonged to the center-right, and much of his patina of newness was achieved by his treacherous and deliberate abandonment of the FDR New Deal tradition of the Democratic Party. But his rhetoric was able to delude left liberals into believing that they were dealing with a novel historical phenomenon. Carter's speech writer, James Fallows, later commented: "I felt that he, alone among the candidates, might look past the tired formulas of left and right and offer something new." Today, Fallows is an editor for the Atlantic Monthly, one of the leading bastions of Obamaphilia.

A celebrated definition of the essence of politics offered by Harold D. Lasswell states that politics boils down to "who gets what, when, how." (Jones 2) This political recipe inevitably clashes with the greed of austerity-minded bankers in an economic breakdown crisis. Carter and Obama agree that this is a scandal, and this holier-than-thou attitude marks both of them as apolitical or anti-political politicians, fundamentally incompatible with representative government, which must always justify its existence and legitimacy by providing some kind of amelioration and progress in the standard of living and general living conditions of the people. For Carter and Obama, government that wins support by delivering the goods -- technically called eudaemonic legitimation -- is inherently corrupt, and replaced by some set of mystical values which, upon closer examination, generally tend to reflect the interests of financiers and other oligarchs.


Part of Carter's basic equipment for the presidency in the eyes of his Trilateral Commission sponsors was a 1966 nervous breakdown suffered after he had come in third in the race for governor of his home state of Georgia. According to Kaufman, Carter "fell into a deep depression, which was lifted only by the solace he found as a born-again Christian." (Kaufman, _) Questions about mental health caused Missouri Senator Thomas Eagleton, McGovern's first choice for vice president, to be forced off the Democratic ticket in 1972 in the midst of a firestorm of negative publicity. Similar questions were raised about Michael Dukakis in 1988 when it became known that he, too, had suffered a bout of prolonged depression after an election defeat. Qualified mental health experts have suggested that George W. Bush suffers from severe cognitive impairment as a result of youthful cocaine, marijuana, and alcohol abuse, and published reports have suggested that he is kept going from day to day with a cocktail of psychotropic medications.

Obama, like Bush, offers some obvious symptoms of megalomania; one trait they share is the extreme reluctance to exhibit any moment of self-criticism, as shown by Obama in his response to the Jeremiah Wright revelations. This disturbing pattern makes it absolutely mandatory that all candidates for the presidency disclose their full medical records, including HIV test results, as well as records of any and all mental health treatments, including shock treatments, they may have received. This is the minimum that must be demanded of persons who wish to become the custodians of the thermonuclear button in a time of aggravated world crisis. Not even Obama should be exempt from this requirement, which must be imposed by an aroused public opinion. The establishment financiers are known to prefer presidents whose weakness and subservience are guaranteed by previous psychological traumas, which make it difficult or impossible for the president in question to undertake decisive actions against the wishes of his handlers and backers. These financiers prefer a chief executive who is too weak to break out of the prison which envelopes him.


In order to become governor of Georgia in 1970, Carter assumed the profile of a racist, attacking school busing, supporting segregated private schools, and signaling a willingness to collaborate with George Wallace, the infamously racist governor of neighboring Alabama. (Obama, needing a political base in Chicago, chose the church of Jeremiah Wright, a purveyor of the Ford Foundation who supported black liberation theology, a racist counterinsurgency ideology designed to pit black against white and keep both subjected to the financiers.) As governor of Georgia, Carter stressed radical environmentalism and austerity in the form of zero-based budgeting, a favorite gambit of the Wall Street bond holders who want to make sure that they are not taxed for the general welfare, and that such tax revenue as does get collected goes into their own pockets via debt service on state bonds, and not into the social programs they despise. In May 1971, Carter got his picture on the cover of Time magazine, indicating that he had already attracted sympathetic attention of the Luce/Skull and Bones faction. During these years, Carter assembled his insider clique, later known as the Georgia Mafia, composed of Hamilton Jordan, Jody Powell, Pat Caddell, Charles Kirbo and Dr. Peter Bourne. Peter Bourne was later to cause a scandal when it was discovered that he was providing the Carter White House staff with Quaaludes in violation of the federal controlled substances law. (Obama's kitchen cabinet is even worse than Carter's: here we find the ultra-left racist provocateur Jeremiah Wright, the bisexual Weatherman terrorist bomber Bill Ayers, the deranged Manson groupie Bernardine Dohrn, and the underworld figure Tony Rezko. Here, if ever, was a feast for Karl Rove's GOP attack machine.)


Carter started planning his campaign in 1972, just after his failed attempt to become George McGovern's vice presidential running mate. He began with the intention of capitalizing on the general distrust of government and politicians that existed on all levels of American society during the Nixon years. But at the same time, Carter carefully avoided any specific commitments on programs or measures to be implemented in favor of the American people: as Kaufman points out, "wherever he traveled, Carter remained intentionally vague on the issues." (Kaufman 12) Carter's main selling point was that the United States government had to reflect the decency and honesty of the American people.

Carter possessed a disarming and folksy personal charm, which contrasted very favorably with the excesses and arrogance of Nixon. Obama, playing off popular disgust with the arrogant, thieving, and incompetent Bush administration, repeats a mantra of hope, change, unity, and moving beyond old divisions; he attempts to project the illusion of an approach that is both post-partisan and post-racial, to say nothing of post-political.


The veteran journalist Jules Witcover evoked the mood of the early Carter campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire in the following terms:

"Carter ... combined an easy, warm, personal style with an icy, resolute determination, a kind of soft-sell evangelism that won adherence across the ideological spectrum. There was almost a hypnotic quality to his stump technique. He spoke very softly, in a rush of words that obliged his audiences to listen closely. In all he said, he punctuated his remarks with frequent ingratiating smiles and expressions of affection. The word "love," awkward coming from the mouth of the commonplace politician was used by Carter as if it were a natural neighborly embrace with baffling effect. 'I want the government,' he would intone to his rapt audiences in a quiet, deliberate cadence, 'that is as good, and honest, and decent, and truthful, and fair, and competent, and idealistic, and compassionate, and is filled with love as are the American people.' He recited this sequence almost as if it were his personal rosary, and, in crowd after crowd, it worked. Then, having given the assembled this layman's benediction, he would descend among them, smiling benignly, this peanut-farmer Billy Graham, and put his hands upon them, and in the process commit them thoroughly.

From these personal political baptisms came a small army of dedicated supporters who defied ideological classification, united in their conviction that "Jimmy" -- everybody called him that -- would restore harmony, and peace, and honesty, and decency, and compassion, and, yes, love, to government.... [Carter had] an almost missionary quality: no soul was not worth saving, nor beyond redemption, if only Carter persisted. And so persist he did, almost with a vengeance and, beyond that, with an unshakable conviction of right." (Witcover 210-211)

The messianic and religious overtones of the Carter campaign are evident enough. Carter was in fact the first self-described born-again Christian to be elected to the presidency, and he attracted the support of many Christian evangelicals, although many of these turned against him during his tenure in office and went over to the reactionary Moral Majority of Jerry Falwell. In a very real sense, the right-wing orientation of the Christian evangelical movement in the late 20th century grows out of an abreaction against Carter.

Carter was also famous for his tactic of feigning interest in each voter as a discrete individual, rather than a member of the masses. As Witcover pointed out,

Carter dealt ... on an intensely personal level that was a big part of his effectiveness: he would listen long, no matter who was talking to him, important politician or crackpot on the street ... Carter's opponents in Iowa soon found out that the Good Shepherd was going to be no pushover ... He would call on a farmer in the morning, talk for a while, stay for lunch, then come by again a few weeks later. If the farmer wasn't home. he would leave a handwritten note pinned to the front door that said: 'Just dropped by to say hello. Jimmy.' Many such visits were followed by telephone calls or notes of thanks ... Carter and his wife and children pursued this retail campaigning ... From the beginning, in Iowa, his campaign was oriented to the individual voter; the premise was that if he could ignite a spark with the people, the press would have to come around. Supporters once made remained supporters, because they were not simply supporters made, but friends made.

And not only Carter engaged in this Good Shepherd exercise; his wife, Rosalynn, his sons, and his sister, Ruth Stapleton, a sexy blonde mother who was also a professional evangelist, all worked Iowa like some foreign mission whose natives had not found salvation, but only needed to hear the word.

Obama would seem to represent an adjustment of these techniques for a target population that is more heavily impacted by the smorgasbord of trendy New Age spirituality, while Carter was of the older, Elmer Gantry school.

In Iowa and subsequent 1976 political battlegrounds, Jimmy Carter not only witnessed to voters about his Christian faith but about his faith in the nation and the American people. And when he left, he had organized his own church of political believers, thoroughly committed to him, willing to work with a zest and dedication approaching his own. And like a missionary so convinced of the Word that he was confident his new church would stand against all manner of secular pressures, Jimmy Carter openly disdained the demands of the infidel press that he speak in specifics, that he say exactly what his general proposals would do, would cost. He asked the voters the same 'leap of Faith' that is at the core of religious belief, and to a remarkable degree they gave it to him. (Witcover 211, 212, 222, 223)

Here the necessary link between a lack of programmatic specifics on the one hand, and a messianic and utopian rhetoric on the other, is clearly pointed up.


The common messianic themes of Carter and Obama raise the question of Gnosticism in politics. Both of these politicians of the Trilateral Commission are associated with the promise that their candidacies will help to realize on earth the kinds of millenarian events or values which are traditionally associated with notions of Paradise. Carter suggested that voting for him would establish the reign of decency and truth and love over Washington, D.C. Obama, working on a more jaded target group in a more sophisticated post modern idiom, similarly implies that putting him in power will cause the lion to lie down with the lamb, when the bitterly contending lobbyists and special interests representatives in the capital are bathed in the transfiguring power of his personality. The core idea is that purely secular politics can bring about miraculous transformations reserved by traditional religion for the life of the world to come, be it paradise or nirvana, not the fallen world in which we live as mortals. Both Carter and Obama can thus be associated with a kind of ersatz or civic religion which invites comparison with the utopian and millenarian promises made by the totalitarian movements of the mid-20th century.


Carter, especially in his exceptionally thorough, below-the-radar preparations for the 1976 Iowa caucus, was the first president to successfully and systematically game the emerging system of primaries and caucuses by which the Democratic Party would henceforth choose its presidential nominees. These primaries and caucuses are doubtless to be preferred to the smoke-filled room of yesteryear, but they also bring their own peculiar problems. The Democratic primary electorate is skewed in favor of affluent suburbanites, liberal ideologues, and Malthusian-Luddite activists. The party's working-class base among blue-collar strata and trade unionists has correspondingly declined, with many of them bolting to become Reagan Democrats, when the self-righteous environmentalist austerity and ultra-left socio-cultural preoccupations inside the Democratic Party became too suffocating.

In 1976, Carter, using techniques that seem elementary today, successfully manipulated the newly emerging system of caucuses and primaries with its McGovern-Fraser gender-conscious and multicultural rules. As one analyst of the Carter campaign has pointed out, "following their tumultuous convention in 1968, the Democrats enacted many democratizing reforms in their presidential nominating process. One major result was the increase in the number of delegates selected by presidential primaries and committed to candidates. In 1952 there were 17 primaries that selected 46% of the delegates and committed 18% of them to candidates. Not much had changed by 1968 when the same number of primaries selected 49% and committed 36% of the delegates. The system was then reformed, and in 1976 there were 29 primaries that selected 75% and committed 66% of the delegates. Clearly, the advantage in 1976 would go to a candidate whose strategy and resources were directed to an open process of delegate selection that reduced the role of party leaders. Increasing the number of primaries has the effect of handicapping late entrance." (Jones 19) Carter was able to game the system by frontloading his campaign in Iowa, concentrating on the recruitment of dedicated party activists and ideologically committed supporters who could be relied on to turn out for the lengthy and inconvenient caucus process. A win in Iowa could then be parlayed (with the help of a complicit press whose palms had been greased by Trilateral gold) into a slingshot effect, allowing Carter to arrive in New Hampshire with more momentum than any of the other candidates. The 1976 process of gaming by Carter appears in retrospect as rather simple, compared to the elaborate strategy used in 2007-2008 by Obama.

Obama has notoriously focused his efforts on caucuses in Republican or borderline states, to which the unrealistic and dysfunctional Democratic Party rules give an importance out of all proportion to their actual role in regard to the Electoral College. Obama has tended to win primaries and caucuses in Republican states which he could never hope to carry in the general election. But the sheer numbers of such meaningless victories have tended to drown out the central fact of the primary season, which is that Mrs. Clinton defeated her opponent by a 10% margin in the all-important Electoral College megastate of California, traditionally the one that shows the rest of the country its own future. Obama would appear to have a cynical gaming strategy for grabbing the Democratic nomination, but winning the general election in November is a very different matter, in which Obama may find himself facing insuperable difficulties if he ever gets that far.


Some observers noticed that Carter was running well to the right of the other Democratic presidential candidates that year, in a Democratic Party that was still deeply influenced by the Roosevelt New Deal and the better moments of the Lyndon B. Johnson Great Society. Today, it is hardly a secret that Obama has been running to the right of Senator Clinton, and ran far to the right of the economic populist John Edwards. Carter found that his rejection of the New Deal and the Great Society was something of an embarrassment, and attempted to avoid the issue. Obama's supporters do the same thing today. The Daily Kos, dominated by a person who has admitted that he was once a CIA trainee, and who continues to admire the CIA as a humanitarian organization dedicated to world stability, has instructed its gullible readers that the entire question of centrism versus liberalism "misses the mark" in today's Democratic Party debates. Cass R. Sunstein is a University of Chicago Law Professor and adviser to Obama who argues that Obama transcends the usual ideological continuum and must be placed above it as a "visionary minimalist ... Willing to think big and to endorse significant departures from the status quo -- but [who prefers] to do so after accommodating, learning from, and bringing on board a variety of different perspectives." Obama offers a more recent example of a cynical and consummate strategy to successfully game the unrealistic rules installed by accretion in the Democratic Party nominating process over the years.

After virtually living in Iowa for about two years, Carter came in first in the Iowa caucus with about 28% of the vote, topping a field that included Birch Bayh and Governor George Wallace. Carter was then able to parlay the Iowa momentum into a win in New Hampshire. An important success for Carter came when he defeated Wallace in the state of Florida. But in Massachusetts, Carter came in fourth. He won in Illinois and North Carolina, but was badly beaten in New York, and barely managed to take Wisconsin. Carter was able to win in Pennsylvania, but was defeated in such vital states as California and New Jersey. On the whole, Carter's performance, though weak in itself, appears to be stronger than that of Obama, who has failed to take any of the electoral vote mega-states except for his own home base of Illinois.

Every now and then, Carter's racist past broke through the carefully cultivated veneer of his new Trilateral political persona. At one point he told reporters that he had "nothing against" an ethnically-based community "trying to maintain the ethnic purity of their neighborhoods." (Kaufman 13) Jesse Jackson found that Carter's reference to ethnic purity made the Georgia governor "a throwback to Hitlerian racism." Mayor Richard Hatcher of Gary Indiana called Carter a "Frankenstein monster with a Southern drawl." (Kaufman 14) Carter was also foolish enough to give an interview to Playboy magazine in which he confessed that he had committed adultery in his heart many times by lusting after women. As we will doubtless see with Obama, any candidate whose political project is so strongly dependent upon his own supposed personal magnetism is likely to be vulnerable to the narcissistic erotic self-indulgence of the megalomaniac. In Obama's case, the Larry Sinclair revelations suggest that possible partners would evidently include men as well as women.


Carter continued to proclaim his own qualities of openness, truthfulness, and morality, going so far as to formally promise that he would never lie to the American people. "I'll never lie to you," he intoned hundreds of times. It is an impossible standard. This is of course the kind of utopian idealism which inevitably leads to corresponding cynicism once these impossible promises have been betrayed, as they must be in the world of practical politics. Realistic voters are more concerned about securing an improving standard of living for themselves and their children, rather than attempting to purge the universe of sin. Rather than stress specific solutions to urgent economic problems, Carter preferred to pontificate about the superiority of his principles and his general value system. Like Obama today, Carter was a process-oriented candidate, concerned far more with methods than results. Compare this with decadent socialite Caroline Kennedy's endorsement of Obama at UCLA, where she announced that "It's rare to have a candidate who can help us believe in ourselves and tie that belief to the highest ideals."


Like Obama, Carter successfully inveigled many voters into supporting him through a posture of studied vagueness. "On a range of issues, he showed all the elusiveness of the scat back. In time, that very slipperiness would become one of the most effective issues against him -- the 'fuzziness issue' -- but it took his foes, and the press, months to fully identify it and brand it for more effective tracking." (Witcover 239) When Carter joined combat with the Republican nominee Gerald Ford, this systematic vagueness became a major issue in the campaign, with Ford constantly harping on Carter's lack of specificity and "fuzziness." Observers marveled at Carter's ability to fuse contradictions and reconcile opposites to produce a singular assortment of "unified ambiguities and ambiguous unities," as C. Vann Woodward put it. (Kaufman 16) One of Ford's favorite lines against Carter was: "He wavers, he wanders, he wiggles, and he waffles, and he shouldn't be president of the United States." This would fit Obama remarkably well, but such lese majeste would elicit accusations of sacrilege from the left liberal acolytes who guard the shrine of the Perfect Master.

The Wall Street Journal in July 1976 focused on Carter's lack of clarity on the issues as a main factor in public confusion about what he represented. Carter lacked any coherent ideology, this newspaper argued. Here Carter was described as a candidate who promised love and healing and wanted to be "all things to all people," with a campaign that was "studiously vague on the substance of government." (Rozell 14) Time magazine saw in Carter a "grab bag political personality that offers something for almost everyone." Carter was a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma wrapped up with a question mark. After Carter had won the presidency the Wall Street Journal editorial was entitled "A Change, but What Kind?" -- a direct anticipation of Obama's mantra of vagueness, and of the kind of real political problem this represents once such a candidate enters the White House.

Like Carter, Obama poses as a non-ideological, non-doctrinaire candidate: "I don't think he's wedded to any ideological frame," comments a source. With Obama, there is only the man himself -- his youth, his ease, his race, his claim on the new century. His candidacy is essentially a plea for voters to put their trust in his innate capacity for clarity and judgment. There is no Obama-ism, only Obama. (See "Destiny's Child," Rolling Stone, Feb. 22, 2008) The young Mussolini argued that fascism rejected programs, since there were already too many of them. The fascist program, he argued, was simple -- to govern Italy. Mussolini pointed to the quality of his men, not to any specific promises, as the best guarantee of the outcome.


On the whole, the controlled corporate media were at first exceedingly favorable to Carter, whom they regarded as a breath of fresh air after the suffocating paranoia and exclusionary measures of the Nixon years. During the 1976 New Hampshire primary, it was evident that the controlled corporate media were favoring Carter. As Witcover notes, "in Carter's case a chartered bus now followed him, carrying his large press contingent. By such signs are winners and prospective winners gauged." (Witcover 239) Carter enjoyed a preponderance of positive coverage, just as Obama does today: "In early 1977 the journalistic reviews of Carter's symbolic activities and political rhetoric were highly favorable. Journalists portrayed Carter as a 'great communicator' seeking to establish his leadership by building public support through symbolic activities." (Rozell 7)

But even Carter never enjoyed anything approaching the unprecedented hysterical media swoon carried out by the fawning journalists of the controlled corporate media who chose in late 2007 and early 2008 to join the media whores for Obama. The adulation and immunity to all investigative journalism and criticism which have been vouchsafed to Obama are so extreme that he may experience a severe psychological shock once this controlled environment is broken, and this fantasy world comes crashing down. This may be happening with the Jeremiah Wright revelations, which have caused some fits of stammering and stuttering by the previously mellifluous candidate. It will be even worse if the collapse of the fantasy world built up by the media around Obama comes at some future moment when the reality of world economic depression and/or superpower confrontation reasserts itself. Under these circumstances, Obama could experience a nervous breakdown.
Site Admin
Posts: 31721
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Postby admin » Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:31 am



Carter would never have entered the White House without the help of systematic vote fraud, especially concentrated in the key battleground state of Ohio. There were reports that Walter Mondale, Carter's vice president show running mate, had told his supporters to "vote early, vote often" on Election Day. Obama prefers to have his opponents destroyed by carefully orchestrated and timed scandals.

One of Carter's biggest handicaps in the White House was that the new Democratic Congress, energized by many new members, was interested in reasserting its constitutional prerogatives in the wake of the Watergate scandal and the oppressive Nixon years. That mood can be expected to prevail on Capitol Hill starting in January 2009 as well, when Congress will try to re-assert itself after the end of the Bush nightmare. Among other things, there will be a long backlog of patronage requests which Obama is likely to consider as corrupt and beneath his seraphic dignity. Just as Carter was on a collision course with his own party in Congress because of his claim to represent the honesty and probity of the collective will, so Obama is headed for grave difficulties when he attempts to assert the primacy of hope over the need of every legislator to bring home the bacon and the patronage jobs to his or her own state or district.

Many of Carter's supporters, especially among trade unionists and blue-collar strata, had come to regard the Nixon years as a kind of aberration which could now be set aside in favor of a return to the Johnson Great Society. They expected that Carter would restart the war on poverty, increase programs for the working poor, and undertake an array of other social reforms. But Carter had heeded the advice of crackpot futurologist Alvin Toffler who called on Democrats in 1975 to "throw out all the old New Deal claptrap," and of elitist Gary Hart, who raved in 1976 that "the New Deal has run its course. The party is over. The pie cannot continue to expand forever." (Leuchtenburg 18) As soon as Carter got into office, it was evident that he was hostile to new social spending, and that he wanted to balance the budget on the backs of the poor, as demanded by his right-wing economic advisers such as Blumenthal. In late 1978, Carter launched what amounted to a national austerity program, involving draconian cuts in programs designed to combat poverty. "We look heartless," said Vice President Mondale. But Carter paid more attention to pro-Wall Street ideologues like Alfred Kahn, who blurted out after the administration had been thrown out of office: "I'd love the Teamsters to be worse off. I'd love the automobile workers to be worse off."

Carter began the process of dismantling the New Deal state in favor of the unlimited domination of the "market," meaning in reality monopolies, oligopolies, cartels, and Wall Street predators in general. It was under Carter that the disastrous process of deregulation of oil and gas, airlines, banks, communications, railroads, trucking, and public utilities got into high gear, creating the future potential for Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Adelphia, and the mess we see before us today. These tendencies of Carter doomed his attempt at reelection in 1980, when even one of his supporters had to admit, "he often seems unduly concerned with appeasing right-wingers, not realizing that it's all but impossible to outflank the Reaganites [on the right] without coming out for child labor, apartheid, and the Great White Fleet." (Leuchtenburg 14)


Many contemporaries saw Carter as a Democrat who thought like a Republican. Historian Arthur Schlesinger, who had been an aide to President Kennedy, took the judgment further in 1980 when he wrote that, "the reason for Carter's horrible failure in economic policy is plain enough. He is not a Democrat -- at least in anything more recent than the Grover Cleveland sense of the word." For Schlesinger, Carter was "an alleged Democrat" who had "won the presidency with demagogic attacks on the horrible federal bureaucracy and as president made clear in the most explicit way his rejection of ... affirmative government. But what voters repudiated in 1980 was not liberalism but the miserable result of the conservative economic policies of the last half dozen years." (Leuchtenburg 17)

Obama seems to be expressing the same intent when he praises the right-wing reactionary Reagan: "I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times ... I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing." (Reno Gazette Journal, Jan. 17, 2008) Mark well that what Obama is talking about here is the process of the demolition and destruction of the New Deal state, the most effective form of human organization yet devised, which was begun under Carter and consummated under Reagan.

Obama is known to be considering Republicans like Hagel and Lugar for the vice presidency and the Pentagon. (London Times, March 2, 2008) Obama also promises a foreign policy in which Republican elements will predominate: "The truth is that my foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, of, in some ways, Ronald Reagan," Obama told his supporters at a rally in Greensburg, Pennsylvania on March 28, 2008, according to an AP wire that day. Between a real Republican and a fake Republican, they'll vote for the Republican every time.


Perhaps even more than Carter, Obama has been described as a blank slate upon which voters are invited to project their own fondest hopes, dreams, and aspirations. Some observers have described Obama as a kind of political Rorschach test, with the voter being invited to decide what kind of an image is really being shown. This can work well enough in gathering votes, but once such a candidate enters the White House, he or she inevitably encounters the problem of a wide range of strong but contradictory expectations among duped voters who now expect their dreams and aspirations to become reality. Once the newly elected president is forced to act, it is inevitable that the large majority of voters will find that the dreams and aspirations they thought were in the process of fulfillment are actually going to be cruelly discarded. This virtually guarantees a hangover of bitterness, resentment, and disillusionment in the first months of the new presidency. This is, in other words, a question of the new president's mandate. A presidential candidate who makes specific promises and runs on an intelligible program of reform can actually educate the public and build consensus for what he or she wants to do. After taking power, such a president can claim the legitimacy of popular approval for his or her legislative agenda.

The Carter-Obama method of vague and fuzzy aspirational campaigning means that there is no mandate or popular consensus for anything. Therefore, when the policies dictated by the bankers who actually control these puppet candidates begin to be implemented, the crisis of the new administration begins almost immediately. A good example is the fact that Carter talked most of all in his election campaign about the need to address the problem of unemployment, which was then rapidly rising. But once he got into the White House, he suddenly decided that inflation, and not the growing ranks of the jobless, was the real problem. This was of course the Wall Street view. Carter reached a peak approval rating of between 71% and 75% at the end of April 1977, just after he had completed his first hundred days in office. From then on, his approval ratings and personal popularity fell steadily and precipitously, interrupted only by an upward bump frequented by a crisis rallying reflex occasioned by the seizing of American hostages by the Khomeini regime in Iran in November 1979.

Before long, Carter's popularity rating had fallen to the lowest point in recorded history, lower than Truman, and lower than Nixon in the depths of the Watergate scandal. Carter touched 29% job approval several times between July and November 1979, and once reached a nadir of 28%. Bush the younger has since explored these depths. Obama may be able to challenge Harry S. Truman, who reached 22% job approval in February 1952.


Mass unemployment is unquestionably the foremost issue discussed around the kitchen table by blue-collar working families. Carter's abrupt reversal of field to make fighting inflation the top priority was in effect an attack on important groups inside his own electoral base. The trade unionists of the AFL-CIO had expected Carter to propose a $30 billion public works program for 1977 to fight unemployment. When Carter threw this idea overboard, the unions began to rapidly turn against him. One can imagine the same thing befalling Obama. The same thing happened to Carter with the Democratic mayors, who wanted more help for the cities. The anti-inflation austerity campaign pleased Wall Street, but it was also a direct betrayal of Carter's own Election Day coalition. Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill tried to convince Carter to defer to some extent to the needs of the legislative process in Congress, but Carter was obdurate in favor of austerity and sacrifice.

Carter started his tenure in office by demanding the elimination of a large number of dam and water projects, which he placed on a porkbarrel hit list and touted as a means to fight waste in government. These 19 water projects represented jobs and economic modernization, but they did not fit the Trilateral outlook. Carter axed the water projects in a surprise attack, and the resentment from congressional Democrats was immense. Carter's pose was always that he represented the purity of the national interest, while the Congress was a gang of hagglers, tainted and corrupt. Another early defeat for Carter came when he failed to secure confirmation of Theodore Sorenson as CIA chief, largely because of a contemptuous refusal to coordinate with Democratic congressional leaders. We can already see Obama colliding with the Congress over the question of the earmarks in much the same way in 2009.


Like Carter, Obama cultivates a pose of holier-than-thou distaste for the operations of Congress. According to a recent profile, "Beyond his considerable charm, Obama can be righteous and cocky. He came to Washington pushing the hope that politics could be better -- but now he can give the impression that he'd rather be just about anywhere other than in Washington. 'It can be incredibly frustrating,' he tells me. 'The maneuverings, the chicanery, the smallness of politics here.' Listening to a bloviating colleague [Could this be Biden? -- WGT] at his first meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama slipped a three-word note to a member of his staff: 'Shoot Me Now."' (Ben Wallace Wells, Destiny's Child, Rolling Stone, Feb. 22, 2008) This posturing is enough to doom any legislative agenda, especially one packed with austerity and sacrifice, as Obama's is sure to be.


All of Carter's political problems were doubtless exacerbated by the endemic chaos that prevailed inside the White House. Carter had been the governor of a state of some size, and considered himself to be an expert in the administrative reform of government. But he long refused to appoint a White House Chief of Staff to manage the paper flow, and busied himself obsessively with the minutest details of government operations, while neglecting questions of overall policy and strategy. He thought to some degree as an engineer, regarding every problem as susceptible to a technical or technocratic solution. He was offended when Congress wanted to haggle about his findings. Still, Carter had considerable executive experience. Obama by contrast has none whatsoever. What would a future Obama White House look like? Would it be an anarchic chaos populated by multicultural extremists, Malthusian visionaries, and resurgent cold warriors with virtually no executive guidance, all dancing to the tune of powerful Wall Street interests? At this point, this seems to be the best guess, especially in light of what happened to Carter under the same puppet masters.


In a new expression of his contempt for his supposed allies on Capitol Hill, Carter insisted on developing an emergency energy program as a virtual covert operation inside the White House, without congressional input. On April 18, 1977, Carter made an address to the nation in which he referred to his energy program as "the moral equivalent of war." Some noticed that the acronym for the slogan would be MEOW. Even so, Newsweek praised Carter as "a strong activist president" who "had seized the initiative on energy." (Kaufman 33) If we delve into the details of Carter's energy policy, we find an eerie and bizarre parallel to Obama today: both demand an increased reliance on coal as an energy source, ignoring pollution even as they exclude any consideration of nuclear energy.

In his speech that night, Carter argued: "If we wait, and do not act, then our factories will not be able to keep our people on the job with reduced supplies of fuel. Too few of our utilities will have switched to coal, our most abundant energy source ... Because we are now running out of gas and oil, we must prepare quickly for a third change, to strict conservation and to the use of coal and permanent renewable energy sources, like solar power ... Our energy plan will also include a number of specific goals, to measure our progress toward a stable energy system...." Among the goals that Carter wanted to reach by 1985 were the following: "Reduce the annual growth rate in our energy demand to less than two percent. Reduce gasoline consumption by ten percent below its current level. Cut in half the portion of United States oil which is imported, from a potential level of 16 million barrels to six million barrels a day. Establish a strategic petroleum reserve of one billion barrels, more than six months' supply. Increase our coal production by about two thirds to more than 1 billion tons a year."

This emphasis on increased use of coal prefigures a similar policy advocated by Obama, in blatant contradiction to his other claims to be the most environmentally sure candidate in the Democratic field. The Washington Post of January 10, 2008 carried an article detailing Obama's strong and consistent support for measures to increase the use of coal in U.S. energy production, with special emphasis on coal liquefaction, which has been condemned as an obsolete technology. Obama was of course pandering to southern Illinois coal mining interests, which he in reality represents on this issue, although this relationship is covered by the usual cloak of hypocrisy. A sane environmental policy focused on human needs would attempt to deemphasize the use of coal as a source of energy, while reserving coal deposits for use in petrochemical production. Only the most dramatic technological breakthroughs could promote coal to the front rank of energy sources. The close parallels between Carter's coal-based energy policies and the Obama campaign of today can help provide new evidence as to the puppet masters of these two candidates. It is evident that Wall Street, from David Rockefeller in the 1970s to such figures as Felix Rohatyn and Warren Rudman today, is committed to a labor-intensive, low-technology energy policy based on coal, coal gasification, coal liquefaction, and synthetic fuels.

During his presidential campaign, Carter had railed against Secretary of State Henry Kissinger for his notorious practice of secret diplomacy, and for his thinly veiled contempt for the moral values of the American people. Carter's own foreign policy was to be administered by Trilateral Commission founder Zbigniew Brzezinski, a revanchist and reactionary Polish aristocrat who soon pushed aside the nominal Secretary of State, Cyrus Vance. Brzezinski was a well-known anti-Soviet cold warrior and hawk, and his presence in the critical NSC post was an ominous sign of disastrous events to come. Carter aroused right-wing resentments by his advocacy of the Panama Canal Treaty in 1977. Carter stated that he would rather commit suicide than hurt Israel, but in practice he expected the Israelis to make concessions according to Brzezinski's estimate of the needs of the U.S. superpower position vis-a-vis the Soviets. Carter also began talking about a total withdrawal of U.S. troops from South Korea, which at that point, with the unstable Kim Il Sung still in command, might easily have detonated a war in the Far East in which China and Japan might have become embroiled, which may have been what Brzezinski wanted. This notion of getting rid of rival powers by playing them one against the other is a hallmark of Brzezinski's cynical and manipulative approach to foreign policy.


Utopian and messianic aspirational rhetoric can have no greater deflator than a scandal centering on corruption in high places in government. In the case of Carter, the first scandal involved his best friend, Bert Lance, an Atlanta banker whom Carter had made head of the new Office of Management and Budget. Lance was accused of taking sweetheart loans based on his political position, and he was hounded out of office in September 1977. Carter had shown exceedingly poor judgment in attempting to defy public opinion by keeping his crony in government as long as possible, despite the firestorm of corruption charges. As Kaufman points out, "there seems little question that his support of Lance did irreparable harm to his administration. Even the president later conceded this point. Not only did the controversy distract the administration from more pressing domestic and foreign policy matters and helped poison relations with Congress, it undermined public trust in Carter, which he had worked so hard to foster and which was so essential to his success as president." (Kaufman 63) If a politician becomes president after campaigning as an ordinary mortal, the inevitable instances of corruption that will plague any administration can be taken in stride. But a candidate whose stock in trade is a messianic or utopian perspective like that of Carter and Obama finds the inevitable scandal to be especially damaging, since it is the delusion of purity which is being demolished.

By the end of 1977, the media question du jour was, "can Carter cope?" Squabbling between the Carter administration and the Democratic Congress was pervasive. By February 1978, only 34% of the American people thought that Carter was doing an excellent or good job, which represented a 21% decline over six months. From this we might be able to conclude that the popularity of a future Obama presidency would begin to collapse in the late summer and early autumn of his first year in office. Naturally, the worldwide economic breakdown crisis of 2008-2009 is already far more serious than what Carter faced in 1977, so it is perfectly plausible that an Obama administration would collapse at an even more rapid rate. This time, the consequences might be much uglier than they were three decades ago.


Carter was instrumental in setting up some of the key institutions needed for a U.S. police state. One was the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA. "FEMA was established in March 1979 by presidential Review Memorandum 32, with the mandate to maintain 'the continuity of government' (COG) during a national security emergency. PRM 32 bypassed the U.S. Constitution, and awarded power to the unelected officials at the National Security Council to direct U.S. government operations by emergency decree. By placing FEMA under the NSC's control, Huntington, Brzezinski, et al., turned the NSC into a shadow technocratic dictatorship, waiting for a real or manufactured crisis to seize control of the country." (Kathleen Klenetsky and Herbert Quinde, "FEMA's structure for fascist rule," EIR, Nov. 23, 1990)

In 1978, Carter increasingly turned his attention to foreign affairs. One of his obsessions was to prevent West Germany from building a nuclear reactor in Brazil, since this violated the Trilateral Commission policy of making third world countries depend either on oil from the Anglo-American controlled Middle East, or on coal, in which countries like the U.S., Canada, and Australia had a virtual world export monopoly. Then as now, nuclear energy meant national independence and economic development not controlled by the Wall Street bankers. Carter's biggest project of 1978 was the Camp David Accords between the Egypt of Anwar Sadat and the Israel of Menachem Begin. Although some observers claimed that Carter had dealt brusquely with the Israelis, the net effect of the Camp David Accords was to split the united front of Arab states, leaving an isolated Egypt to contend with an aggressive rejection front led by Iraq, Syria, and the other Arab states. This was of course the handiwork of Brzezinski. Beyond the fixed points of attempting to sabotage the industrial development of the Third World, and the quest for an anti-Soviet breakthrough, Carter's policy appeared on the surface as incoherent, contradictory, and lacking in direction. But from the Trilateral point of view, it was largely coherent, although it could not be avowed in that form to the public.


By August 1978, there were clear signs of impending revolution in Iran. This was of course a CIA people power coup orchestrated by British intelligence, the BBC, and the CIA in order to overthrow the Shah and to install in power the Ayatollah Khomeini, whom Brzezinski supported in the context of his notorious policy that Islamic fundamentalism was the strongest bulwark against the danger of Soviet communism. Carter and Brzezinski betrayed the trust of their nominal ally, the Shah, with the help of U.S. Ambassador William Sullivan. Their objections to the Shah did not revolve around his monstrous human rights abuses, but rather focused on the Shah's attempts to make independent deals with Italy, other European countries, and the Soviets, for the purpose of accelerating the scientific, technological and industrial development of his country. This was a matter of naked power politics based on the Trilateral program of blocking Third World economic development at all costs -- it was not a matter of human rights.

After the Shah had departed from Iran in January 1979, Carter, Brzezinski and NATO commander Al Haig sent Haig's deputy General Huyser to Tehran with the mission of overthrowing the moderate Bakhtiar government, blocking the possibility of a military coup or any other non-theocratic solution, and installing none other than Khomeini and his benighted supporters. In Brzezinski's view, Iran was destined to become a point from which Khomeini's doctrines of Islamic fundamentalism would radiate out into the considerable Islamic population of the Soviet Union, preparing the final downfall of communist rule. One immediate result of Khomeini's seizure of power in Iran was a new fake oil crisis, with a 200% increase in energy prices. This constituted the second great oil hoax perpetrated on the world economy by the Anglo-American oil cartel and its Wall Street and City of London owners. Carter tended to attribute rising oil prices to an actual scarcity, rather than to the reality of oligopolistic machinations and price gouging.


During June and July of 1979, many parts of the United States experienced a severe gasoline shortage. This quickly produced the shocking spectacle of long lines of automobiles waiting at service stations in the hopes of being able to buy gas. Normal economic activity was severely disrupted, as commuters ran out of gas before they could reach their jobs. It was a scene of appalling chaos. Intelligent people realized that there was no absolute gasoline shortage, but rather a cynical strategy of the oil companies to create panic and hysteria as a way of getting the price of gasoline up into the ionosphere. There was growing contempt for Carter as a stooge and chump of the Rockefeller oil interests, as a president too weak and cowardly to face down the malefactors of great wealth in the way that Kennedy had crushed the rapacious Roger Blough of U.S. Steel. Carter would soon exacerbate the rage directed against them by attempting to blame the public, and not his own fecklessness, for the crisis situation that was now engulfing the country. Will Obama react in a similar way?

By mid-1978, Carter was again announcing that inflation was public enemy number one. He decided to abolish the tax-deductible three martini lunch, earning the lasting enmity of businessmen all over the country. Some said that Carter governed more like a crusty old New England Puritan than the Southern Baptist that he claimed to be. For her part, Michelle Obama has promised sacrifice and forced changes in living standards if her husband gets to the White House.


In early 1979, Carter and Brzezinski played their own version of the China card, breaking U.S. diplomatic relations with the Republic of China on Taiwan and opening full-fledged diplomatic ties to Beijing. Brzezinski pressed for military cooperation between the United States and China. When Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping visited Carter in Washington in January, the final U.S.-Chinese joint communique denounced "hegemony," the Chinese propaganda term for Soviet expansionism. During this same visit, Deng told the Americans of his plan for a punitive military strike into Vietnam, and this occurred in February of that same year. It was evident that Brzezinski had given a green light to this reckless and adventurous move by the Chinese against a well-known ally of Moscow. During this same period, Brzezinski was supporting the Chinese backed Pol Pot regime in Cambodia, also against the Vietnamese. Not surprisingly, this emerging Sino-American block caused a backlash in Moscow, and the passage of the SALT II nuclear disarmament treaty was seriously impeded. All this is of course exactly what Brzezinski wanted. These events offer the merest hint of the kind of superpower adventurism and brinksmanship that octogenarian Brzezinski can be relied upon to produce as a controller of a future Obama administration. In fact, playing China against Russia in a Eurasian World War III is at the heart of Brzezinski's designs for an Obama administration, and represents a ploy that is sure to blow up in his face.


In the summer of 1979, the Carter regime for all intents and purposes imploded. If it had been a parliamentary government, it would have fallen. The occasion for this crisis was an address to the nation which Carter had announced for July 5, 1979, which he had billed in advance as one of the major addresses of his presidency. But just one day before he was to go on the air, Carter canceled this speech without any public justification. At this point, in one of the most extraordinary pieces of political theater in recent American history, Carter left the White House and took up residence for 11 days at his Camp David retreat, where he received a series of visits from business, government, labor, academic, and religious leaders. He made occasional sorties by helicopter to visit with average middle-class families in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, in a self-described bid to tap the pulse of the common man. Establishment figures including the Harrimanite Clark Clifford were brought in, and they roundly berated Carter for his lack of leadership. Carter's pollster Pat Caddell argued that the problem the United States was facing was a "crisis of spirit," and that this was the issue that had to be solved before any progress on the energy front could be made.


Carter strongly espoused this "crisis of spirit" thesis and made it the centerpiece of his television address to the nation on July 15, 1979. This is the famous malaise speech which became the defining moment of Carter's entire presidency. Carter argued that a solution to the energy crisis was vital for the future prospects of the American economy, but that success depended on the American will. "We are at a turning point in our history," Carter stated. "All the legislation in the world can't fix what's wrong with America. What is lacking is confidence and a sense of community. Energy will be the immediate test of our ability to unite this nation." (Kaufman 145) Here we see a clear note of utopian transcendence of the normal legislative and political process in the name of what amounts to a mystical goal. Observers pointed out that Carter's oratorical delivery and voice inflection were more eloquent in this speech than in any previous address. Brutal energy austerity and price gouging, since that is what Carter was concretely proposing, were imbued with spiritual and transfiguring significance. This demagogic synthesis of mysticism and spiritualism in a Gnostic key in the service of bankers' austerity is even more prominent in the Obama campaign of today.


Many of the 100 million Americans who heard this speech came to the conclusion that the Carter administration was in effect berating and scapegoating the American people because of the incompetence and ineptitude of the Carter White House. Carter was in effect passing the buck to the public at large because he was unwilling to face the consequences of his own subservience to Wall Street and its doctrines of austerity and Malthusianism. Will Obama imitate Carter's crude ploy of blaming the people for his own deception and treachery? For those who remember the Carter years, it would appear to be just a question of time.


Carter's central argument has been echoed in a slightly different context by Michelle Obama, the wife of the current Trilateral candidate for the presidency. Part of Michelle Obama's standard stump speech is a remark that we cannot fix the health care system until we have fixed Washington. Obama himself agrees: according to The Swamp, the politics blog of The Chicago Tribune, Mr. Obama says that to fix health care, "we have to fix Washington," according to the New York Times online blog The Caucus. (Feb. 26, 2008) This begs the question of what is wrong with Washington. Michelle Obama's answer generally goes like this: "Before we can fix our problems, we have to fix our souls," Michelle Obama says repeatedly in her stump speech. "Our souls are broken in this nation. We have lost our way. And it begins with leadership. It begins with inspiration. It begins with leadership. This race is about character. I am married to the only person in this race who has a chance of healing this Nation ... And right now we need some inspiration. Inspiration and hope are not words. Everything begins and ends with hope. And the only person in this race who has a chance of getting us where we need to be is Barack Obama." "We need a leader who's going to touch our souls because you see, our souls are broken," Michelle Obama stresses. "The change Barack is talking about is hard, so don't get too excited because Barack is going to demand that you too be different." "We need to be inspired ... to make the sacrifices that are needed to push us to a different place," she repeats. "Dreaming does count. You need to dream to realize your possibilities."

It is important to call attention to the sinister hints in this demagogic performance that point towards a future of austerity and sacrifice of the American people. The American standard of living has by the best calculations been cut since the Eisenhower-Kennedy era by something approaching two thirds. Any proposals for austerity and sacrifice inside the United States have obvious genocidal overtones against the American population, and can only serve the interests of the parasitical Wall Street bankers who bear the full responsibility for the present catastrophic world depression. It is these Wall Street banking and financial interests whom Obama obviously serves.


Two days after the infamous malaise speech had been broadcast, Carter provoked a total crisis of his own regime at the cabinet meeting of July 17, 1979 by demanding the resignation of all of his Cabinet secretaries and all of the senior members of the White House staff. This reckless and ill-considered action created a worldwide impression that the United States government had descended into total chaos. In the words of White House spokesman Jody Powell, this July massacre had unleashed "semi-hysteria" among the White House staff and in the executive departments. The next day, Carter announced that he would accept the resignations of Energy Secretary James Schlesinger, Secretary of the Treasury Blumenthal, and Health Education and Welfare Secretary Califano. Shortly thereafter, Carter also announced the ouster of Transportation Secretary Brock Adams and Attorney General Griffin Bell. The big winner in the July massacre was Carter's crude and incompetent crony Hamilton Jordan, who became White House Chief of Staff and Carter's direct proxy in giving orders to the executive departments.


In August 1979, Carter named longtime treasury official Paul Adolf Volcker to become a head of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Volcker promptly set about the systematic destruction of the United States' remaining industrial base through a merciless process of interest rate hikes, soon reaching the astronomical level of a 22% prime rate. Volcker claimed that his policy was aimed at purging the economic system of inflationary tendencies, but the cure was far worse than the disease. The economic theory of John Maynard Keynes had been described as inflation as a remedy for economic depression. The Volcker method was sometimes called Keynesianism in reverse: this time it was self-imposed depression as a remedy for inflation. This monetarist insanity straight out of the Friedman-von Hayek playbook, more than any other single factor, destroyed the Carter regime.

In January 1980, the consumer price index rose 14% year-on-year, translating into an annual rate of 18.2% inflation, which was the highest level attained in six years. Wholesale prices for January 1980 were rising at a rate of 21% on a yearly basis. It was calculated that the purchasing power of an average wage worker living in a city declined by 1.4% during February 1980 alone. By March 1980 the prime rate touched 16.75%, and by April it was 18.5%. As a result of the Volcker high-interest policy, the two most important industries left in the American economy, housing and automobiles, virtually collapsed. Housing starts in March 1980 fell 42% from the rate of a year before; this was also the worst monthly decline in 20 years. The sharp decline in the housing industry ravaged the entire first quarter of 1980, generating a ripple effect in which building suppliers closed their factories and laid off the remaining workers. Auto sales fell 24% compared to the previous year. Unemployment in Detroit was at 24%. By July 1980 the Labor Department reported 8.2 million unemployed, an increase of almost 2 million new jobless since February.

The economic situation was so wretched that commentators began talking about a misery index, which consisted of the unemployment percentage added on to the yearly inflation rate. A new term had to be coined to describe the horrors of the Carter Volcker Trilateral economic bust: this was stagflation, a combination of high unemployment and high inflation which had hitherto been thought theoretically impossible, but which Carter, Volcker and the Trilateraloids had succeeded in achieving. Between April and June 1980, corporate profits declined by more than 18%, which represented their third biggest drop since 1945. Gold reached $850 per ounce. The dollar tanked on international markets. Both the Treasury and the Federal Reserve allowed the sociopathic Hunt brothers of Texas to run wild as they attempted to corner the silver market in early 1980.

Carter, following the model of Herbert Hoover rather than that of Franklin D. Roosevelt, focused on defeating inflation by trying to balance the federal budget. Given the gravity of the situation, these priorities were simply insane in economic terms, as well as being politically suicidal. Today, with the collapse of the U.S. automobile industry, the drastic slowdown in the housing as a result of the subprime mortgage crisis, the signs of incipient hyperinflation, and the confused alarms of banking panic across the globe, it is easy to see the eerie parallels between the Carter era and our own time. An uncanny calculus has apparently motivated the Trilaterals to dish up yet another Manchurian candidate for president in the midst of a crisis which is similar to, though far more severe than, that of the Carter years. (Kaufman 168-169, 183)

Given Carter's economic mismanagement, reactionary commentators had a field day: William Safire wrote in the New York Times during the 1980 primaries that the "wind that chilled the Carter candidacy this week was made up of four Is -- Inflation, Iran, Israel, and Ineptitude." (Kaufman 171) Things were so bad in the U.S. economy that when Carter left office and opened the blind trust into which he had placed his financial assets before taking office in 1977, he found that the Carter peanut warehouse business, his main economic asset, had gone bankrupt, leaving him deeply in debt.


In June and July 1979, Brzezinski ordered U.S. special forces and subversion teams to cross the border into Afghanistan and begin a campaign of destabilization in that country, with a view to defeating neutralist and pro-Soviet forces and favoring the rise of a pro-NATO regime. This aggressive move in a country along their own border was watched with growing alarm from Moscow. In the Christmas season of 1979, the Soviet Red Army intervened in force inside Afghanistan to ensure a pro-Soviet government there. As Brzezinski told the Nouvel Observateur of Paris in 1998, he had ordered the U.S. subversion and the destabilization teams into Afghanistan with the express hope that he could provoke the Soviets to make a large-scale military countermove that might bog them down in their own version of the bloodletting that the U.S. had just experienced in Vietnam.

In that 1998 interview, Brzezinski boasted that he had successfully prompted the Soviets to invade, setting off a war which had lasted almost 10 years and killed between two and three million people. Brzezinski exulted that this geopolitical ploy had begun the downfall of the Soviet Union. He scoffed at questions about the role of the Afghan war in stoking the fires of worldwide Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. Brzezinski jeered that a bunch of angry Muslims were of no importance in comparison to the vast historical significance of the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the USSR. This is another good insight into Brzezinski's characteristic method: any tactic that will damage Moscow is to be embraced and ruthlessly implemented. The collateral damage that may be generated against the United States or against traditional U.S. allies is to be simply disregarded as a matter of no importance. Brzezinski clearly helped to lay the groundwork for the creation of the U.S. and British intelligence patsy army or Arab Legion known as al Qaeda, whose origins reach back to his watch.
Site Admin
Posts: 31721
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Return to Political Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests