Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:41 pm Post subject: The Men Behind Obama
The Men Behind Obama
A Two part interview with Webster Tarpley describing who is behind Obama and pulling the strings on the president elect and the plans behind it for the future. A must watch with brilliant insight and analysis.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 1:33 am Post subject: next year could see the US military up the game considerably
One of Tarpley's conclusions is awesomely simple. I'm afraid I agree and I'm afraid I hadn't articulated it.
The good thing about the NeoCons is they attacked relatively defenceless countries. The New kids on the block, he believes, are after much bigger fish and will try to get the Chinese to fight the Russians. Possibly pissing both off sufficiently to get them to team up against NATO.
Whatever happens it looks like, far from being time to chill out, next year could see the US military up the game considerably.
There are reasons why Tarpley is worth listening to. He was a political writer living in Italy right through the Aldo Moro assassination, the Gladio years... and wrote the incredible exposee 'George H. W. Bush, The Unauthorised Biography'.
Medvedev said the Iskander missiles were being deployed to "neutralise" the threat from planned US missile interceptors in Poland and radar facilities in the Czech Republic.
Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 1:15 pm Post subject: Re: next year could see the US military up the game consider
TonyGosling wrote:
What a shame WAC London dismiss him.
What a shame so many 'pundits' try so hard to trash Tarpley (eg. www.truthaction.org/ ). He must be doing something right!
As for US/NWO upping the anti, one only has to read and believe Brzezinski's 'Grand Chessboard' to know what 'they' plan. Keywords 'hegemony', 'psychopathy'.
Joined: 09 Feb 2007 Posts: 630 Location: Manchester
Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 6:26 pm Post subject:
I note from the video that it was recorded before the Georgia conflict.
I think Tarpley’s main target audience here are the intelligence analysts in Russia, China, Pakistan etc. The message is don’t trust Obama and don’t let the US succeed with a divide and conquer strategy.
The message is probably too “conspiratorial” to put before the sleeping masses. To weaken the Obama image it would be better to focus on the bailout and bankster contributions to Obama’s campaign funds. He stole a trillion dollars from The People to give to his bankster cronies. The guy is a fraud and a thief. This is all in the mainstream.
---
Like McCain, Obama's corporate donor list looks like a Who's Who of the Wall Street collapse - except some have given more to Obama. Lots more.
"The Obama campaign has just vacuumed up the money in this cycle, specifically from Goldman Sachs, Obama has received over $740,000, as opposed to McCain's $220,000," Krumholz said.
Not to mention that the former head of Goldman Sachs, Robert Rubin, is Obama's chief economic advisor - and two current executives are bundling for him (David Heller and Bruce Heyman). "Bundlers" are mega-fundraisers who, critics say, get special access.
Another big Obama bundler is Citicorp's Michael Froman. Obama's even tapped him to help put together his new administration. Obama has tripled McCain's haul from Lehman Brothers interests. Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan Chase? More, more and lots more to Obama.
---
Barack Obama Inc: The birth of a Washington machine
Yet it is also startling to see how quickly Obama's senatorship has been woven into the web of institutionalized influence-trading that afflicts official Washington. He quickly established a political machine funded and run by a standard Beltway group of lobbyists, P.R. consultants, and hangers-on. For the staff post of policy director he hired Karen Kornbluh, a senior aide to Robert Rubin when the latter, as head of the Treasury Department under Bill Clinton, was a chief advocate for NAFTA and other free-trade policies that decimated the nation's manufacturing sector (and the organized labor wing of the Democratic Party).
Obama's top contributors are corporate law and lobbying firms (Kirkland & Ellis and Skadden, Arps, where four attorneys are fund-raisers for Obama as well as donors), Wall Street financial houses (Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase), and big Chicago interests (Henry Crown and Company, an investment firm that has stakes in industries ranging from telecommunications to defense).
Obama immediately established a "leadership PAC," a vehicle through which a member of Congress can contribute to other politicians' campaigns—and one that political reform groups generally view as a slush fund through which congressional leaders can evade campaign-finance rules while raising their own political profiles.
---
Obama pushing the bailout and talking of “fiscal responsibility” and slashing social programmes:
Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 6:26 pm Post subject: Re: next year could see the US military up the game consider
Thermate911 wrote:
What a shame so many 'pundits' try so hard to trash Tarpley (eg. www.truthaction.org/ ).
Tarpley's quite prone to trashing people himself - and while he's spot on about some issues he also talks a lot of cr@p. This lengthy article about him is well worth reading....
9-11 Synthetic Error - The meltdown of Webster G. Tarpley
who'd have thought that Tarpley and his comedic critics over at 9/11 Cultwatch had this in common? _________________ Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 7:53 pm Post subject: 9-11 Synthetic Error
Thermate911 wrote:
What a shame so many 'pundits' try so hard to trash Tarpley (eg. www.truthaction.org/ ). He must be doing something right!
9-11 Synthetic Error
The meltdown of Webster G. Tarpley
by Michael Wolsey
“In our movement there has to be a sphere of theoretical discussion, which has to be done in a business-like and respectful manner, without slander, without defamation, without ad hominem attacks on every page.”
Originally broadcast on World Crisis Radio with Webster Tarpley, Sept. 9, 2006.
John Leonard, who as far as I can tell is the publisher of Webster G. Tarpley’s book, 9/11 Synthetic Terror, Made in the USA, posted a blog entry at 911blogger.com dated September 6th, 2007 and titled Tarpley’s Rx for US 9/11 Truth Movement: Diversity and Civility in Discussion, Unity in Action. As you can see from the above quote attributed to Mr. Tarpley, he is asking the 9-11 movement to conduct themselves in a “business-like and respectful manner, without slander, without defamation, without ad hominem attacks on every page.”
I agree wholeheartedly with the above statement by Mr. Tarpley. I have been aware of the divisions within the 9-11 movement for years now and know that they have slowed our progress toward the truth behind the events of September 11th. We do need to come together around the best possible evidence we have and get behind the best researchers to keep propelling our 9-11 questions to the forefront of the public eye. So I was a bit surprised to find out that the very day that this article surfaced at 911blogger.com, Webster Tarpley was publicly attacking me, Cosmos, Col. Jenny Sparks, Jon Gold, and Arabesque on his radio program GCN World report. In order to understand better what prompted this attack, it is important to step back in time and examine the circumstances surrounding the emergence of what is known as “The Kennebunkport Warning”, hereafter known in this article as the KW. It is also worth a look at Mr. Tarpley himself and what he believes and advocates.
As news of the KW began to surface on the internet in late August, 2007, I received an email from a fellow activist here in Colorado who is a friend of one of the alleged “signers” of the KW, Dr. Dahlia Wasfi. This email contained a statement by Dr. Wasfi saying that she did not sign the KW despite the fact that images being passed around the internet showed her signature among others including Cindy Sheehan on the document. I immediately posted this discrepancy to the KW thread at 911blogger.com, which began the entire controversy. Dr. Wasfi first issued a statement which read:
Quote:
“I signed a statement in Kennebunkport to endorse the impeachment of Dick Cheney, but my signature has been used on this “Warning” without my consent. While I was humbled to have my signature misappropriated with such prominent voices as Cindy Sheehan, Cynthia McKinney, and Jamilla El-Shafei, none of us signed that document.”
She later released a joint statement, originally published at her website and from herself and three of the other “signers” which read:
Quote:
Each of us were approached during the rally at the Kennebunkport event on August 25, 2007, to sign a statement calling for the immediate impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney. Since then, the statement has been altered and posted on the internet, making it appear as if we have evidence that this administration will carry out a “false-flag terror operation.”
None of us have such evidence, and therefore, none of us signed a statement stating that we do.
We wish the authors of the document well in continuing much needed investigations of all aspects of 9/11.
Signed:
Jamilla El-Shafei
Cindy Sheehan
Dahlia Wasfi
Ann Wright
Later, Dr. Wasfi also appeared on my program for a frank discussion about the KW and the abusive treatment offered by its author and supporters.
Despite a courteous denial, supplying their reasons and wishing those in the 9-11 movement luck, these messages were met with extremely harsh rhetoric coming from the supporters of the KW, led by its author, Webster Tarpley himself. In an email circulated to various 9-11 researchers and activists, Mr. Tarpley wrote:
Quote:
Dear Friends –
Please get organizations from the peace, impeachment, anti-globalization, 9/11 truth, and other movements, as well as high-profile personalities, celebrities, etc., to endorse, support, distribute, and publicize the Kennebunkport Warning. Some of the signers, under the obvious threats of totalitarian forces, are lying in appalling fashion about what they signed and if they signed. You can see for yourself from the facsimile who signed. We need to move beyond these wretched individuals* to build support for this mobilization alert as we enter a very dangerous weekend. Please make a special effort to gather support.
Webster Tarpley
*emphasis added throughout
In looking back at the sequence of events, it is not hard to see why someone might be puzzled at the recent boisterous rantings coming from Mr. Tarpley. Many have seen this and regard his actions as contradictory, if not hypocritical. Is it not strange that less than a year prior to these events surrounding the KW, Mr. Tarpley issued his call for unity and civility, and even reprinted the appeal in the 2007 4th edition of his book, pp. 452-453. Why then, immediately before the 6th anniversary 9-11 events, did Mr. Tarpley and other supporters of the KW viciously attack leaders of the Peace Movement? Why did you and your followers do this Mr. Tarpley, and why did you lead the way in these attacks? Apparently the call to respect others and act in a “manner, without slander, without defamation, without ad hominem attacks on every page” does not extend to members of the Peace Movement. We find out later that they do not extend to the 9-11 Truth Movement either.
Unfortunately, the harsh rhetoric aimed at the “signers” of the KW did not end with Mr. Tarpley. Craig Hill, who has been a KW supporter from the beginning, has supplied us with some of the most vicious attacks to date on these Peace Activists, referring to them as “The Dahliar 4”. From a posting by Joan Jones at the truthaction.org forum come the following statements attributed to Mr. Hill:
Quote:
“The hoax lies in the lies of the signers”
“Dahlia Wasafi is the original instigator of the campaign to destroy the messenger and the message of the Kennebunkport Warning”
“ Dahlia is worse even than a liar, she is either part of the war effort she claims she denounces or an idiot out of her depth.”
“The hoax here consists of a rally, essentially, by some of the signers to protect Dahlia’s family by amazingly, clumsily, arrogantly and stupidly destroying the credibility of a patriot who is simply trying to do what they have not the guts or brains to do on their own.”
“ the bitterly dubious integrity of Cindy Sheehan or her crapulous judgment“
Here is a quote from Mr. Hill when he was a guest on Mr. Tarpley’s radio program on September 6, 2007:
Quote:
“I’m beginning to think more and more that the peace movement is very much more infiltrated, and controlled even by elements of the perpetrators, coming from the perpetrators than even the 9-11 movement… And the reason I say that is that it seems now on 911blogger, which is supposedly THE authority on the internet such as it is for all things 9-11, has taken the side of these people who I call the Dahliar 4. In other words, the Dah-Liar 4. D-A-H-L-I-A-R Just put an R at the end of the name Dahlia.”
Isn’t that cute Mr. Hill? Not bad for a 4th grader, but a grown man? And you want to be part of the US Senate? You can’t be serious.
Another supporter of the KW has been Bruce Marshall. As you can hear from listening to the final segment of the September 3, 2007 edition of Truth Revolution Radio with Cosmos, Bruce Marshall is not interested in the “business-like” and “respectful” behavior that Mr. Tarpley advocated. In fact, Mr. Tarpley himself was unwilling to abide by his own words and set the example. His followers quickly followed suit, even using Mr. Tarpley’s radio programme as a platform to ruthlessly slam “The Dahliar 4”.
I have to say that it is more than puzzling to attempt to explain Mr. Tarpley’s behavior toward the alleged signers of the KW. It is completely contrary to his previous statements calling for unity, and goes against his efforts to promote the KW as an important document. I cannot speak for others but I would think a reasonable individual who wanted to promote a certain cause, or in this case, a “document”, would want to avoid controversy. If you really wanted widespread attention for your cause, controversy would be detrimental to your credibility and would turn people off to your message. So why then, did the active supporters of the KW do everything possible to create as much controversy as possible? Is this the first sign of a meltdown from Webster Tarpley? Let us examine Mr. Tarpley a bit more in detail.
It is important now to go back to where we began this article. On September 9, 2006 Mr. Tarpley made the following statement:
Quote:
“In our movement there has to be a sphere of theoretical discussion, which has to be done in a business-like and respectful manner, without slander, without defamation, without ad hominem attacks on every page.”
A transcript was made from a segment of the radio program, which included the above quotation in the context of a larger discussion about the divisions within our movement. This transcript, as previously mentioned, was posted at 911blogger.com on September 6th, 2007 and also printed in the 4th edition of Mr. Tarpley’s book, pp. 452-453 and titled Tarpley’s Rx for US 9/11 Truth Movement: Diversity and Civility in Discussion, Unity in Action. What exactly does Mr. Tarpley mean when he uses the word “diversity” in this title? Is this another word for the “big tent” analogy?
After being involved in the 9-11 movement for several years now, I have seen first hand how the disinformation is introduced and promulgated. I have seen the instigators and been the target of their assaults because I would not circulate ridiculous theories about what happened on 9-11. I have seen how these divisions are nurtured and I have seen how the disinformation has been injected into the pool of reputable 9-11 information. The above remarks from Mr. Tarpley were delivered in a larger context as an appeal for all 9-11 truth activists to come together despite our differences. In the larger context, Tarpley was calling for unity and civility around the information, think “diversity”. Mr. Tarpley is suggesting a coming together, if you will, under what is known as the “big tent”, all in the name of “diversity”. What if scientists and engineers used this diversity argument in their research and practice?
While I agree with Mr. Tarpley’s call for unity, I do not agree with the context in which this appeal has been delivered. I believe it is essential that we only present to the public the best information that we have in our attempts to awaken the sleeping masses. If we are to convince the average skeptic that “9-11 was an inside job”, then we had better be able to provide convincing proof if we hope to get that person on board with the movement. Be very cautious of anyone who says differently. If you don’t believe me, tell your friends that you think there were no planes on 9-11. Tell them that the images they saw on TV that day were inserted real time into the live video AND all the still photos that were taken on that day. Tell them that explosives were detonated inside the towers in the exact shape of an aircraft to imitate a plane hitting it. While you are at it, tell them a missile hit the Pentagon and then tell them that space beams brought down the World Trade Center and see how they react. Don’t be surprised if they discount your notions out of hand and laugh at you; maybe even call you a few names. Would you be surprised if you found out that Mr. Tarpley advocates and supports these ridiculous theories? It sure surprised me.
All this is not to say that I think that the work of researchers should be censored. On the contrary, I think that a person has a right to pursue whatever line of research he or she decides. If someone thinks that they have research that deserves attention, Dr. Steven E. Jones has provided an outlet for such purpose called the Journal of 911 Studies. This site was set up and invites all theories to be submitted for peer review by other 9-11 researchers. As Dr. Jones has said, all theories are welcome at the Journal, indeed encouraged. While most 9-11 activists and researchers invite new and credible research to support our assertions (isn’t that what we all want?), we also recognize the need to use caution when presenting information to the public. It goes without saying to most reasonable people that if you are going to talk about 9-11 to the public, you better have your ducks in a row.
Let us now take a look at the big tent that Mr. Tarpley wants us to come together under, and see who else would be there with us when we get there. A good place to start is Mr. Tarpley’s book, 9/11 Synthetic Terror, published through Progressive Press. This book was hailed by many as one of the better books on the subject of September 11th. Upon closer examination, there are many clues which would tell us Mr. Tarpley’s version of who would be joining us under his big tent.
“Thierry Meyssan, the founder of our worldwide movement, got more recognition tonight than he has ever received in this country, and it is about time – his book the Big Lie is and remains a classic.”
Far from the “founder of our worldwide movement”, Mr. Meyssan has been the original source for the “no plane” theories which have so divided the 9-11 movement. Mr. Meyssan gave us the original “straw man” argument, which first surfaced as the idea that a truck bomb caused the damage at the Pentagon. This story later morphed into the claim that a missile or a global hawk hit the Pentagon. Later, these Pentagon theories gave birth to the ridiculous notion that no planes were used on 9-11 whatsoever. Mr. Meyssan and his theories, and all those related to his original claims have been widely rejected by serious 9-11 researchers and activists for years. Is it reasonable to assume that Mr. Tarpley is unaware that most of the movement has soundly rejected Mr. Meyssan’s work? Why does Mr. Tarpley feature Mr. Meyssan so prominently in his book, and speak so highly of him and his work? I submit that the reason for this is not ignorance, but acceptance and endorsement.
Let us now turn to the back cover of Mr. Tarpley’s book. We see that Mr. Meyssan is handsomely represented there too in one of a series of short endorsements of the book. Almost surprisingly, among the other short endorsements is one written by the notorious blogger and troublemaker, Nico Haupt. Mr. Haupt, well known as a disinformation specialist has been extremely vitriolic toward any 9-11 researcher or activist (or anyone for that matter) who refuses to accept and promote his unproven theory that not only were there no planes on 9-11, but what he calls “TV fakery” was used to superimpose the images of planes hitting the towers in real time, on live TV. Mr. Haupt has repeatedly attacked me and many others and it is believed he is in part responsible for the dis-informative and derogatory websites 911truthy.org, 911 Truthlings Watch, and 911researchers.com. In this article from the Rolling Stone magazine, Matt Taibbi refers to Mr. Haupt as “the movement’s house lunatic”, citing an anecdote where Mr. Haupt tried to provoke him into a fight while picketing his office. It is beyond debate that Mr. Haupt is one of the worst problems facing the 9-11 movement, yet he is featured prominently on the back of Mr. Tarpley’s book and has been a guest on Mr. Tarpley’s radio program. Why? Can we consider this an endorsement of Mr. Haupt and his ludicrous behavior and theories?
Another standout personality featured on the back of Mr. Tarpley’s book is a man named Gerhard Wisnewski who is coincidentally a supporter of the KW. Mr. Wisnewski’s website is in German but also contains a rudimentary English translation. Despite what is probably a rough translation, there seems to be indications that Mr. Wisnewski also believes there were no planes on 9-11. One quote I did find to this effect reads:
Quote:
“Two passenger planes (at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania) disappear without a trace – the two others leaving no trace of a voice recorder and, in the case of the World Trade Center, most likely not even bodies.”
One thing that is certain when you look at his website is that Mr. Wisnewski believes that the landing on the moon was all a hoax. He has, in fact, written two books on the topic titled One Small Step? and his new book, Lies in Space. While I do not fall on either side of this debate, the fact still remains that if the opportunity were to ever present itself to the mainstream media, they would use these “moon landing hoax’ theories to discredit Mr. Wisnewski’s 9-11 work and the movement in general. If we welcome Mr. Wisnewski under our big tent, why not bring in the holocaust deniers, anti-Semites, and alien abductees? Is that what you want Mr. Tarpley?
We can also look to supporters of the KW for clues as to who would be joining us under our big tent, here constructed by Webster Tarpley. On his September 6, 2007 edition of Genesis World Report, Mr. Tarpley said:
Quote:
“Who supported the Kennebunkport Warning? Well, as you heard last week, generally speaking, recognized leaders who have built the 9-11 and the peace movements over many years. That would include Jim Fetzer, you’ve seen him fighting with Hannity and other people on television, Kevin Barrett who fought at the university of Wisconsin, Daniel Abrahamson of False Flag News, Jimmy Walter, who put on the biggest single 9-11 meeting we’ve ever had in New York City in September of 2004, Morgan Stack, a heroic 9-11 fighter from Ireland, Gerhard Wisnewski, he’s got two books out plus the first big special on prime time network television in one of the larger NATO countries, and now Yumi Kikuchi of the Global Peace Campaign in Japan, a very important group, and of course Bruce Marshall who’s been instrumental in fighting the impeachment battles up in Vermont.”
We have already discussed in detail some of these supporters of the KW. Let us take a brief look at some of the others not previously mentioned. Under Mr. Tarpley’s big tent of diversity, we would obviously have Mr. Jim Fetzer. This is the same Mr. Fetzer who is responsible for the break up of Scholars for 9-11 Truth. Among other things, Mr. Fetzer ruthlessly attacked Dr. Jones on several occasions, and Dr. Jones responded with facts and answers in a peer-reviewed letter. This is the same Mr. Fetzer who openly supports divisive people like those at WING-TV and Nico Haupt, the same Mr. Fetzer who promotes the junk science of “TV fakery”, space beam promoters Judy Wood and “no planes on 9-11″, Morgan Reynolds (at the st911.org site). Fetzer has threatened legal action against several 9/11 researchers but fortunately failed in his legal action against 9/11 researcher Fred Burks. Mr. Fetzer’s “Scholars” group has shrunk by about half since his attacks on others in the 9/11 Truth community. This also happens to be the same Mr. Fetzer who has been widely rejected by serious 9-11 activists. Jim Fetzer is far from a “recognized leader” who has “built the 9-11 and peace movements over many years”. It is a huge distortion for Mr. Tarpley to include Jim Fetzer in such a list. Is it possible that Mr. Tarpley is unaware of the movement wide rejection of Mr. Fetzer and his Orwellian “Scholars for 9-11 Truth”? (Fetzer’s small group was, however, identified with the 9/11 community in the History Channel attack piece.) Or does he support the use of absurd theories in presentations to the public?
Below is an excerpt from an email I recently received from someone who had looked into our movement for what he calls “an inordinate amount of time”. Take a good look at the handy work of Mr. Jim Fetzer.
Quote:
“The 9/11 attacks were the deliberate action of Al Qaida, they planned it, confessed, they had the means and the motive. Last year I spent an inordinate amount of time reading up on various 9/11 claims and found them not credible. The self named “Scholars for 9/11 truth” contained almost no scholars with any relevant expertise……”
How about the “heroic 9-11 fighter from Ireland”, Morgan Stack? A quick look at his website reveals him to be a big supporter of the KW. Mr. Stack is also, apparently a big supporter of Scholars for 9-11 Truth, “TV fakery”, and “no planes on 9-11” advocate Morgan Reynolds.
These are the promoters of the Kennebunkport Warning according to Mr. Tarpley. Is it a coincidence that most of them, including Mr. Tarpley himself, are also pushing the worst dis-information about 9-11? Is this your idea of “diversity” Mr. Tarpley? Why did Mr. Tarpley not mention some of the plethora of solid researchers and activists who have really built our movement?
Unfortunately, Mr. Tarpley again ignored his own advice, when on September 6th, 2007 he renewed his attacks on the “Dahliar 4”. On his radio program, Mr. Tarpley again used his platform to attack those who claimed that they did not sign the KW, but this time his derogatory rhetoric included ad hominem attacks on me, Cosmos and truthaction.org, Arabesque and his website, meticulous 9-11 researcher Jon Gold, and blogger “Col. Jenny Sparks”. We were 5 people who had the courage to stand up and say “Hey wait a minute here!” when we saw Mr. Tarpley and others attacking these ladies in the Peace movement. Many of us who have been involved in the 9-11 movement for a long time have worked hard on forging relationships between our movement and the Peace movement. We saw these attacks as detrimental to all of our hard work and called Mr. Tarpley and Mr. Hill out on their reprehensible behavior. We have said all along that we do not totally disagree with the content of the KW. What we do object to is the way the alleged “signers” were treated by the author and purveyors of this document. We have also asked the question, and still do, why don’t you take these signatures off your document?
Below is a short transcript of the main part of Mr. Tarpley’s attack on me and the others. The audio of the 2nd hour of his program, where these remarks can be heard is found here.
Quote:
“Who opposes the Kennebunkport warning? We discovered going through this that if you take all the slanderous filth, counter-organizing, disinformation and so forth, about two-thirds of it comes from about half a dozen people as far as I can see. And let’s tell you who they are. First of all, you have to look at the site called truthaction.org. As far as I can see about two-thirds of the site appears to be devoted to slanders and vilification of the Kennebunkport Warning. This shows what one can only call the typical style of the counter-gang. In other words it takes elements from lots of people’s work including my own. They talk about truth squads, they have a candidate tracker, they talk about a general strike, they take things from Ron Paul, they take things from We Are Change, but then they mix in a huge dose of anonymous slander, vilification, denigration, calumny, libel, and defamation. The leading poison pen seems to be an individual called Cosmos. Now this I think is extremely objectionable. Here is somebody who will not tell you his real name but he demands the right to be a poison pen. Anonymous slanders are his stock and trade. He wants to slander you and vilify you from the shadows, spread disinformation, distortions. These are the venom-mongers, the merchants of pus who like to operate from behind the scenes. These are the wreckers and saboteurs, and of course the question is posed: Is this COINTELPRO? Is this the conform of the FBI counter-gang? Those are interesting questions. I can’t answer them, but they are very interesting.
Then we have somebody else called Colonel Jenny Sparks in quotation marks. She shows herself as a cartoon figure prancing in an abbreviated costume before the Union Jack. Another poison pen slanderer, another wrecker and saboteur. The only questions we have are, is this COINTELPRO, is this the current style of the FBI counter-gang?
So here we have Cosmos who shows you he looks like he’s trying to imitate Che Guavara or a member of the Sons of David baseball team. He’s hiding behind a huge beard, looks like the Italian aviators in A Night at the Opera. He’s got this army fatigue cap pulled down over his eyes so you can’t see him, he might as well be anonymous. Jenny Sparks completely anonymous.
Michael Wolsey, Visibility 9/11. He appears of course in shades, he’s got some cool shades on, he doesn’t want you to see him. Remember visibility911.com is not the same as 911visibility.org. 911visibility.org is a reputable website; you have Janice Matthews and many others who work there. This is visibility911.com with Michael Wolsey.
Another person who has been active in these slander operations is somebody called Arabesque. Arabesque has a blog devoted to discussing 9/11 news research and disinformation, and I think the disinformation department is absolutely admirable. He seems to have all the disinformation you could want. He’s pushing it and peddling it on this sleazy, smelly website. So that’s arabesque911.blogspot.com.
The interesting thing about these people is that they all appear in the year 2006, 2007. What’s their track record in the 9/11 truth movement? Do they have any? Do they have contributions? Have they done anything to build the movement? Who are they? They come out of nowhere and then they set themselves up as leaders. Cosmos in particular starts saying that it’s time for everybody to get active on the eleventh on every month. Well we don’t need him to tell us this and to take credit for it.
I’m afraid also Jon Gold is somebody who has been in the movement, puts his blog at Arabesque and he has joined in the slanders.
These people have practiced a constructive fraud on public opinion. I think they operate with multiple pseudonyms. We do not know who they are. Colonel Jenny Sparks for all we know may be a cigar-chomping FBI agent or a branch of Shin Bet somewhere in the Occupied Territories or a subcommittee of the National Security Council. We simply do not know.
Colonel Jenny Sparks appears with no face. Arabesque has no face. Cosmos has got the cap pulled down over his eyes. Michael Wolsey’s got his shades on. These are the poison pens and the slander snipers and these are the people you have to watch out for.
And I think it is monstrous that a lot of people who have been in the 9/11 movement and have seen COINTELPRO in action in past years are now willing to go down this road once again with disinformation, distortion and the constant mania of people who insist on operating under false names, anonymous slanderers. It’s a despicable way to wage political activity.”
These are the same kind of ad hominem attacks that come from the mainstream media when we try to talk about 9-11. The big difference here is that these attacks are being orchestrated by a high profile member of the 9-11 movement, aimed at other members of the same movement. Worse still, is the fact that these unfounded and unproven allegations are very serious and include accusations of being government agents.
Throughout this attack, Mr. Tarpley engages in ridiculous and transparent arguments, instead of addressing the concerns we have. Sound familiar? This is exactly what the main stream media does to us as a movement. The above rant is a text book example of an ad hominem. Dictionary.com defines an ad hominem as:
2. attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument.
A Latin expression meaning “to the man.” An ad hominem argument is one that relies on personal attacks rather than reason or substance
Why did you not address our concerns Mr. Tarpley, but instead, chose to engage in the exact behavior we abhor from the mainstream media? Instead of answering our questions, you attacked us Mr. Tarpley. Answer our questions won’t you? Why did you attack these ladies in the Peace movement? Why don’t you take them off your document?
During this rant, Mr. Tarpley relied exclusively on personal attacks or ad hominems. You attack me because I have sunglasses on in a couple of pictures at my website? I don’t want anyone to know who I am? Is this for real? If Mr. Tarpley had bothered to look, he would have found this picture of me, without sunglasses. And by the way, I do use my real name. How am I anonymous Mr. Tarpley? And so what if I was? Does anonymity automatically make one COINTELPRO? Or is it anonymity, together with standing up to you that invites this designation? What about “George Washington” over at 911blogger Mr. Tarpley. Is he COINTELPRO too?
Mr. Tarpley, how do your transparent attacks make us COINTELPRO? How does the fact that Arabesque and Col. Jenny Sparks chose to write under pen names make them COINTELPRO? How does having a nickname, or a beard, or a hat make Cosmos COINTELPRO? Where is your proof of these allegations Mr. Tarpley?
Apparently, Mr. Tarpley chose to take these attacks to the 6th anniversary events in NYC. According to a posting at truthmove.org stating:
Quote:
“im at the conference right now. tarpley just called cosmos, jenny sparks, arabesque, michael wolsey, and john gold all cointelpro. he even put pictures of some of these peopleup on the screen.”
If it is true that Mr. Tarpley did indeed make theses accusations against me, Cosmos, Arabesque, and Jenny, these are serious claims that I do not take lightly. As they say out here in the West, Mr. Tarpley, either put up or shut up. Provide the evidence to back up your claims, or shut up. Of course, Mr. Tarpley cannot “put up” and that is why he chose to use ad hominems in a feeble attempt to demonize me and my colleagues. May I be the first of many to denounce such behavior from Mr. Tarpley and I demand a public retraction and apology, to myself, and to all whom Mr. Tarpley has attacked, including the ladies in the Peace Movement who want their names removed from the KW. Mr. Tarpley, you also owe the entire movement an apology for such juvenile actions and behaviors.
Another equally unfounded statement by Mr. Tarpley is as follows:
Quote:
The interesting thing about these people is that they all appear in the year 2006, 2007. What’s their track record in the 9/11 truth movement? Do they have any? Do they have contributions? Have they done anything to build the movement? Who are they? They come out of nowhere and then they set themselves up as leaders.
This statement constitutes a gross distortion at best, and at worst, a blatant lie. Speaking for myself, I can say that this statement is an insult to the selfless work I have done in the 9-11 movement for years now. Others have recognized my work as well, here, here, here, here, and here. Did you bother to look into my work at all before you made the decision to attack me Mr. Tarpley? Not even a google search? It seems to me had Mr. Tarpley done just a bit of homework, he could not have, with a clear conscience, said the things about me that he did.
I know there were lies and fabrications and ad hominems aimed at my colleagues Cosmos, Arabesque, Jon Gold, and Col. Jenny Sparks, which I will leave for them to address individually. It should be known that I denounce Mr. Tarpley and his ad hominem attack on all of us in the strongest of terms and that the others who were attacked have my full and undivided support.
In closing I will say that what Mr. Tarpley has done to cause the controversy surrounding the KW is nothing short of despicable. Additionally, he has for years promoted some of the worst information regarding the 9-11 cover-up, a fact that seems to either have been ignored, or hidden in plain sight, or both. Today, instead of practicing what he preaches, he simply attacks anyone who might dare stand up to his egomaniacal little tirade against the Peace Activists. I am aware of calls to move past the KW, and yes, I would like nothing better. This has cost me many hours of valuable time that I could have used much better. However, the fact remains that Webster G. Tarpley has behaved in a way that cannot and should not be ignored. In the past, and using the mantra “for the sake of the movement”, it has been the practice to ignore these disruptors. What has ignoring these people done? Have things got better as a result of ignoring them? Have they gone away? On the contrary, like busy little termites, the have been slowly eating away at the foundations of our movement. These outrageous actions by Mr. Tarpley cannot, and will not go unchallenged by me. We as a movement need to come together on how we handle such disruptors and re-evaluate the unwritten, failed policy of ignoring them and hoping they will just go away.
More on Tarpley
The author of the above article, Michael Wolsey of Visibility911.com, was the guest on the Sept. 3 edition of Truth Revolution Radio. He discusses his work as a truth activist and radio host, with a special focus on his series on cointelpro. They are also joined by investigative activist Col. Jenny Sparks and discuss a bit of the controversy behind The Kennebunkport Warning. Bruce Marshall called in during the last segment to discuss his role in promoting The Kennebunkport Warning, during which Mr. Marshall lost control of himself and began screaming and yelling. Hear it for yourself by clicking here.
Truthaction.org founder Cosmos had researcher Jim Hoffman as the guest on the October 15 edition of Truth Revolution Radio. Listen here. Jim is the creator of the sites wtc7.net, 911research.com and 911review.com. The discussion covers Jim's first involvement with 9/11 research and moves on to the topic of disinformation and disruption in the movement. Arabesque has provided a transcript of the broadcast available here.
Quote:
Jim Hoffman: It’s so clear. What possible motive would there be someone to go making these vicious characterizations of these really well known peace activists like Cindy Sheehan… When people like [Cosmos], Arabesque, and Wolsey report on it, to be viciously attacked by Tarpley with all these ridiculous accusations of COINTELPRO…? Very entertaining to watch, very vivid, just lurid—it’s ridiculous. It’s all just completely concocted, he makes it sound like you, and Wolsey and these people that he’s saying are COINTELPRO just popped up in the last year is just an utter lie. I think it’s a really good test of whether people are really in this in the benefit of our movement: are we going to tolerate this sort of thing? Where are the voices of the alleged leaders of the 9/11 truth movement about this and similar incidents? I think the silence from some quarters is deafening.
As for Tarpley, I dunno but like Steven E. Jones both were instrumental to many(including myself), in showing the impossibility of the official story.
What have we come to now,massive splits within the movement accusations going both ways,posters being attacked for having thoughts about alternatives to thermate and explosive propositions on those very forums spoke of on here.
As you can see from the above link I was banned from that forum merely for alluding to, in a very meek way I might add to those other theories. _________________ http://www.myspace.com/glassasylum2
it's interesting who the pied piper of Tarpley chooses to attack in the 9/11 truth movement and who he associates himself with - especially the likes of Meyssan, Haupt and Wisnewski - divisive, fringe individuals who are pushing "no planes" and "tv fakery" bs.
when one of russia's state controlled tv channels recently decided to stage a 9/11 "debate", the western representative on the panel was none other than the credibility-free Meyssan - and the event was heavily hyped by Tarpley.
strange innit? _________________ Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
Rahm Emmanuel's father, the ex-Irgun terrorist, had this to say about his son's appointment as Obama's Chief of Staff...
Quote:
In an interview with Ma'ariv, Emanuel's father, Dr. Benjamin Emanuel, said he was convinced that his son's appointment would be good for Israel. "Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel," he was quoted as saying. "Why wouldn't he be? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House."
Tarpley may or may not be compromised. Even if he is, he will still produce some decent speculation in the process of pursuing his other goals, if any.
It's all a grey and fuzzy area, it's not black-and-white, A is good, B is bad.
gruts wrote:
when one of russia's state controlled tv channels recently decided to stage a 9/11 "debate", the western representative on the panel was none other than the credibility-free Meyssan - and the event was heavily hyped by Tarpley.
This broadcast went out to tens of millions. Our enemy's enemy may sometimes be our friend.
What puzzled me about the debate afterwards was how fluent Chiesa was in Russian. As for Meyssan, it's not like he drove the debate or something.
You're being too purist: 1 in 1,000 viewers will ever realize the misinfo nuances you're alluding to. And in the end it doesn't take very much to figure out what's speculative bs, and what's not.
Back to the topic of this thread:
Google's CEO Schmidt will also be among Obama's advisers on economic policy:
Q.
You publicly endorsed Barack Obama for president saying, among other things, that you liked his economic plan. Are there other ideas or proposals that you think could help America’s and Silicon Valley’s economy?
A.
The strongest position I have taken from an economic point, with Senator Obama, now President-elect Obama, has been to try to solve all of our problems at once. And the easiest way to do that, at least in domestic policy, is by a stimulus program that rewards renewable energy and over time attempts to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy. The Google calculations, which we announced about a month ago, indicate that over a 22-year period, you can save a trillion dollars by investing in these technologies, including plug-in hybrids, and thereby reduce our reliance on oil.
Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 12:21 pm Post subject: Re: next year could see the US military up the game consider
gruts wrote:
Tarpley's quite prone to trashing people himself - and while he's spot on about some issues he also talks a lot of cr@p. This lengthy article about him is well worth reading....
9-11 Synthetic Error - The meltdown of Webster G. Tarpley
Thank you, Gruts & Gareth for once again dragging the whole tedious and divisive 'Synthetic Error' irrelevance back into the limelight. 'Well worth reading'? I don't think so, as it lacks any substance relevant to the subject of 9/11, being a sloppy critique of the man rather than the research, let alone the facts.
In the form of classic neo-conservative logic(!), I am forced to ask the question 'If you're against Tarpley, surely that means you are for Bush etc?'
I'm assuming here that we have all read Tarpley's G.H.W. Bush bio by now? So how come there's such a concerted effort by some nebulous cyber-Americans to sideline his research? It can only be out of a desire to divide public opinion or at the very least muddy the waters further, surely?
I also note that this procedure has so far refrained from any substantive critique of what Tarpley actually unearthed.
Doesn't anyone else find that rather odd?
----
"Arabesque Ar`a*besque", n. [F. arabesque, fr. It. arabesco,
fr. Arabo Arab.]
A style of ornamentation either painted, inlaid, or carved in
low relief. It consists of a pattern in which plants, fruits,
foliage, etc., as well as figures of men and animals, real or
imaginary, are fantastically interlaced or put together.
[1913 Webster]"
Hmm, 'carved in low relief' & 'fantastically interlaced '- I like that. And no, I have no time or inclination for Larouche - or the Vatican, for that matter...
Meanwhile, back on topic with Prez-to-be O'Bummer, all I can say is 'Plus ca change'... _________________ "We will lead every revolution against us!" - attrib: Theodor Herzl
"Timely Demise to All Oppressors - at their Convenience!" - 'Interesting Times', Terry Pratchett
Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:06 pm Post subject: Re: next year could see the US military up the game consider
Thermate911 wrote:
In the form of classic neo-conservative logic(!), I am forced to ask the question 'If you're against Tarpley, surely that means you are for Bush etc?'
lol - I see no reason to regard an occasionally insightful old windbag like Tarpley as some sort of sacred cow. sure he gets things right sometimes and is generally entertaining to listen to - but on the other hand he also makes questionable claims, hangs around with questionable people and is driven by his own questionable agendas....
Thermate911 wrote:
Thank you, Gruts & Gareth for once again dragging the whole tedious and divisive 'Synthetic Error' irrelevance back into the limelight. 'Well worth reading'? I don't think so, as it lacks any substance relevant to the subject of 9/11, being a sloppy critique of the man rather than the research, let alone the facts.
....therefore I find the Tarpley hype that is sweeping through the forum at the moment a little OTT and just thought I'd say so.
do you have a problem with that? if so, can you possibly respond to the article I posted with something more meaningful than the reality-denying knee jerks above?
for example, Tarpley's relationship with the likes of Nico Haupt and his promotion of Meyssan have a great deal of direct relevance to the subject of his credibility on the issue of 9/11 - don't you think?
incidentally - "plus ca change" is exactly what I think about Obama replacing Bush - although Tarpley wants us to believe that Obama will be much worse than Bush, McCain, Hilary and Satan combined.... _________________ Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 1:43 pm Post subject: Re: next year could see the US military up the game consider
gruts wrote:
occasionally insightful old windbag like Tarpley as some sort of sacred cow. sure he gets things right sometimes and is generally entertaining to listen to - but on the other hand he also makes questionable claims, hangs around with questionable people and is driven by his own questionable agendas....
Ya mean he's yooman? ;-)
Quote:
....therefore I find the Tarpley hype that is sweeping through the forum at the moment a little OTT and just thought I'd say so.
do you have a problem with that?
None whatsoever. I just get tired of watching people get embroiled in what are essentially testosterone-charged emotional clashes with little tangible relevance to the key facts of 9/11 and other NWO policies.
Quote:
if so, can you possibly respond to the article I posted with something more meaningful than the reality-denying knee jerks above?
I would merely question the meaning of reality ;-)
Quote:
for example, Tarpley's relationship with the likes of Nico Haupt and his promotion of Meyssan
Oh dear. Why not let's do Charles and Camilla while we're at it...
[
Quote:
have a great deal of direct relevance to the subject of his credibility on the issue of 9/11 - don't you think?
Nope. Of what relevance is 'credibility' in any given circumstance compared to what has been unearthed and corroborated? Does the former deny the latter? That's what disinfo wonks would love to have us all believe. Just look at what a 'good job' they've done so far in encouraging the masses to perceive black as white...
Quote:
incidentally - "plus ca change" is exactly what I think about Obama replacing Bush - although Tarpley wants us to believe that Obama will be much worse than Bush, McCain, Hilary and Satan combined.... :)
He may not be so far off the mark. He's read his Brzezinski. By their actions, they're all interchangeable anyway...aren't they? _________________ "We will lead every revolution against us!" - attrib: Theodor Herzl
"Timely Demise to All Oppressors - at their Convenience!" - 'Interesting Times', Terry Pratchett
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 4:50 pm Post subject: Re: next year could see the US military up the game consider
Books, videos, presentations at universities all over the world.
I'd like to see you do 1/1000th as much to get the truth out Gruts.
It's so easy to have a cheap pop at people from the comfort of anonymity.
Give it a rest eh?
gruts wrote:
lol - I see no reason to regard an occasionally insightful old windbag like Tarpley as some sort of sacred cow. sure he gets things right sometimes and is generally entertaining to listen to - but on the other hand he also makes questionable claims, hangs around with questionable people....
Georgia congressman warns of Obama dictatorship
By BEN EVANS – 1 day ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship.
"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may — may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."
Broun cited a July speech by Obama that has circulated on the Internet in which the then-Democratic presidential candidate called for a civilian force to take some of the national security burden off the military.
"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun said. "When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."
Obama's comments about a national security force came during a speech in Colorado about building a new civil service corps. Among other things, he called for expanding the nation's foreign service and doubling the size of the Peace Corps "to renew our diplomacy."
"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
Broun said he also believes Obama likely will move to ban gun ownership if he does build a national police force.
Obama has said he respects the Second Amendment right to bear arms and favors "common sense" gun laws. Gun rights advocates interpret that as meaning he'll at least enact curbs on ownership of assault weapons and concealed weapons. As an Illinois state lawmaker, Obama supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons and tighter restrictions on firearms generally.
"We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential."
Obama's transition office did not respond immediately to Broun's remarks.
Beware of the Obama hype. What 'change' in America really means
In his latest column for the New Statesman, John Pilger writes that the lauding of Barack Obama has a history and that 'historical moments' ought to be less about their symbolism and accompanying histrionics than what they really mean. The question is: what is Obama's true relation to unchanging American myths about the imposition of its notorious power?
My first visit to Texas was in 1968, on the fifth anniversary of the assassination of president John F Kennedy in Dallas. I drove south, following the line of telegraph poles to the small town of Midlothian, where I met Penn Jones Jr, editor of the Midlothian Mirror. Except for his drawl and fine boots, everything about Penn was the antithesis of the Texas stereotype. Having exposed the racists of the John Birch Society, his printing press had been repeatedly firebombed. Week after week, he painstakingly assembled evidence that all but demolished the official version of Kennedy’s murder. _________________ Simon - http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
So, Vladimir Putin was right: It was Georgia that started the war with Russia, and once again it was President Bush who got caught in a lie. As the New York Times reported last week, "Newly available accounts by independent military observers of the beginning of the war between Georgia and Russia this summer call into question the long-standing Georgian assertion that it was acting defensively against separatist and Russian aggression."
Robert Scheer
* Cold War hawks nesting with Obama 11.12.08
* Youth, grassroots, elected a man for change 11.05.08
* Why are white men expected to vote against change? 10.29.08
* Obama advisers offer a new economic vision 10.22.08
More Robert Scheer »
The Bush White House knew - but kept from the American public - facts concerning the provocation by Georgia's U.S. trained forces killing civilians in the capital of South Ossetia before Russian troops crossed the border, which also has been documented in a BBC investigative report and by a growing consensus of other reliable sources.
No surprise, but it is a reminder of just how eager some are for a new Cold War and how indifferent they are to the truth of the matter. The career hawks are influential in both political parties, as was evidenced by the knee-jerk response of both presidential candidates that the Russians had launched a totally unprovoked attack.
Sen. John McCain, whose top foreign policy adviser had been a paid lobbyist for Georgia, was most eager to confront the Russians, while Sen. Barack Obama was a bit more cautious. But as recently as in his Oct. 29 infomercial, Obama promised to "curb Russian aggression," which hardly suggests the change we need from the unilateral belligerence of the Bush foreign policy.
The result of that policy has been increased estrangement from the one country whose cooperation is totally indispensable in the effort to control the spread of nuclear weapons, given that Russia possesses roughly half of the world's nuclear arsenal and the ready means to build more. Yet instead of putting up a common front against nuclear proliferation, and even before the Georgia fracas, the Bush administration insisted on placing missiles on Russia's borders in a deal breaker with Putin, whom Bush had previously embraced.
Improved relations with Russia are critical to the change toward a more peaceful world that Obama has promised, but it is disquieting in the extreme that some of his closest advisers are inveterate hawks with a history of needlessly provoking tension with the Russians during the Cold War days. Key among them is Zbigniew Brzezinski, who, as President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, engineered the U.S. involvement on the side of Islamic fanatics in Afghanistan.
Of course, the official story line at the time was that the Soviets had invaded to support their ally, which happened to be the governing power in Kabul, against the fanatic mujahedeen rebels, whom President Ronald Reagan would later officially embrace as "freedom fighters." Those freedom fighters came to be united by our CIA with the likes of Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of the 9/11 attacks.
It was decades later that the truth came out that the Soviets invaded only after being deliberately provoked by U.S. hawks. One of them was Robert Gates, who worked for Brzezinski in the Carter administration and who is currently the Secretary of Defense, now being considered by President-elect Obama to retain that position. A 1996 press release promoting Gates' memoir promised the revelation of "Carter's never-before-revealed covert support to Afghan mujahedeen - six months before the Soviets invaded."
The Gates revelation prompted an interviewer for the French publication, Le Nouvel Observateur, to ask Brzezinski in a 1998 interview whether he regretted "having given arms and advice to future terrorists," and Brzezinski replied: "Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? .... What is most important to the history of the world? ... Some stirred up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?"
That was three years before those "stirred up Muslims" attacked us on 9/11, but Brzezinski has not lost his nerve for escalating wars. While advising Obama, he gave interviews hyping the Russian "invasion" of Georgia as the occasion for a new global conflict, telling journalist Nathan Gardels that Putin's action "was ominously similar to Stalin's and Hitler's in the late 1930s."
I know, Obama is not yet in office. I voted for him with enthusiasm in part because he does seem to have transcended the preoccupations of the Cold War. But as a buyer, I have to beware of those unrepentant Democratic hawks now hovering.
Robert Scheer is author of a new book, "The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America."
InsightAnalytical — Watching Our World
Entries RSS | Comments RSS
*
PUMAS--LYING IN WAIT
*
CONTRIBUTORS: Kenosha Marge, Grail Guardian, and American Lassie
Chicago Correspondent - Leslie
The Story Unfolds 2: Obama, Biden, Brzezinski, Carter…and the Trilateral Commission?
Posted on October 27, 2008 by insightanalytical
Editor’s Note: InsightAnaltyical welcomes American Lassie to the roster of contributors today!
~~By American Lassie
On October 6th, 2008, I write a post entitled The Legend Continues, The Story Unfolds….
Comments made by “Grail Guardian and “creeper” were so along the lines of my original thinking that I decided to search further into Obama’s background (such as we know of it) to see what I could come up with.
The tremendous amounts of money that he has raised and the protection he has been given by the MSM, along with the some of the surprising endorsements he has received lend credence to the idea that someone (or some powerful entity) with a lot of wealth and importance is pulling the strings behind the scenes.
You are right Grail and creeper, Dean and his cohorts at the DNC, although a necessary component to this action, are not smart enough to conjure up and plan this mammoth undertaking.
Let’s go to Obama’s years at Columbia University. Why is there such a secret about his transcript and the courses he took? Who were his instructors? Wonder of Wonders. At the same time of Obama’s attendance at Columbia, ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI was also at the Columbia as head of the “Institute of Communist Affairs.” (More on ZB later.)
Obama’s senior thesis reportedly was entitled “Soviet Nuclear Disarmament.” His dissertation has disappeared from Columbia’s archives and the Obama campaign professes to have no copies of it. His degree, received in 1983, was in political science. Back to Brzezinski —
Brzezinski was national security adviser under Jimmy Carter. He left Columbia to found the TRILATERAL COMMISSION along with David Rockefeller. The Trilateral Commission is a private organization with members from the U.S., Europe and Japan. (The Japanese presence has grown to include other nations in Asia.)
In his book “Between Two Ages”, Brezezinski writes:
“Marxism is simultaneously a victory of the external, active man over the inner, passive man and a victory of reason over belief” (Page 72). He called for a deliberate management of the American future (Page 260), a “Community of Nations” (page 296) and a “World Government” (Page 308).
He became the first director of the Trilateral Commission. He drafted it’s charter and became it’s strongest proponent. Some people believe this commission is an offshoot of the secret Bilderberg Group. (Perhaps more at a later time on this group.)
The funding for this enterprise came from the Charles F. Kettering Foundation, the Ford Foundation in addition to Rockefeller.
In July 1972, the first meeting of this group was called by David Rockefeller at his compound in Hudson Valley, N.Y. It was attended by 250 individuals who represented the elite of finance, media and industry. Other founding members were Alan Greenspan and Paul Volker - both eventually headed the Federal Reserve System.
Senator Barry Goldwater wrote in his book “With No Apologies” –
“In my view, the Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize the four centers of power: political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical. All this to be done in the interest of creating a more peaceful, more productive world community. What the Trilateralists truly intend is the creation of a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved. They believe the abundant materialism they propose to create will overwhelm existing differences. As managers and creators of the system they will rule the future”
In 1977 Jeremiah Novak wrote in the July issue of the Atlantic - “Although the commission’s prime concern is economic, the Trilateralists pinpointed a vital political objective: to gain control of the American Presidency.
Craig S. Karpel wrote in a November 1977 Penthouse article - “Cartergate - The Trilateral Commission is the Carter Administration.”
(The Modern History Project quotes both Novak and Karpel.)
Carter appointed 26 former members of the commission to his administration. Who knows what may have have happened if the electorate hadn’t dumped him after one term?
BRZEZINSKI AND OBAMA:
Brzezinski’s words on Obama - “What makes Obama attractive to me is that he understands that we live in a very different world where we have to relate to a variety of cultures and peoples.”
Some of the endorsers of Obama that have puzzled me as to the reason why:
1. Jay Rockefeller of W. VA. …when the state went so overwhelmingly for Clinton.
2. David Gergen.
3. Fareed Zakaaria - Editor of Newsweek International, and TV commentator.
4. Jimmy Carter - no puzzle there.
Could this be the the answer to the money, influence and brains behind the rapid rise of Obama?
Is this why his years in NY are blacked out?
Whom did he associate with in NY besides Brzezinski?
Will we ever have the answer?
Query: Were the inane mouthings of Joe Biden meant to tell us something? Was he trying to clue us in that due to Brzezinski’s hatred of Russia there might be something instigated there?
Knowing Brzezinski’s volatile hatred of Russia, this scares the life out of me. As Obama’s foreign policy mentor for - how long? Back in his Columbia days? Now, for sure.)
Forgive this long diatribe, but it’s sure something to think about.
***
Additional information from InsightAnalytical-GRL:
Background on Brzezinksi from CNN’s “Knowledge Bank: Profiles here.
Excerpt:
Aiming to replace Kissinger’s “acrobatics” in foreign policy-making with a foreign policy “architecture,” Brzezinski was as eager for power as his rival. However, his task was complicated by his focus on East-West relations, and in a hawkish way — in an administration where many cared a great deal about North-South relations and human rights. …In the growing crisis atmosphere of 1979 and 1980 due to the Iranian hostage situation, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and a deepening economic crisis, Brzezinski’s anti-Soviet views gained influence but could not end the Carter administration’s malaise.
NOTE: Kissinger himself is reported to have told the head of state of Canada that “Jimmy Carter is not the President of the United States. The Trilateral Commission is the President of the United States; I represent the Trilateral Commission.”
NOTE: Here is a link to a packet of information prepared by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress which includes images of magazine and newspaper articles on the Trilateral Commission circa 1978-1980, as well as an extensive report listing the names of members at the time, its objectives, and a bibliography.
Wouldn't it be great if everyone on the planet came to this information simultaneously? Hey ho but good posts, CA.
Here's another that could shed light if only people could be bothered more with causes than effects...
Obama and the Crisis of Expectation
by Shamus Cooke
Global Research, November 13, 2008
- 2008-11-12
wherein:-
Quote:
Recently, Obama has made several speeches where he emphasizes the need for us to “sacrifice” and “tighten belts.” He is not talking to the corporate elite here. Obama also talks incessantly about “cutting programs” and “trimming spending.” We can safely assume the programs he intends to cut are those that benefit working people.
A ten trillion dollar debt and a sinking US economy vastly limit Obama’s options, that is, if he chooses to act in the favor of the ruling class, which has very narrow interests at this point: saving Wall Street, maintaining the military budget, and “balancing” the rest of the budget, i.e., cutting social programs. This is because the bi-partisan policy of printing money to deal with wars and economic crisis has put the dollar under immense pressure; the ruling class is scared that inflation could wreak havoc on an already-poor economy. Therefore, spending has to be reduced, but not in the sphere of bank bail-outs and armaments. The financial elite believe that there is zero money available—unless it is spent on them.
Although it is possible that Obama will enact some reforms, such as closing down Guantanamo Bay, slightly increasing taxes to the wealthy, and giving a minor economic stimulus to the working class, the fundamentals of his policies will be shaped by the above considerations of the ruling class.
It is this fact that will act as a hammer blow to the built up expectations around Obama. These immense hopes, combined with the realities of Obama’s future policy, make for an especially explosive situation.
As the economic crisis deepens, Obama’s first priority will be to save the financial institutions and major corporations by providing them with further bailouts, with working people continuing to foot the bill. But opposition has already broken out in response to this perversion of justice: the New York City Central Labor Council was one of many groups that organized demonstrations denouncing the bailouts. Meanwhile, the faculty union at the California State University system has been reaching out to other faculty unions across the nation to demand more federal money for public higher education. Antiwar actions are being planned for March. These struggles are not disconnected.
BARACK Obama swept to victory last night as millions of Americans lapped up all that bs about change.
The Illinois senator made history as the first black American to become President and the 44th man to win the office with a lot of vague platitudes and an army of creepy spin doctors.
He told a crowd of 250,000 supporters in his home city of Chicago: "Remember, change is something that happens in the middle of the night when we're all fast asleep and very often the next morning no-one can tell that anything has actually changed.
"I promised you change you can believe in, I did not promise you change you can actually see."
He added: "You believe in Jesus don't you? Right, but have you ever seen Jesus? Exactly. Just making sure we're all on the same page."
Mr Obama said he would bring about change by working closely with the vast and terrifying multi-national corporations that had funded his campaign and pledged to end the war in Iraq in order to create a much bigger war in Afghanistan.
"But instead of some middle-aged white guy doing it, it'll be me and I'm half-Kenyan. D'you see?"
Bill McKay, a college student from Denver, said: "I can't believe I now live in a country where an African American can be elected to the presidency after spending just $600 million on advertising."
He added: "Give me a hug!"
Meanwhile, in the UK, thousands of people talked about staying up all night to watch the drama unfold, but then didn't.
Martin Bishop, from Oxford, said: "I was going to follow the coverage and have the significance of every result explained to me by Lord Dimbleby but then, at the last minute, I decided to go to bed because I don't care."
Denys Hatton, from Guildford, added: "If your life is such that you're placing all your hopes in a politician, then may I humbly suggest you get yourself a crate of superlager and a cardboard box and stop wasting everyone's time." _________________ Simon - http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
Media Lens does a round up of some of the cringiest Obama hype sweeping the UK media, but clearly sides with the dissenters.
Quote:
John Pilger - who was right about Blair in 1997 and who is surely right about Obama now - also rejects the mainstream consensus.
I think Jon Snow is going to be seriously embarrassed about uttering the following:
“Hello history (to use the word of the times). What a staggering and indescribable moment this is. Barack Obama's graceful acceptance of what had seemed both inevitable and impossible is up there equalling any political event since the downing of the Berlin Wall and the release of Nelson Mandela.” _________________ Simon - http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
Published: November 14 2008 05:08 | Last updated: November 14 2008 05:08
Hillary Clinton has emerged as a surprise contender to become secretary of state in Barack Obama’s administration, months after the pair fought a bitter battle for the Democratic presidential nomination.
A spokesman for Mr Obama’s transition team declined to comment on Thursday evening but speculation was rampant in political circles that Mrs Clinton was under serious consideration for the job.
As one of America’s best-known and most respected politicians, Mrs Clinton would be a high-profile choice for the role of chief US diplomat.
The senator for New York has developed a hawkish reputation on foreign policy as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
She frequently criticised Mr Obama during the Democratic primaries for his relative inexperience and alleged naïvete on national security.
But she rallied strongly behind her former rival after he won the nomination and campaigned tirelessly for him in the closing weeks of the campaign.
Her appointment would signal Mr Obama’s willingness to co-opt his political rivals and help heal lingering divisions among Democrats after the protracted primary race.
Many Clinton loyalists were angered that Mr Obama did not seriously consider her as running mate, opting instead for Joe Biden, another Democratic senator and former presidential rival.
Mrs Clinton insisted as recently as Monday that she expected to remain in the Senate – but added she wanted to be a “good partner” to the Obama administration.
An offer to become secretary of state would confront her with a choice between one of the most plum jobs in international politics and the promise of an increasingly powerful role in the Senate.
Until Thursday, the frontrunners for the secretary of state position were generally thought to be John Kerry, the Massachusetts senator and 2004 presidential nominee, and Bill Richardson, the New Mexico governor and former ambassador to the United Nations.
As the most high-profile Latino in US politics, Mr Richardson is being pushed aggressively by Hispanic groups, who are demanding recognition for their important role in helping Mr Obama become president.
Other candidates include Chuck Hagel, the moderate Republican senator for Nebraska and fierce critic of the war in Iraq, and Richard Holbrooke, another former UN ambassador.
NBC, the television network, and Politico, the political news website, were among those reporting that the New York senator was in contention for the job, quoting unnamed Obama advisers.
Mrs Clinton reportedly flew to Chicago, where Mr Obama’s transition team is based, on Thursday but aides insisted she was there on personal business.
Obama officials had previously said that no high-level cabinet appointments would be announced this week and they insisted last night that there were no changes to that plan.
Mr Obama has said he will not be rushed into choosing his cabinet and senior officials. So far, his only high-level appointment has been Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff.
Meet some of president elect Obama’s leading foreign and domestic policy advisors and likely administration members, every one of them a prominent member of the Council On Foreign Relations.........
Susan E. Rice - Council on Foreign Relations, The Brookings Institution - Served as Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs under Clinton from 1997 to 2001. Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright is a longtime mentor and family friend to Rice. Critics charge that she is is ill disposed towards Europe, has little understanding of the Middle East and would essentially follow the same policies of Condoleeza Rice if appointed the next Secretary of State or the National Security Adviser.
Anthony Lake - CFR, PNAC - Bill Clinton’s first national security adviser, who was criticized for the administration’s failure to confront the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 and now acknowledges the inaction as a major mistake.
Zbigniew Brzezinski - CFR, Trilateral Commission - Brzezinski is widely seen as the man who created Al Qaeda, and was involved in the Carter Administration plan to give arms, funding and training to the mujahideen in Afghanistan.
Richard Clarke - CFR - Former chief counter-terrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council under Bush. Notoriously turned against the Bush administration after 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. Also advised Madeleine Albright during the Genocide in Rwanda.
Ivo Daalder - CFR, Brookings, PNAC - Co-authored a Washington Post op-ed with neocon Robert Kagan arguing that interventionism is a bipartisan affair that should be undertaken with the approval of our democratic allies.
Dennis Ross - CFR, Trilateral Commission, PNAC - Served as the director for policy planning in the State Department under President George H. W. Bush and special Middle East coordinator under President Bill Clinton. A noted supporter of the Iraq war, Ross is also a Foreign Affairs Analyst for the Fox News Channel.
Lawrence Korb - CFR, Brookings - Director of National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. Has criticized manor of the invasion of Iraq but has detailed plans to increase the manpower of the United States Army to fight the war on terror and to "spread liberal democratic values throughout the Middle East".
Bruce Reidel - CFR, Brookings - Former CIA analyst who wishes to expand the war on terror to fight Al Qaeda across the globe. Considered to be the reason behind Barack Obama’s Hawkish views on Pakistan and his Pro India leanings on Kashmir.
Stephen Flynn - CFR - Has been attributed with the idea for Obama’s much vaunted "Civilian Security Force". Flynn has written: "The United States should roughly replicate the Federal Reserve model by creating a Federal Security Reserve System (FSRS) with a national board of governors, 10 regional Homeland Security Districts, and 92 local branches called Metropolitan Anti-Terrorism Committees. The objective of this system would be to develop self-funding mechanisms to more fully engage a broad cross-section of American society to protect the country’s critical foundations from the widespread disruption that would arise from a terrorist attack."
Madeline Albright - CFR, Brookings - Currently serves on the Council on Foreign Relations Board of directors. Secretary of State and US Ambassador to the United Nations under Clinton. Did not take action against the genocide in Rwanda. Defended the sanctions against Iraq under Saddam Hussein. When asked by CBS’s 60 Minutes about the effects of sanctions: "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" Albright replied: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it."
This is by no means an exhaustive list. Of course, had John McCain become president, being a member of the CFR himself, his administration would have been replete with CFR representatives also. Max Boot, Lawrence Eagleburger and Henry Kissinger, to name but a few, are all CFR members and were all advisors to the McCain campaign.
Meet some of president elect Obama’s leading foreign and domestic policy advisors and likely administration members, every one of them a prominent member of the Council On Foreign Relations.........
Susan E. Rice - Council on Foreign Relations, The Brookings Institution - Served as Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs under Clinton from 1997 to 2001. Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright is a longtime mentor and family friend to Rice. Critics charge that she is is ill disposed towards Europe, has little understanding of the Middle East and would essentially follow the same policies of Condoleeza Rice if appointed the next Secretary of State or the National Security Adviser.
Anthony Lake - CFR, PNAC - Bill Clinton’s first national security adviser, who was criticized for the administration’s failure to confront the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 and now acknowledges the inaction as a major mistake.
Zbigniew Brzezinski - CFR, Trilateral Commission - Brzezinski is widely seen as the man who created Al Qaeda, and was involved in the Carter Administration plan to give arms, funding and training to the mujahideen in Afghanistan.
Richard Clarke - CFR - Former chief counter-terrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council under Bush. Notoriously turned against the Bush administration after 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. Also advised Madeleine Albright during the Genocide in Rwanda.
Ivo Daalder - CFR, Brookings, PNAC - Co-authored a Washington Post op-ed with neocon Robert Kagan arguing that interventionism is a bipartisan affair that should be undertaken with the approval of our democratic allies.
Dennis Ross - CFR, Trilateral Commission, PNAC - Served as the director for policy planning in the State Department under President George H. W. Bush and special Middle East coordinator under President Bill Clinton. A noted supporter of the Iraq war, Ross is also a Foreign Affairs Analyst for the Fox News Channel.
Lawrence Korb - CFR, Brookings - Director of National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. Has criticized manor of the invasion of Iraq but has detailed plans to increase the manpower of the United States Army to fight the war on terror and to "spread liberal democratic values throughout the Middle East".
Bruce Reidel - CFR, Brookings - Former CIA analyst who wishes to expand the war on terror to fight Al Qaeda across the globe. Considered to be the reason behind Barack Obama’s Hawkish views on Pakistan and his Pro India leanings on Kashmir.
Stephen Flynn - CFR - Has been attributed with the idea for Obama’s much vaunted "Civilian Security Force". Flynn has written: "The United States should roughly replicate the Federal Reserve model by creating a Federal Security Reserve System (FSRS) with a national board of governors, 10 regional Homeland Security Districts, and 92 local branches called Metropolitan Anti-Terrorism Committees. The objective of this system would be to develop self-funding mechanisms to more fully engage a broad cross-section of American society to protect the country’s critical foundations from the widespread disruption that would arise from a terrorist attack."
Madeline Albright - CFR, Brookings - Currently serves on the Council on Foreign Relations Board of directors. Secretary of State and US Ambassador to the United Nations under Clinton. Did not take action against the genocide in Rwanda. Defended the sanctions against Iraq under Saddam Hussein. When asked by CBS’s 60 Minutes about the effects of sanctions: "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" Albright replied: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it."
This is by no means an exhaustive list. Of course, had John McCain become president, being a member of the CFR himself, his administration would have been replete with CFR representatives also. Max Boot, Lawrence Eagleburger and Henry Kissinger, to name but a few, are all CFR members and were all advisors to the McCain campaign.
Please do your own research and add more names in the comments section of this report. It is important to document how these people are a part of the engine of global elitism and do not represent change. Only with this understanding will others wake up to the false left-right paradigm and be able to create the environment for real political change........
Is Obama a GM Kid???.....................................Brown to order? _________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
Obama asks Shimon Peres: “What can I do for Israel?”
– Haaretz, November 17, 2008
The UN Special Rappateur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories (Richard Falk) has said Israel’s policies there amount to a crime against humanity…He said the UN must act to protect the Palestinian population suffering what he called ‘collective punishment’…He said the International Criminal Court should also investigate whether the Israeli civilian leaders and military commanders for the Gaza siege should be indicted and prosecuted for violations of international criminal law.
– BBC News, December 10, 2008
We need to ratchet up tough but direct diplomacy with Iran, making very clear to them than their development of nuclear weapons would be unacceptable, that their funding of terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hizbullah, their threats against Israel are contrary to everything we believe in…We may have to tighten up those sanctions…and give them a clear choice…whether they want to do this the hard way or the easy way.
– President-Elect Obama on NBC Meet the Press, December 7, 2008
According to a nationally prominent Zionist spokesperson, former Congressman, Federal Judge, White House Counsel to President Bill Clinton and early backer of Obama, Abner Mikvner, “Barack Obama is the first Jewish President”. Mikvner’s affirmation reflects both Obama’s one-sided and longstanding commitment to the State of Israel and loyalty to the Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC) in the United States, as well as the long-term and successful effort of a network of financially and politically powerful Jewish Zionists to ‘embed’ Obama to their ‘Israel First’ political apparatus. What is striking about the latter is the demeaning and arrogant claims made by some leading Jewish Zionist about their ‘central roles’ in the making of Obama’s professional and political careers – in effect denying the President-Elect any credit for his own academic or professional success. (Historically this has been mirrored in the continuous claims of some American Jews to have fought and won the battle of Civil Rights in the 60’s on behalf of African Americans – essentially denying black Americans any independent political role in their own struggle.) Even their personal flattery about his ‘wisdom’, ‘brilliance’ and ‘intellectual acuity’ is always linked with his unconditional support of the State of Israel. One can envision how quickly his Zionist colleagues would replace their plaudits with crude insults regarding his intelligence if he suggested Israel end its starvation blockade of Gaza… Needless to say the Zionists know their man, as they confidently proclaim, he is a cautious and prudent politician, who measures power before he speaks, especially as he has filled the White House, economic councils and security apparatus with Zionist zealots.
The Making and Re-Making of Obama
The Chicago Jewish News, a nationally prominent Israel-First propaganda organ, published a lengthy article on ‘Obama and the Jews’ by Pauline Dubkin (October 24, 2008), which quotes approvingly a ‘long-time Jewish observer of the political scene’, who declared that, “Jews made him (Obama). Wherever you look there is a Jewish presence.”
This is not merely the usual arrogant self-aggrandizing boasts of a Zionist power broker, with which we are constantly bombarded on so many political topics, this reflects an important part of what Obama has become, especially in advancing his latter day political ambitions. The Zionist self-promoters (ZSP), ever ready to take credit for any success (no matter how notorious and immoral) – Wall Street speculators, Ivy League professors, Pentagon militarists, cultural gurus and even the key patrons of art forms like jazz and constantly rewrite history (or biography in the case of Obama) to maximize their self-importance in all aspects of American life. The ZSP conveniently fail to mention in their articles that Obama’s white Gentile grandmother gave him the intellectual nurturing and encouragement and diligently petitioned for scholarships for him to attend elite private schools, which formed the basis for his intellectual skills to write, speak and reason as an educated man. The ZSP exclude from their ‘revisionist and Judaized’ biography of Obama, the central importance of Reverend Jeremiah Wright who transformed Obama from an elite Ivy university graduate into an effective social activist. Obama was able to participate and get involved in community organizing in Chicago’s African-American neighborhoods because of Wright’s endorsement and broad credibility. If it were not for Rev. Wright, Obama would never have had a social base or organizational experience to engage in Chicago politics. It is only after Obama had gained these skills and popular appeal that the Zionist politicos noticed him and went to work on his ego and ambitions, recruiting him to their pro-Israel agenda and financing his political career.
The Zionist re-write of his biography has gone curiously unchallenged by Obama. To suit his new mentors, the Israel-First ideologues and financial backers, he has willfully discarded and insulted his former mentors, as well as any current policy advisers and political colleagues who doesn’t adhere to the Zionist line of unconditional support for Israel. Two cases come immediately to mind. When leading Zionist ideologues objected to the presence of Zbigniew Brzezinski and Robert Malley, among Obama’s foreign policy advisors, the Zionists in Obama’s inner circle immediately marginalized them with his approval. When the notorious torture-promoting Zionofascist Harvard Law Professor, Alan Dershowitz raised a howl about former US President Jimmy Carter (a principled critic of Israel’s apartheid policies) speaking at the Democratic Party Convention (following a century-long political tradition of honoring former presidents) the Zionist operatives blatantly humiliated the elderly Carter by denying him even a five-minute speech – with Obama’s approval. ‘Professor’ Dershowitz publicly crowed about his success and power over the Democratic nominee Obama in censoring the former President.
The conversion and promotion of Obama as an Israel-Firster is an excellent case study of the methods the ZPC has used to build a near invincible power base in the US political system. The construction of the ZPC is not the result of a cabal with a preplanned centrally controlled operation. Obama’s conversion began through an ideologically diverse, individual, family and community-based effort. As Obama rose from local to national political office, Zionist promotion evolved from local into a nationally organized and concerted effort including campaign funding, business career appointments and paid propaganda and indoctrination junkets to Israel.
The ZPC offers positive inducements for the ‘recruitable’ and threats of retaliation and intimidation via media slanders and systematic public pillory through most Jewish communal organizations for the public political critics of Israel who remain recalcitrant and refuse to toe the Israel-First line.
Turning Obama into an Israel-Firster, according to the Chicago Jewish News article, began during his studies at Harvard Law School where he was ‘spotted’ by a Zionist professor, Martha Minow, as “smart, promising, and politically ambitious” and a likely recruit. The professor proudly recounts how she contacted family members, including her father, a major Democratic powerbroker, and fellow Zionists who ran a law firm in Chicago and recommended they hire the Obama. In brief, the first step in Zionist recruitment was using a prestigious academic post for initial contact, followed by a promise of career advancement through a professional network.
The next step was to introduce Obama to an association of ‘friends and neighbors in the Jewish Community including prominent Zionist financial supporters. Obama’s early promoters played a key role in convincing him that his political future depended on Zionist allies and that support depended on his total commitment to an Israel-First agenda. As Obama’s ties with his Zionist-liberal backers in the Democratic Party thickened, his links to black community organizing and his pastor and former mentor, the progressive African-American minister, Reverend Jeremiah Wright weakened. By the end of the 1990’s, Obama was firmly embedded in the liberal Zionist Democratic Party network and through it he teamed up with two key Zionist figures who were crucial to his presidential campaign: David Axelrod, Obama’s chief political strategist since 2002 and the chief architect and tactician of his presidential campaign in 2008 and Bettylu Salzman, daughter of Phillip Klutznick, a billionaire real estate developer, slumlord and zealous Israel-Firster. Salzman/Klutznick admits she never would have bankrolled and promoted Obama simply because of ‘his smarts’ or liberal politics if he hadn’t pledged his commitment to Israel’s interests. She states, “Obviously I’m not going to support someone who is opposed to Israel and what it stands for. He’s right on all the issues when it comes to Israel. He is in exactly the same place (Hillary) Clinton is, maybe stronger. He’s a clearer thinker.” (Chicago Jewish News, October 24, 2008) While Obama served in the Illinois Senate, he shared an office with an Orthodox Jew and fanatical Israel-Firster, Ira Silverstein, who boasts of his role in ‘educating’ Obama about Jewish Orthodoxy and more important “shared pro-Israel feelings” to the point that … “When Silverstein sponsored numerous resolutions condemning PLO bombings Obama eagerly signed on as a co-sponsor.” (ibid)
Fully embedded in the Zionist Power Configuration of Chicago, Obama was advised by the Axelrods, Klutznicks and other key strategists to make the obligatory ritual pilgrimage to Israel and pay obeisance to its leaders in the course of his Senate campaign. During his trip to Israel, two years later in 2006, Obama was accompanied and guided by the executive vice-president of the Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago. Under Zionist guidance, Obama ‘connected’ with the Israeli state, totally ignoring the plight of the Palestinians who were being savagely repressed by the Israel Army and assaulted on a daily basis by Zion-Fascist settlers. Obama returned a thoroughly committed Zionist African-American politician.
With the Israeli-ZPC certificate of approval, Obama’s financial base of support widened to include some of the wealthiest pro-Israel Jewish Americans in the Midwest including Lester Crown, whose son, James Crown headed Obama’s financial campaign in Illinois. According to Crown (pater), “From the time I met him, the times we talked about Israel and we talked about it several times, he has been an ardent backer of Israel’s defense position (sic), Israel’s security position.” (Ibid)
To those Zionfascists who demand that Israel annex all of Palestine and expel ‘the Arabs’ and were disturbed by Obama’s passing reference to a two-state solution, Crown assured them that Obama’s proposal was couched in such outrageously impossible demands for concessions from the Palestinians that it was a dead letter.
Not all Jews accept this view of a Zionist-embedded Obama: Some racists reject him as an untrustworthy and unqualified ‘Schvartze’ because of his ‘very close intimate relationship’ with Reverent Jeremiah Wright. The Zionist-influenced mass media took their cue from the far-right and orchestrated a hate campaign against Reverend Wright and his links to Obama. The ‘liberal Zionists’, who strategized and ran Obama’s presidential campaign, easily convinced Obama to publicly dissociate himself from his former minister and mentor of the 1980’s. Obama complied. However, the alliance of the Republican Right and Zionfascists demanded Obama make a public denunciation of the Minister. The liberal Zionists prepared the script, which Obama recited, issuing a vicious condemnation of Rev. Wright and specifically listed Wright’s defense of the sovereignty and self-determination of the Palestinians as one of his ‘crimes’.
Obama had crossed the River Jordan. His capitulation to the Zionofascists was the inevitable consequence of his intimate and longstanding ties to his liberal-Zionist backers. The public purging and scourging of a renowned African-American Christian theologian of the oppressed was only the beginning of the Zionist makeover of Obama as the first Jewish (or better Zionist) President of the United States. It was followed by further purges of any ‘centrist’ or ‘realist’ establishment adviser, who might at any time in the past have issued the mildest criticism of Israel’s policies or even praised or associated with any other critic of Israel or the Jewish Lobby in the US. It was ‘guilt by association’.
The Zionofascists soon pressed their campaign to force Obama’s liberal-Zionists to purge Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Cold Warrior National Security Adviser to former President Jimmy Carter, Samantha Power, author and lecturer at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and Robert Malley, a former Clinton adviser for their perceived crimes against Zionism. Brzezinski was accused of advocating what he called “an even-handed Middle East policy”, something clearly ‘anti-Semitic’ in the eyes of the unconditional supporters of Israel who dominate the Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations (PMAJO). Worse still he praised the Walt-Mearsheimer book critical of the Israel Lobby, a capital offense in the eyes of most of the Jewish political spectrum. Power and Malley also transgressed the Israel-First line. Although Brzezinski later recanted his praise of Professors Walt and Mearsheimers’ study, he and the other members of the ‘objectionable three’ foreign policy specialists were marginalized and excluded from having any input on policy issues related to Middle East.
Control of Obama’s Middle East policy was taken over by Dennis Ross, a virulent Zionist advocate of Israel’s ultra-militaristic policies, including an armed preemptive attack on Iranian nuclear and military installations. Ross is an unconditional supporter of the Israeli starvation siege of the 1.5 million residents of the Gaza Strip and fully backed Israel’s savage air attacks against civilian targets in Lebanon. Obama’s appointment of Ross is the clearest guarantee to all Zionists, liberal, orthodox or fascist, that US policy in the Middle East will continue to be subordinated to the interests of the Israeli State and its military.
Obama’s purge of any and all moderate voices on Middle East policy, his placement of fanatical Israel-Firsters in most key positions in his campaign and new Administration reflects his long-term, deep immersion into the Zionist Power Configuration. The result is a “Jewish President” – in the sense that most key White House, economic and security appointments reflect pre-election Zionist power in the making, indoctrination and scripting of the Obama candidacy.
The Configuration of the ‘Jewish President’
One of Obama’s longest supporters, Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf, provides a clue to Obama’s affinity for Zionist appointments. According to Rabbi Wolf, “Obama is embedded in the Jewish world.” While the Rabbi is presumptuous to assume that all Jews subscribe to his own Israel-First views, he is absolutely correct if he is referring to the Jewish-Zionist world.
Nothing better explains Obama’s selection of demonstrably failed economists and security officials than his long-term, large-scale links to the ZPC.
Obama started with the appointments of dual US-Israeli citizen, Illinois Congressman Rahm Emmanuel and Zionist David Axelrod to top White House posts, as well as Lawrence Summers (long-time Harvard ally of the Judeo-fascist, torture advocate Alan Dershowitz) as chief White House economic adviser. Summers is a life-time Israel-Firster, who used his presidency at Harvard University as a bully pulpit to attack a student-faculty group critical of Israeli policies in the Occupied Terrtories. As the former Treasury Secretary under the Clinton regime he was a key architect of the speculator-dominated financial system, which is currently in total collapse. In line with the ‘Jewish Presidency’, Obama named one of the foremost, unconditional Israel-Firsters to be his key Middle East policymaker – Dennis Ross, a leading Zionist ideologue and co-author of a presidential position paper advocating pre-emptive war with Iran. Ross is the pivotal Zionist figure in Obama’s entourage and his appointment is the guarantee for the 52 Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations (PMAJO) that the Obama regime will follow and support with American guns and American tax-payer money every Israeli war crime, assault or invasion on its Arab and Parsi-speaking regional neighbors. Ross, Axelrod, Summers, Emmanuel and their craven followers in Congress together with the AIPAC and the entire Zionist community-based network will ensure that Obama is inextricably ‘embedded’ in their agenda. They will not allow the publication or support of any intelligence investigation, judicial inquiry or United Nations report, which challenges Israel’s occupation of Palestine and promotion of pre-emptive war with Iran based on the fabrication of data about its so-called nuclear threat. Each and every recently appointed Zionists has condemned the United Nations and International Atomic Agency reports refuting Israel’s phony claims of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. They will make sure that newly appointed National Security Adviser, General James Jones will never bring up or make public his highly critical internal report based his on-site investigation of Israel’s crimes against the civilian Palestinian population in the Occupied Territories.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, President Obama and Defense Secretary Gates are so deeply ‘embedded’ in the Zionist network and so deeply infused with the Israel-First ideology that ZPC ‘pressure’ will not be necessary. The three are, in effect, Zionized Zombies, eager to fawn and truckle, even to grotesque excesses, at every wink and gesture, signaling military handouts, UN vetoes and repeated provocative acts of war against Iran. They have even exceeded President Bush in their eagerness to please their Zionist mentors by recognizing Jerusalem as the ‘undivided’ capital of the Jews – effectively denying the rights of the Palestinian residents.
Nothing speaks to the dominance of the ZPC over US political life – domestic and foreign - than the election of their meticulously groomed first ‘Jewish President’ – and the subsequent takeover of strategic economic and security posts in his administration.
Conclusion
The ascent of a minority of ambitious power-driven political operatives acting first and foremost for a militarist colonial power in a strategic region of the world economy represents the biggest threat to world peace and to US democratic values in recent history.
Think about it: Not only do the Zionists and their embedded clones rule the White House, they also have the political apparatus (left, liberal, center and right) to silence, insult, witch hunt and isolate any critic of their agenda, their organizations and of the State of Israel. When confronted by a critic the entire apparatus brays in unison about ‘anti-Semitism’ and follows up with severe civil sanctions. As Obama’s career under his Zionist handlers illustrates, they are capable of hurling repulsive denunciations against his former African-American mentor and spiritual councilor, Reverend Wright; capable of publicly humiliating and pushing aside a former President and Obama supporter, Jimmy Carter; capable of isolating and ‘sanitizing’ former top foreign policymakers from earlier Democratic Administration like Brzezinski, simply for pointing out Israeli crimes against humanity (although such observations are made daily in the European press and political circles).
The apparatus combines the carrot (embedding and promoting Obama) and the stick (stigmatizing Carter): It all depends on whether an individual, politician, academic, writer or journalist is ‘useful’ (i.e., an unconditional supporter) or ‘harmful’ (i.e., critical) to the State of Israel.
The Obama experience illustrates how a small, close knit, well-organized and well financed minority operating through prestigious professional posts and powerful economic enterprises can penetrate major political institutions, capture upwardly mobile politicians and ‘turn’ them into willing accomplices in promoting wars on behalf of a foreign colonial militarist power. If in the past we have experienced Zionist thuggery mugging our freedom of speech in civil society, think of what we can expect when these thugs have complete control of the White House. The ‘First Jewish President’ of the United States indeed! Where does that leave the American people, their rights, their interests and their country’s independent foreign policy?
Epilogue
In early December 2008, Israel’s right wing party, Likud, under the leadership of ‘Bibi’ Netanyahu, met and nominated its slate of candidates for the upcoming national elections (February 12, 2009). The majority of candidates nominated represent what most Israeli journalists call the ‘hard right’ or what might be accurately described as Zionfascism. The Likud Party majority favors the expulsion of all Palestinians (i.e. non-Jews) from Greater Israel, the military seizure of Gaza, the end of any pretense of peace negotiations and the immediate bombing of Iran.
Currently Likud and its fascists have the support of a plurality of Israeli Jews. If they win, it is a virtual certainty they will receive the automatic support of all the principle respectable pro-Israel Jewish organizations in the US, who follow the line that: “It is not ours to question whom the Israelis vote for office. It is our duty to back the State of Israel.”
The election of an Israeli-fascist regime will up the ante in Washington. Does Obama’s embedding in the Zionist apparatus include support for Jewish fascism , the total ethnic cleansing of Palestine and their unilateral decision to ‘nuke’ Iran? Three weeks into his presidency Obama will face his biggest Middle East challenge, which will define the nature of US policy in the region.
Obama has recently suggested that Washington would nuke Iran to protect Israel – which has never yet signed a treaty with the US – to which the Bush Administration replied contemptuously that it would be very hard to convince American parents in Kansas that their sons should risk nuclear incineration for the sake of a small country in the Middle East. Clearly Obama is a greater war monger on issues involving Israel then even Bush: It comes with being a “Jewish President.” _________________ http://niqnaq.wordpress.com
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 2:37 am Post subject:
Change? Obama Inner Circle Filled With Bilderbergers
By Victor Thorn
22nd December 2008 edition
Amrican Free Press
FOR TWO YEARS, Americans have heard an unrelenting mantra of change emanating from the campaign trail. But now that President-elect Barack Obama has begun forming his cabinet, we’re seeing a cadre of more deeply entrenched insiders than any administration that has preceded it.
In regard to key foreign policy advisors, all three of Obama’s selections either initially supported the Iraq war, or still do. On the economic front, each appointee maintains a close relationship with the Jewish triad of Ben Bernanke, Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan—as well as bailout engineer Henry Paulson. Barack Obama himself is a Council on Foreign Relations member, has strong ties to Zbigniew Brzezinski, and participated in a clandestine meeting with Hillary Clinton at Bilderberg member Diane Feinstein’s house at the time when 2008 Bilderberg members were congregating only a few miles away.
Below is an overview of Obama’s top 14 selections to date. When considering their collective histories, a trend becomes clear, proving that the more things change under Obama, the more they stay the same.
http://americanfreepress.net/html/obama_bilderbergers_160.html
Quote:
1. TIMOTHY GEITHNER – TREASURY SECRETARY
Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, president and CEO of Federal Reserve Bank of New York, director of policy development for IMF, member Group of Thirty (G30), employed at Kissinger & Associates, architect of the recent 2008 financial bailouts, mentored by Lawrence Summers and Robert Rubin.
2. PAUL VOLCKER – ECONOMIC RECOVERY ADVISORY BOARD
Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, North American chairman of Trilateral Commission, Federal Reserve chairman during Carter and Reagan administrations, president of Federal Reserve Bank of New York, G30 member, chairman Rothschild Wolfensohn Company, key figure in the collapse of the gold standard during the Nixon administration, longtime associate of the Rockefeller family.
3. RAHM EMANUEL – CHIEF OF STAFF
Member of Israeli Defense Force, staunch Zionist, senator, Board of Directors for Freddie Mac, member of Bill Clinton’s finance campaign committee, made $16.2 million during 2.5 years as an investment banker for Wasserstein Perella. His father was a member of the Israeli Irgun terrorist group.
4. LAWRENCE SUMMERS – NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL
Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, treasury secretary during Clinton administration, chief economist at World Bank, former president of Harvard University, Brookings Institute board member, huge proponent of globalization while working for the IMF, prot�g� of David Rockefeller, mentored by Robert Rubin.
5. DAVID AXELROD – SENIOR ADVISOR
Political consultant whose past clients include Sens. Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Christopher Dodd; main Obama fixer in the William Ayers and Reverend Wright scandals.
6. HILLARY CLINTON – SECRETARY OF STATE
Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, clandestine CIA asset used to infiltrate the anti-war movement at Yale University and the Watergate hearings, senior partner at the Rose Law Firm, key figure in the Mena drug trafficking affair, architect of the Waco disaster, implicated in the murder/ cover-up of Vince Foster, and many other deaths.
7. JOSEPH BIDEN – VICE PRESIDENT
Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senator since 1972, member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, current chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, strong Zionist sympathizer who recently told Rabbi Mark S. Golub of Shalom TV, “I am a Zionist. You don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist.”
8. BILL RICHARDSON – COMMERCE SECRETARY
Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, former U.S. congressman, chairman of the Democratic National Convention in 2004, employee of Kissinger Associates, UN ambassador, governor of New Mexico, energy secretary, major player in the Monica Lewinsky cover-up with Bilderberg luminary Vernon Jordan.
9. ROBERT GATES – DEFENSE SECRETARY
Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, former CIA Director, defense secretary under President Bush, co-chaired CFR task force with Zbigniew Brzezinski, knee-deep in the Iran-Contra scandal, named in a 1999 class action lawsuit pertaining to the Mena drug trafficking affair.
10. TOM DASCHLE – HEALTH SECRETARY
Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, former Senate majority leader, Citibank lackey, mentored by Robert Rubin.
11. ERIC HOLDER – ATTORNEY GENERAL
Key person in the pardon of racketeer Marc Rich, deputy attorney general under Janet Reno, facilitated the pardon of 16 Puerto Rican FALN terrorists under Bill Clinton.
12. JANET NAPOLITANO – HOMELAND SECURITY DIRECTOR
Council on Foreign Relations, Arizona governor, attorney for Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas hearings, U.S. attorney during the Clinton administration, instrumental in the OKC cover-up, where she declared, “We’ll pursue every bit of evidence and every lead,” described as another Janet Reno, soft on illegal immigration (i.e. pro-amnesty and drivers licenses to illegals).
13. GEN. JAMES L. JONES – NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR
Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission, European supreme allied commander, special envoy for Middle-East Security during Bush administration, board of directors for Chevron and Boeing, NATO commander, member of Brent Scowcroft’s Institute for International Affairs along with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Bobby Ray Inman, Bilderberg luminary Henry Kissinger and former CIA Director John Deutch.
14. SUSAN RICE – U.N. AMBASSADOR
Council on Foreign Relations, Rhodes scholar, campaign foreign policy advisor to presidential candidates John Kerry and Michael Dukakis, member of Bill Clinton’s National Security Council and assistant secretary of state for Africa, member of the Brookings Institute (funded by the Ford Foundation and the Rockefellers), and member of the Aspen Strategy Group (teeming with Bilderberg insiders such as Richard Armitage, Brent Scowcroft, and Madeleine Albright).
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 7:43 am Post subject:
........re 'Obama, the first Jewish President'....
......here is an excerpt taken from another thread ('A report From Planet Mammon')
IMO this man nails the core spiritual issue of the last two millenia. The aim of the churches of Lucifer (Talmudic Judaism/Freemasonry) has always been total power. At the top, where power lies, these people hate humanity. They correctly recognise their foremost enemy as the followers of Christ, who serve the God that is Love. The major churches, of course, would disagree....the Catholic Church in particular. The Vatican having been taken over by Freemasons in 1958 with the imposition (not election) of John XXIII.
Left-wingers will tend to see these issues as irrelevant nonsense. Friends, you are quite wrong.
.........Shamir is the man of his age precisely because, as a Jew who has liberated himself from the bondage of Judaism, he can name the evil of this age without hesitation or circumlocution, at a time when the Church, which should be the enemy of Jewish pretension and subversion, is silent, impotent, and bound hand and foot with chains forged under the false presuppositions of another age. This paralysis of mind and will on the part of the Church has led to dire consequences for all of mankind, because as Shamir puts it, “When the Church is subjugated, Jews triumph and when Jews triumph mankind suffers.” What was true of Europe under Communism is true of America under the hegemony of the neoconservatives. “The Jewish universe,” Shamir continues,
is good for the Jews. It is a curse for the others. . . . In Eastern Europe, times of Jewish dominance were the worst experienced by the ordinary people. . . . The Jews lost their high position in the Communist Church by 1934, and the life of ordinary Russians improved greatly. After 1991, the Judeo-Mammonites enforced their paradigm upon Russia, and the life of ordinary Russians was degraded while the new elites prospered. . . . In Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, the years of Jewish dominance (1945-1956) were the most harsh and unpleasant. In Germany, Jewish pre-eminence in 1920s coincided with terrible inflation and unemployment for Germans, and the growth of Jewish wealth and influence. . . . In the US, as Jewish influence has grown steadily since 1968, the lives of ordinary people has [sic] worsened. . . . A good time for the Jews is not a good time for mankind. . . . The blessing of the Jews is a curse for others. . . . The regimes that are “good for Jews” are rarely good for anybody else.
If Shamir is a prophet, his main prophecy in the political sphere is that the war of left and right belongs to the past. “The struggle of Left and Right has become obsolete in the face of the new dichotomy,” which is the Jewish American Empire vs. the rest of the world. Because this is an essentially theological struggle between the Church and the Synagogue of Satan, the secular categories which have dominated political life in Europe since the French Revolution are no longer relevant. Fighting the current war with the weapons forged by the Enlightenment is like trying to bring down an F-16 with a musket. As a result of their residual Enlightenment-based suspicion (if not hatred) of religion, countries like England and Germany (and now France) have become curious political backwaters, locked in irrelevant battles over race and sexuality but all the while incapable of effectively saying no to supporting American imperialism because of the implicit blackmail threat which Jews exert over them. “Germans,” Shamir notes, “go into collective toxic shock whenever the word ‘Jew’ is pronounced.” The Germans have not only handed billions of dollars over to the world’s major Jewish organizations (money which will be used to mold public opinion against them and extort still more money), they have also provided Israel with two nuclear-capable Dolphin class submarines which can now target German cities and, therefore, enhance the threat and, thereby, extort still more money.
The problem, according to Shamir, is theological not political. The Germans accepted their “second class status” as “children of a lesser god” when they “elevated Auschwitz” over Golgotha as the center of human history. As the Jesuits wrote in Civilta Cattolica on the centenary celebration of the French Revolution in 1890, any country which turns away from God will find itself ruled by Jews. In siding with Caiaphas against Christ, the Germans allowed themselves to become entangled in the tentacles of the “voracious Octopus of Judaism,” and as long as they continue to structure their lives according to the outdated categories of Left and Right, they will continue to languish in that embrace, debilitated by sexual licence, anomie and guilt, lashing out at Americans without understanding who is grinding ordinary Americans under its heel as well. Countries with no strong theological foundation will end up, like the Soviet Union, in the dustbin of history because “The ‘struggle against anti-Semitism’ is a theological concept which entails the adoption of a new religion.” For Shamir, becoming a Christian meant rejecting the current conventional narrative which sees the Holocaust as anti-Christianity. Conversely, countries like Germany become absorbed into the Jewish-American empire the more they demote Christianity and raise up the Holocaust as an idol in its place.......
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
