Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
[http://forums.truthbeknown.com/viewt...]
Click here to search for discussions with Omgili discussions search engine.
 |
Truth Be Known Nation :: View topic - Barack Obama Advisor Is.... Zbigniew Brzezinski!!!
Wow!....
Quote: :
WASHINGTON Senator Obama is standing by one of his top foreign policy advisers, Zbigniew Brzezinski, despite concerns that aligning with the former aide to President Carter will undermine Mr.
Obama's support with the pro-Israel community.
Mr.
Brzezinski, who served as national security adviser in the Carter administration, introduced Mr.
Obama before a major policy speech on Iraq yesterday in Iowa, where the Illinois senator praised his work on the Camp David Accords and called him "one of our most outstanding thinkers."
Mr.
Obama's embrace of Mr.
Brzezinski has angered some supporters of Israel put off by Mr.
Brzezinski's criticism of the Jewish state in recent years and his praise for the authors of a book that condemns the influence of the "Israel lobby." Mr.
Obama's campaign has disavowed the book, "The Israel Lobby and U.S.
Foreign Policy," by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.
http://www.nysun.com/article/62534
Here are some Quote: s from "The Grand Chessboard":
"For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia...
Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia - and America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained.
(p.30)
"Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America's status as a global power." (p.55)
"The world's energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades.
Estimates by the U.S.
Department of energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East.
The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea." (p.125)
"America is now the only global superpower, and Eurasia is the globe's central arena.
Hence, what happens to the distribution of power on the Eurasian continent will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy and to America's historical legacy." (p.194)
|
|
Oh oh! We could be pissing off an Obama fan in here November!
Where's that running away icon
THIS CFR PUPPET IS AS LOADED AS ANY OTHER BEFORE HIM PRE-LOADED.
http://rense.com/general79/obam.htm
Obama And His Warmonger
Cabinet The Changing
Face Of WWIII
By Webster Tarpley
1-7-8
Presidential candidate Barak Obama -- main announced project so far: BOMB PAKISTAN
Obama's main foreign policy guru -- Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Main project: THE DESTRUCTION OF RUSSIA - the surest path to World War III.
Mark Brzezinski, son of Zbigniew, former Clinton NSC official and top Obama advisor.
Architect of the 2004 "people power" color revolution/coup in Ukraine.
Main project: THE DESTRUCTION OF RUSSIA.
Top Obama advisor and ex Asst.
Secretary of State for African Affairs, Susan Rice.
Main project: BOMB SUDAN
Top Obama terrorism advisor Richard Clarke, former terror czar of the Clinton and Bush administrations.
Main project: originating the official myth of 9/11.
Obama's top Middle East adviser, Dennis Ross, former Middle East negotiator for Bush and Clinton.
Main project: play the Arabs against the Iranians to perpetuate Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
RESULT: A WORLD CATASTROPHE WORSE THAN BUSH
DON'T BE DUPED BY OBAMA AND HIS CABINET OF WARMONGERS
Zbigniew Brzezinski
Search News
Search the Web
|
|
I think it's a little pre-mature to say who his cabinet members are going to be and as an Obama supporter who is active in his campaign I can honestly say he has the best interest of the U.S.
In mind, he does NOT want to start WWIII, in fact he has been against the war with Iraq from the very start.
He is not a warmonger.
Here are his issues: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
Conserning Isreal: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#onisrael You will find a full fact sheet there.
Homeland security: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/homeland/ The full details of his plan can be found there also.
Iraq: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
Any ideas of him wanting to go to war with anyone is unfounded and just propaganda.
He has been against the war from the start and does NOT want war with the Middle East.
He is NOT a warmonger.
This is PURE propaganda pure and simple.
He has NO intentions of starting WWIII.
This is just hype.
I for one am NOT backing down.
I will be voting in the polls tomorrow and I will continue to support Obama.
As will my son. I am so sorry you all have bought into this tripe and hype, as well as insanity.
Lastly, get the facts: http://factcheck.barackobama.com/
Debunking the recent slanderous email that circulating concerning Islam: http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/23/debunked_email_purporting_to_b.php
|
|
I'm chicken! buck buck buck!
I'll let November take the flak I'm zipping outta here....lol!
|
|
Ya! You'd better!
How would you like it if someone was spreading crap about Acharya?
You wouldn't. (I wouldn't either for that matter) Obama's my man and y'all better leave him alone.
|
|
Surely you will get the picture....don't believe what a politician claims publically.
Look at his background and what he stands for PRIVATELY.
Sorry dear...this is NOT progoganda!
Proganda is what politicians advertise to potential voters...lip service, while privately holding to opinions they would never tell the voting public for obvious reasons.
OBAMA belongs to the CFR, not the constitutional sovereignty of the people of the United States.
People like Obama are groomed and coddled in the womb of private institutions in order to carry out THEIR directives....not yours.
As you can see, he is not alone....almost all are the children of the CFR and not independent traditional democratic defenders of America.
LIP SERVICE in advertised self-promotions are designed to Bush-lip the people from their true objectives and beliefs.
BTW....Jimmy Carter was no less a tool and in spite of the recent good press he receives...he has been shown to be a compulsive liar (not in mainstream media of course!).
Such is the membership churning out puppet leaders for the public to waster their votes on.
The Trilateral Commission is an International Counterpart to the CFR.
With the same aims one step higher and founded by the same superrich elite....who couldn't give a genuine hoot about New Orleanists, Americans in general (security or otherwise), else they would put financial recourses to the problems of their own country instead of back foreign countries like the bandit state Israel and furthering the role of circumstances, which are designed to disolve sovereignty and escalate the emergence of world gov't .
Anyhow, this is Obama's true colors, which differences with others is neglibible, because they all come from and are geared toward the same Global Order dictatorship (through war or any other means).
Obama & The CFR
by chet | August 14, 2007 at 10:03 pm | 8882 views | add comment Upload Photos, Videos and Audio
Obama & The CFR
by Zephram Stark
2 wks ago | 241 views
The 2004 Democratic
National Convention may be remembered most for a young and energetic
senator that immediately drew comparison to the Kennedys.
Obama's
speech launched his name and image into the public spotlight, and his
fresh style of rhetoric filled a growing anti-war political void
He voted against the Iraq war and wasn't afraid to criticize it's
handling.
Excitement and support for the senator eventually
snowballed into his current presidential campaign.
He enjoys a
popular image as a liberal democrat, and his harsh criticism of the
Iraq war has earned him support from a population united in it's
discontent with the current government.
To a select crowd of
Americans, Obama preaches against the handling of the Iraq war.
To
other more private groups, Obama advocates military strikes on new
middle eastern countries.
Obama has aligned himself with several
lobbying firms and nongovernmental organizations who seek further US
militarization of the world.
In several speeches and essays, Obama
makes his foreign policy goals clear and he is not anti-war.
Is
Obama intentionally sending a deceptive message to his constituency?
In a recent speech
given to the American Israeli Political Action Committee, Obama
outlines a plan for U.S.
Hegemony. He suggests polarizing political
alignments that are already breeding anti-U.S.
Sentiment.
Specifically, Obama pledges unfaltering military support to Israel.
The U.S.
Has long supported Israel this year they were given $30
billion for defense of the young state.
To put this in perspective,
less than $7 billion has been federally granted to rebuild homes
destroyed after hurricane Katrina.
Although the U.S.
Has always
given billions in aid to Israel, his alliance backs preemptive
strikes against countries deemed a threat.
Israel is unpopular in
the region, and is threatened by Iran's desire for modern nuclear
energy in the future.
Regarding Iran's nuclear program, Obama states
We should take no option, including military action, off the
table.
The US has already constructed massive permanent military
bases in Iraq and Afghanistan to serve as hubs for such an operation.
The fleet of aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf continues to
grow, while politicians and media simultaneously hype a nonexistent
enemy.
This reckless policy leaves the U.S.
On the brink of full
scale war at all times.
Obama differed from
many of his peers by admitting the Iraq war was heavily motivated by
Iraq's oil reserves.
Iran's oilfields, and the military buildup of
the Persian Gulf creates and incentive for military action.
It has
been questioned if the U.S.
Military even has the capability of
securing the strategic oil reserve.
Iran has some of the most
lucrative oilfields in the region, and provides energy to Asia and
Europe.
International economies would be disenfranchised with the US
military disruption of its energy supplies.
Meddling in other
countries' foreign affairs has spurred backlash against the U.S.
This phenomenon is referred to as blowback, or, the
consequences from provoking actions.
Ignoring this cause and effect,
Obama advocates troops in Iraq be redeployed to Pakistan and
Afghanistan to fight amorphous groups of terrorists.
Regarding
the war on terror, Obama differs from his colleagues in that he does
not believe nuclear weapons should be used a small concession for
an ambitious military operation.
This policy still backs preemptive
strikes and the further militarization of the middle east, all at the
expense of US resources.
Obama outlines his
ambitious geopolitical plans in a recent essay for Foreign Affairs
magazine.
Foreign Affairs is published by the Council on Foreign
Relations, which describes itself as a non-partisan group of which he
is a member.
Established in the 1920's and headquartered in New
York, its membership includes prominent politicians and business
elite, including heads of academia and media.
The organization seeks
to centralize both political power and market power to craft
legislation outside the checks and balances of democracy.
The CFR is
rarely mentioned by the mainstream media, making it difficult to
fully gauge its influence.
When it is mentioned in the press, it is
likely whitewashed as trivial or irrelevant.
Notable members of the
CFR include:
Dick Cheney
John Kerry
Bill Clinton
Al Gore
Ronald Reagan
George H.
W. Bush
Gerald Ford
Richard Nixon
John, David &
Nelson Rockefeller
Condolezza Rice
Paul Wolfowitz
Alan Greenspan
Colon Powell
Henry Kissinger
Angelina Jolie
(Yes, the actress has a five year term membership as an
ambassador)
Its membership list
is a who's who of Washington and Wall St.
Elite going back nearly a
century.
It should not be surprising that most presidential
candidates in the 2008 election are CFR members.
Candidates do not
advertise their CFR membership to the public.
They pose as
liberals and conservatives to control all aspects of the
debate.
The CFR has stacked the deck for the 2008 election with
several members in the race from both sides of the isle:
Democrat CFR
Candidates:
Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton
John Edwards
Chris Dodd
Bill Richardson
Republican CFR
Candidates:
Mitt Romney
Rudy Giuliani
John McCain
Fred Thompson
Newt Gingrich
The mainstream
media's self-proclaimed top tier candidates are united in their
CFR membership, while an unwitting public perceives political
diversity.
The unwitting public has been conditioned to
instinctively deny such a mass deception could ever be hidden in
plain view.
Presidential Candidate & Congressman Ron Paul is
the only top tier candidate who is not a member of the CFR.
Although many
politicians hold membership, It must be noted that the Council on
Foreign Relations is a non-governmental organization.
The CFR's
membership is a union of politicians, bankers, and scholars, with
several large businesses holding additional corporate memberships.
Corporate members include:
Halliburton of
Dubai
British Petroleum
Dutch Royal Shell
Exxon Mobile
General Electric
(NBC)
Chevron
Lockheed Martin
Merck
Pharmaceuticals
News Corp (FOX)
Bloomberg
IBM
Time Warner
JP Morgan/ Chase
Manhattan
& several other
major financial institutions
Members are united
in their interventionist intentions with the goal of a consolidated
global governance.
The CFR's mission is to influence policy through
the reach of its members and publications.
Those who study the CFR
ideology are recruited and cultured for membership.
The best and
brightest university students are taught to propagate the CFR model.
Individuals who both subscribe to the CFR ideology and can bring an
element of capital (political status, business influence, money) to
the group will be given membership.
Members meet at the CFR
headquarters in Manhattan and Washington DC, and round-table style
discussions are held for its membership to discuss foreign affairs
and make recommendations on policy.
The CFR often creates task
forces to report findings and policy prescriptions (cfr.org)
for specific current world events, and also publishes the periodical
Foreign Affairs magazine.
CFR authors are often found in mainstream
media publications.
In a recent issue of TIME magazine, one CFR
member writes: The US should make (Pakistani President & US
intelligence asset) Musharraf the best dictator he can be.
Another author, this time in Newsweek magazine objectively argues to
the readers that the world really isn't all that bad in an article
titled Don't Worry, Be Happy.
Currently, the front page of
CFR.org features essays on European anti-terrorism measures, radical
Iranians, and the reemergence of the nuclear threat (CFR members in
government control the nuclear football).
Many prominent
publications are influenced and controlled by the CFR:
Time
Newsweek
US News & World
Report
Atlantic Monthly
Forbes
& several major
publishing houses
Members of the CFR
in the media intend to inject it's pro-globalist arguments into the
mainstream consciousness.
Although the CFR is self-described as a
non-partisan association, it unabashedly promotes a
one-world-government agenda without regard for US sovereignty or the
desires of the American people.
The goals of the
CFR is best described by its very own members.
Bill Clinton's
Georgetown mentor and CFR member Carroll Quigley states: The
Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of a society
which originated in England...
(and) ...believes national boundaries
should be obliterated and one world rule established..
Quigley
differs from many of his CFR colleagues in that he believes their
plan for a new world order should be more publicly disclosed.
In his
book Tragedy and Hope, Quigley concedes he is unique among his peers
in that he believes the new world order plan of global government's
role in history is significant enough to be known.
Quigley
also admits that the two-party system allows for both groups to be
controlled at the highest level but operate like bitter rivals.
As
Quigley says, this gives the voters the chance to throw the
rascals out at any election without leading to any profound of
extreme shifts in policy..
Controlling Washington elite allowed
private central banks to dominate the political system...
...and
economy of world as a whole and implement a new system of
feudalist fashion through secret agreements.
Although he
believes the CFR's intentions should be more public, Quigley
understands the average person doesn't understand feudalism or
serfdom and will never read his book.
Surprisingly, many
of its own members admit the CFR goal is to subvert the democratic
process.
CFR member and Judge Advocate General of the US Navy
Admiral Chester Ward writes The main purpose of the (CFR) is
promoting the disarmament of US sovereignty and national dependence
and submergence into and all powerful, one world government..
This high ranking military officer went on to explain their
procedures for influencing policy, claiming: Once the ruling
members of the CFR shadow government have decided that the US
government should adopt a particular policy, the very substantial
research facilities of the CFR are put to work to develop arguments,
intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy and to confound
and discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition..
The CFR's strategy
is also being used to promote world government as well as the new
environmental agenda.
Obama and most candidates have made the
environment a major issue in the policy.
The CFR has long suggested
a global tax, specifically identifying the environmental movement as
a means for its advancement.
All CFR candidates align themselves
with the position that the government has both the ability and
responsibility to maintain the world's environment.
Good intentioned
individuals may genuinely seek environmental protection, but
nongovernmental organizations are quickly capitalizing on land
acquisitions and taxes in the name of global warming.
While most
scientist agree the planet earth is undergoing a degree of climactic
change, the CFR admits the environmental argument will be used to
erode national sovereignty and build up their global authority.
Proposed Carbon Taxes place carbon expenditure ratings on
mundane human activities.
Contrary to popular misconceptions, CO2
is by no means a pollutant.
As an essential gas for life, plants
thrive on increased levels of CO2 which in turn they produce higher
levels of oxygen.
Furthermore, carbon based life forms emit carbon
to the atmosphere, hence a Carbon Tax is a tariff for doing
nothing but maintaining life.
A popular movement lead by the CFR's
own Al Gore would have you believe CO2 is the root cause of
environmental woes while ignoring real industrial pollution in
developing countries.
There are serious environmental problems that
are ignored in favor of issues that can be used to tax the broad
population.
Environmental
protection has already lead countries to willingly surrender control
of natural resources.
The US has ceded control of natural resources
to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) in a land grab under the guise of environmental
protection.
UNESCO is part of the United Nations, an organization
controlled by many CFR members like permanent US ambassador John
Bolton.
The CFR's President Richard N.
Haass boldly admits Some
governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to
address the threat of global climate change..
He adds that this
Globalisation thus implies that sovereignty...
...needs to become
weaker..
While it is important to be conscious of humans' effects
on the earth, nongovernmental organizations like the CFR see an
opportunity to redistribute wealth through selective enforcement
targeting the US.
The CFR openly states its intentions of using the
environmental movement and other emotional arguments to build up
global authority and undermine US sovereignty.
The CFR backs other
programs that promote regional governments.
Another ambitious goal
of the CFR is the implementation of regional unions under the control
of a central world government.
World leaders are moving towards a
regional partnership of North America consisting of Canada, the US,
and Mexico.
In 2005, the CFR released a report titled Building
an American Community which sought to eliminate borders between
the three North American countries.
One part of the plan called for
decreasing government control of cross-border traffic in an effort to
dissolve national borders.
Robert Pastor, a vice chairman of the
task force that released Building a North American Community,
names the Amero as a hypothetical unified North American
currency similar to the Euro.
Carried out with precision, the
private, run-for-profit federal reserve bank has massively devalued
the US dollar, allowing foreign corporations to buy up US resources
for literal pennies on the dollar.
The European Union
is a similar model to the North American partnership.
The EU was
hugely opposed by Europeans, and took a half century for the
complicit European power elites to fully implement the union.
During his time as Prime Minister, Tony Blair tried several times for
the United Kingdom's adoption of the unpopular EU constitution that
was also staunchly rejected by French and Dutch voters.
The current
Prime Minister Gordon Brown continues to advance a similar
constitution under a new name.
Like the EU, American countries would
keep their governmental infrastructure but all policy would be
superseded by a regional constitution.
Already in place in
North America is the Security and Prosperity Partnership (spp.gov)
established in a meeting between Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox,
and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin.
The SPP consolidates
protection of the North American Union by establishing a security
perimeter extending north of Canada to the Mexican/ Guatemalan
border.
This measure was authorized under Bush's ambiguous executive
authority, thus avoiding any congressional input or oversight.
It is
a precursor to a trilateral authority between the three North
American economies.
A similar measure
to the SPP in the establishment of a unified North American region is
the NAFTA Superhighway which eliminates border restrictions on
shipping, allowing imported goods destined for the US to arrive in
North America at ports in Mexico.
Rather than arriving at the port
of Long Beach, imported goods would enter the US via a port in
the mid-west that lies along the shipping lane.
This measure has
been unanimously opposed by US cities in proximity of the highway,
but the democratic voice is ignored as the government covertly
advances.
Congress has largely looked away from the issue.
Members
who are aware of this plan avoid this issue and prefer that it stay
secret, and the CFR presidential candidates will not address it.
The
presidential candidates' association with the the self-described
shadow government compromises the the voting process and
defrauds the constituency.
Barack Obama has
captivated voters from all parties with his refreshing new style of
rhetoric.
He has the voting record to back his criticism of the Iraq
war.
But like his CFR colleagues, he vows to continue the pursuit of
a shadowy enemy under the vague threat of terrorism - a policy
that has cost citizens their personal liberties, trillions in debt
and untold lives.
The war on terror has been crafted to spend the
US into bankruptcy and setup a domestic police state.
Money
continues to be being printed out of thin air by the private
run-for-profit Federal Reserve, while China remains leveraged with
over $1 trillion in US dollar holdings.
In the middle east, the
CFR's blank check for U.S.
Military operations will deplete U.S.
resources while inciting sectarian strife and anti-U.S.
Sentiment,
ignoring the history of blowback as documented by the CIA.
Obama and
other CFR candidates affiliation with the organization is not
promoted on their websites or in any press releases because the
organization has centralized political power and financial capital to
set policy the public would otherwise oppose.
The career
politicians in the CFR know corporate sponsorship is frowned upon by
voters.
The Council is one of the major conduits between government
and business leaders in the US.
The CFR is guaranteeing power by
owning all the horses in the race that is the 2008 election.
Obama
is captivating unlike most of his competition, undoubtedly
intelligent enough to understand his political niche.
Another CFR
US president guarantees more of the same costly foreign policy that
protects corporate interests and isolates the US.
Like his
colleagues, Barack Obama's stated foreign policy intentions foment
the long term militarization and balkanization of the middle east
while resources will continue to be spent in deficit to finance an
illegal foreign policy.
Only when the control of the CFR is fully
exposed will the voters have a real democratic choice.
|
|
Well then, it seems to me, that if you feel that way, no politician will satisfy you and you might as well sit home and let the rest of us chose Obama for you.
Sorry, but I have been working this campaign long enough to know what is propaganda and what is not.
What you are stating is NOT his true colours and you obviously have not studied up on him or read anything else about him, chosing to believe unfounded and untrue rumours.
No insult intended, but it seems to me you are doing exactly what those who do not read Acharya's works do and it's a shame, as well as sad.
Believing there is a conspiracy where there is no conspiracy at all.
|
|
And while I'm thinking about it, Obama's record should speak for itself.
He has constantly voted against the Iraqi war since it started.
Billary has waved back and forth.
That's shows he is NOT a war monger.
One of the reasons I don't come in this area much is that I get the feeling some people are so paranoid and negative about life, that they are looking for conspiracies where they don't even exist.
However, if you have so little HOPE in the human race that you think everyone is out to get everyone and there is a conspiracy everywhere, I don't know why you even bother getting out of bed in the morning, much less get on the internet where there are lies virtually everywhere.
I'm not even sure why you believe Acharya for that matter.
She's not lying for religion has been a conspiracy for eons, but hey, if one is that paranoid that they believe there is a conspiracy everywhere then it would seem you would feel both the religious authorities AND Acharya are conspiring on both sides.
Personally, I do have HOPE in the human race and Obama happens to share that HOPE.
He also seems to share many of my values.
I also have HOPE that people will see religion for what it really is and eventually not be so dogmatic and extremist about it that kill people over it.
I can't say it will ever go away, not in the our lifetimes at least, but I do have HOPE that they will stop killing people over it and be more humane.
I do have HOPE.
It's not false hope, just hope.
I don't see conspiracies everywhere and I try to have a positive outlook on life.
I do my research and decide for myself as to what is right, what is wrong, who is being honest, and who is not.
I don't take a website on face value, but I go and do the footwork for myself too, as evidenced here on this board so many times.
Something is in question or I have no knowledge of it, I go research it myself.
I don't just take one or two sources at face value, at least not until that source has shown over and over again, that they are upfront, honest, and know what they are talking about.
In this case, some bogus website is slandering Obama with vicious lies.
Now you wouldn't allow vicious slander and lies to be perpetuated about Acharya, but it's OK when it concerns a politician that you haven't even read his website, read his books, spent time working for him, or even thoroughly researched?
Instead, you rather be paranoid and scream CONSPIRACY at a drop of a bogus website.
Something is very wrong with that folks, esp when you go around demanding people read Acharya's works and all.
Now IF I were paranoid, I'd be screaming right now that you all have a problem with a man who's 1/2 Black and 1/2 White, but I'm not.
I would like to believe and HOPE that you all have grown beyond that and give you all the benifit of the doubt.
I don't know though, it seems you all cabbaged on to a nice photo shop picture that makes a good man look like a thug, when he is not.
I find it's a shame you can't give the benefit of the doubt to others even though they are politicians, preachers, lawyers, or what have you.
Instead you all want to find tripe and scream conspiracy instead finding out for yourselves.
You know what though, this man inspires my sons and me.
His life is a lot like my sons (except both my sons parents are Americans) and he is the grown version of what I hope my sons could be eventually.
I even hope this man makes history and I do believe he will.
In fact, he already is making history.
|
|
Let's not fall out over the honour of politicians, of all people!
It is discouraging how many people are shocked by honesty and how few by deceit.
|
|
OY! I think you missed the point, Mr.
Bridger.
|
|
Quote: : Oh oh! We could be pissing off an Obama fan in here November!
Where's that running away icon
THIS CFR PUPPET IS AS LOADED AS ANY OTHER BEFORE HIM PRE-LOADED.
http://rense.com/general79/obam.htm
Obama And His Warmonger
Cabinet The Changing
Face Of WWIII
By Webster Tarpley
1-7-8
Presidential candidate Barak Obama -- main announced project so far: BOMB PAKISTAN
Obama's main foreign policy guru -- Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Main project: THE DESTRUCTION OF RUSSIA - the surest path to World War III.
Mark Brzezinski, son of Zbigniew, former Clinton NSC official and top Obama advisor.
Architect of the 2004 "people power" color revolution/coup in Ukraine.
Main project: THE DESTRUCTION OF RUSSIA.
Top Obama advisor and ex Asst.
Secretary of State for African Affairs, Susan Rice.
Main project: BOMB SUDAN
Top Obama terrorism advisor Richard Clarke, former terror czar of the Clinton and Bush administrations.
Main project: originating the official myth of 9/11.
Obama's top Middle East adviser, Dennis Ross, former Middle East negotiator for Bush and Clinton.
Main project: play the Arabs against the Iranians to perpetuate Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
RESULT: A WORLD CATASTROPHE WORSE THAN BUSH
DON'T BE DUPED BY OBAMA AND HIS CABINET OF WARMONGERS
Zbigniew Brzezinski
Search News
Search the Web
You are the best, Skullnboner!
All I can add is that Zbigniew Brzezinski is a Mr.Cold War and warmongering hawk...
He has been planning wars since 1970s....
Jimmy Carter standing with Zbigniew Brzezinski
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski
|
|
He took Iowa, now he's taken Georgia!
He took Illinois!
He's going to take the South and get his 40 acres!
Obama will be there in Nov.
And he will be our next president of the U.S.
And make history!
Y'all will find out just how wrong you are.
Smear him all you want, but I've backed a winner this time.
|
|
|
Yes, well I'm going to be ordering my T-Shirt this afternoon.
|
|
Hey, I'll give if it's Obama/Clinton.
I'm not a big fan of Billary though.
If she is pres. we'll have two for the price of one because Bill has no impulse control.
|
|
Open Letter to the Supporters of Barack Obama On Behalf of Ron Paul
by James Dunavant A Libertarian's view on Barrack Obama vs.
Ron Paul
DIGG THIS
Read More
Open Letters
Regardless of your political persuasion, you have to admit that the rhetoric and style of a Barack Obama speech is truly inspiring.
There is indeed a hunger in America for a "message of hope." I'm trying to find a more current equivalent to the "We Are the World" concert for the benefit of younger readers, but that is the image I get from watching an Obama ad or rally.
"Yes We Can" is a theme that just about everyone especially the New York Giants' secondary can learn to appreciate.
Since Obama really doesn't have much of a record to help or hurt him, many idealists see him as an alternative to the establishment (Bush-Clinton-McCain co-conspirators of the War Party).
There is no doubt in my mind that an Obama administration would be significantly different than another Clinton regime (er
administration), but I won't get into those differences because I hate to inform you Obama supports out there it will not happen.
No conspiracy theories here, but I do believe there is an establishment class (an unholy trinity of government bureaucrats, corporations, and media elites) in this country who have picked their candidate and her first name is Hillary.
All three of the branches of the establishment party (made up of Democrats and Republicans) benefit from the bigger welfare-warfare state Hillary Clinton would bring to the table universal Pre-K, "free" health care (i.e.
Poor service and more profits for a few "government-approved" corporations at the expense of taxpayers), more government-approved education, and yes Clinton supporters, essentially the same foreign policy and threat to civil liberties as George W.
Bush. (See her votes on the Iraq war, Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, threats to Iran, domestic surveillance of citizens, etc.).
John McCain is essentially the establishment's "designated loser" along the way.
On matters of substance, in spite of the rhetoric and amazing speeches, Barack Obama is only slightly to the left of Hillary.
While he did not vote to authorize the Iraq war (he wasn't in the Senate at the time), he has repeatedly said no options are off the table for pre-emptive war with Iran or Pakistan.
He also did not oppose the reauthorization of the Patriot Act which allows federal agents to write their own search warrants, search your home and make it look like a burglary, not tell you about it for 18 months, and forbids you, under threat of imprisonment, from telling anyone this has taken place.
Hey, at least we're "safe" from the "terrists" (sic), right?
Now the President is trying to grant legal immunity to telecom companies like AT&T who cooperated with the National Security Agency to listen to our cell phone conversations and read our email and Clintobama are doing nothing.
Meanwhile, the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act" recently approved by Congress is before the Senate (H.R.1955/S.1959).
This would create a new government thought police agency to regulate the internet under the guise of preventing potentially violent "ideologies." And with the help of the corporate, entertainment-driven media, these people are distracting us from the real threats of government tyranny by promising "free" this and that.
In the midst of this insanity, Ron Paul is the only candidate who does not speak in the platitudes of political-speak.
I can't even image a real "debate" where he and the phonies actually discuss intellectual and philosophical issues about the current economic crisis caused by our overreaching empire of destruction.
Real ideas never fit into 30-second sound bites for 90-second "debate" responses.
Watch this in-depth interview and ask yourself whether or not the feeble minds of a McCain or a Clinton wouldn't literally spontaneously combust just from being in the same room.
Young people who do not remember much more than the Bush II regime should not have the false hope that a Democrat in the White House will be significantly different.
The history of the past century has been one of perpetual war and loss of liberty.
Unless there is real "change" in this country, I am afraid the last vestiges of freedom we have left will be gone.
The thinking that we are electing our "Commander-in-Chief" demonstrates the degree to which we have been conditioned into slavery to the state.
The president is only commander-in-chief of the military, not each citizen, although candidates like Obama and McCain are calling for "national service" requirements.
I suppose it would be ironic if the first African American president (Bill Clinton excluded) reinstituted slavery.
(Any kind of government requirement to "serve," whether in the military or the Peace Corps is
uh
let's see how I should put this
slavery.)
While I am on the subject of slavery, I also feel compelled to address the advocates of "peace" on the left.
At least during Republican wars or aggression, those on the left seem to be the biggest "anti-war" activists.
Yet they refuse to support a real anti-war (more appropriately "anti-aggression") candidate like Ron Paul because he doesn't conform to their domestic agenda of more taxes and government handouts.
It is sad that I have to point this out, but the philosophical opposition to preemptively bombing a country that did not threaten us is the same moral principle that says we should not be pointing guns at people in our own country to tell them how to live or what "charity" to support.
For those of you who may not understand libertarianism, it is really quite simple:
No individual has the moral authority to initiate aggression against another individual.
No individual or group has the moral authority to initiate aggression against another individual or group by calling themselves "the government."
With regard to the first point, just about everyone is a libertarian.
The problem is that most people do not carry this logic any further than their personal relationships.
They rightly understand that theft, murder, and rape are not good things for individuals to participate in, then somehow ignore the immorality of these evils on a mass scale by referring to them as taxes, war, and regulations.
This is why statists get annoyed when we libertarians don't use their euphemisms to describe their acts of aggression.
Your belief in the role of government comes down to the question of voluntary versus coercive relationships.
Admittedly, Ron Paul certainly does not go far enough in promoting the "voluntary versus force" philosophy, but in my opinion he is by far the best choice for real "change" in the direction toward a society of voluntarism.
Everyone else is arguing over which tactic of coercive force will benefit you the most at the expense of others.
My grandmother recently lamented how she did not know who to vote for because her father had always studied "the issues" and would inform her of which candidate would do the most for farmers.
This is the thinking that needs to be reversed.
I tactfully propose that liberty is best for everyone.
Ron Paul will not promise you a better life, but he is promising to be the champion of liberty.
With the Executive Branch of government now almost a de facto elected monarchy, I cannot legitimately endorse him or anyone else to take on this illegitimate power to run our lives.
I can, however support Ron Paul as the only one we can trust to resist the power of the office as someone who will work to minimize its authoritarian rule and return that power to Congress and the people.
It is my thought that many if not most Obama supporters, deep down, really support liberty, too.
Thus, my plea to them to reconsider their support for him.
They certainly are on record as supporting "change." Well, Ron Paul offers real change.
This is why I have decided to support Ron Paul for President this year.
If it requires a third-party bid to continue the revolution, I will be there.
February 5, 2008
James Dunavant [send him mail] is a development professional in Nashville, Tennessee.
|
|
|
|