America's next step : Words of wisdom from someone "in the Know"

America's next step : Words of wisdom from someone "in the Know",
will it be heeded ? NO, the PNAC killers will twist and turn and try to reinvent new Neo-Hegemonic policies to fracture the whole world into more Tribes with Flags...

By Mikhail Gorbachev

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Support for President Barack Obama among Americans, including many who did not vote for him, is unprecedented. Globally, too, there has been deep interest in the election and widespread hope for change in U.S. policy. Practically everyone the world over now wishes Obama success.

The main reasons for this are the pressures of global economic and political tensions that have been piling up for decades. In his inauguration speech, Obama somberly cited these problems. The crisis, he said, is "a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age."

Understandably, the president will focus first on the economic crisis. But solving America's economic problems without cardinal changes in the world will be impossible. The "Washington consensus" that assumed that the global economy could be designed from a single center has been discredited. It was based entirely on the profit motive, over-consumption and failed, outdated institutions.

A new model must recognize the need for multilateral cooperation. In his speech, Obama acknowledged that today's threats demand "even greater cooperation and understanding between nations." I am sure that however strong the criticism and even anger over some U.S. actions has been throughout the world - in Europe, China, India, Russia, Latin America - leaders and the general public understand the importance of America's role and are ready to cooperate with it.

But is America ready? In his speech, Obama said, "The world has changed, and we must change with it." The commitment to those words must be proven by specific deeds and decisions. This will require a realistic analysis of the global situation - the kind of analysis that has been lacking in the United States for nearly two decades. America has been widely seen as almost omnipotent. But arrogance and triumphalism blinded it as a policy-maker; slogans replaced serious thinking.

The 20th century was an American century - let's make the 21st another American century. Those words, spoken by President Bill Clinton, were echoed by those who have guided American policies in recent years. But the world will not agree to play the role of an "extra" in a movie scripted by the United States. Finally, recognition of that attitude seems to be emerging in the United States.

The outcome of the presidential election is an acknowledgement that America's strength does not come from empire-building or military adventures but from its ability to correct its mistakes. A course for foreign policy is not plotted overnight, particularly when what's needed is not a mere adjustment but a full revision. What the president and members of his team have said thus far is not enough to discern the direction they will take.

Obama is getting all kinds of advice. Zbigniew Brzezinski is proposing a focus on relations with China. His recent remarks in Beijing seem to suggest a kind of condominium, a U.S.-China G-2. Of course, China's global economic and political importance will keep growing, but I think those who would like to start a new geopolitical game will be in for a disappointment. China is unlikely to accept; more generally, such games belong to the past. Similarly, Henry Kissinger's proposals for "a new world order" seem to assume a new geopolitical division of the world. What we really need are new, more modern approaches.

A number of European public figures have urged Obama to reconsider past policies that have long been taken for granted. The United States, which in 1990 signed the Paris Charter for a New Europe, could be a natural partner in creating a new European security structure - a project now under discussion.

I also hope the president sees the great potential inherent in relations with Russia, which have been mishandled in recent years. A change for the better could be achieved relatively soon, helping to move toward healthier relations with Russia's neighbors and within Europe as a whole.

In shaping Mideast policy, a real battle is inevitable. If anything should have become crystal clear in recent years, it's that "business as usual" only makes the Middle East more dangerous. Current U.S. policies have not been good for the region as a whole or, in particular, for Israel, a nation with which the United States has special relations.

Two long-term problems have taken on a special urgency and will require Obama's close attention: nuclear proliferation and the environmental crisis. It will not be easy to disentangle the intricate web of contradictions surrounding these issues.

Reducing nonproliferation to the demand that Iran and North Korea cease their nuclear programs will lead to a dead end. The nuclear powers will not be able to hold on to their monopoly indefinitely, and the nonproliferation treaty does not allow it.

The solution is to move toward a world without nuclear weapons. But this goal cannot be achieved if one country retains an overwhelming superiority in conventional weapons. Without specific steps to reduce these weapons - more generally, without demilitarizing international politics - we will have only empty talk. What's needed is a real breakthrough, like the one achieved in the late 1980s.

Judging by Obama's inaugural speech, he understands that even while he faces the immediate challenges of the economic crisis, he should not push to the sidelines problems like poverty and environmental issues, particularly climate change. Fostering economic development and preserving the planet for future generations can be contradictory; the only way to resolve this clash of priorities is to develop policies multilaterally. This is true of practically every problem, in all areas.

I suspect that many people are pondering Obama's call for a new era of responsibility. Perhaps neither he nor we can yet see what shape it will take.

One thing is already clear, though: We are indeed on the cusp of a new age, on the road to a new world, one we must travel together.

"UN Security Council Meeting on Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict, and Call For a '"Truth Commission'"....

January 26, 2009 -- "UN Security Council Meeting on Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict, and Call For a '"Truth Commission'"....

United Nations :

Presidential Statement S/PRST/2009/1 remarked: "The Security Council is committed to addressing the impact of armed conflict on civilians. The council expresses its deepest concern that civilians continue to account for the majority of victims of acts of violence committed by parties to armed conflicts, including as a result of deliberate targeting, indiscriminate and excessive use of force, use of civilians as human shields, and of sexual and gender-based violence, as well as all other acts that violate applicable international law, including international humanitarian law, human rights law and refugee law, committed against civilians in situations of armed conflict. The Council demands that all relevant parties immediately put an end to such practices."

The Libyan Ambassador stated that "he had prepared to read a statement on the protection of civilians, but he found it extremely difficult and was embarrassed to speak about that issue, after it had become clear to everyone that there was a great disconnect between the Security Council's words and its actions to implement them on the ground...The tragedy of Gaza had raised serious doubt about the Council's willingness and ability to protect civilians...Israel had attacked and was starving, depriving and weakening the civilian population in Gaza with a war machine that had indiscriminately bombed places of worship, schools, United Nations facilities, aid workers and others. Everyone was hearing that the number of dead and wounded was increasing by the minute...Still, the Council had been unwilling and unable to do anything. Resolution 1860, adopted after much delay, still had not accomplished anything."

Indeed, Hamas had ignored Resolution 1860, saying it had not been consulted, and was therefore not obligated to adhere to a resolution to which it is not a party. (The Palestinian authority is recognized by the United Nations as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.) Israel simply ignored the resolution altogether.

The Russian Ambassador reminded the Security Council of the virtually global extent to which civilians are victims in armed conflict. He stated: "Despite a whole arsenal of international legal instruments, entire civilian populations suffered under conflicts. To address that situation, selective approaches must be abandoned and there must be strict compliance with human rights standards. Through Russia's intervention in August last year, ethnic cleansing in South Ossetia had been prevented. Innocent civilians had been subjected by Georgian armed forces to bombardments and rockets. There had been direct targeting of homes, schools, hospitals and ambulances. Over the last month, those facts had been convincingly corroborated. However, certain influential members of the international community did not seem to be eager to consider those facts. Still urgent was the question of the prosecution of those responsible for those crimes.....He strongly condemned the deliberate attack on civilians, as well as the disproportionate use of force, and expressed concern at the escalation of the crisis in Gaza as a result of Israel's military operation. The situation in Gaza is on the very brink of a humanitarian catastrophe.....Civilian populations continue to suffer in Iraq and Afghanistan. That matter should receive greater attention from the Security Council and other United Nations bodies. There is no justification for armed groups that attack innocent civilians, commit terrorist acts or seize hostages. Unfortunately, civilians continue to die in Iraq and Afghanistan with tragic regularity, and not just as a result of their actions. Once again, just a few days ago, 17 Afghan civilians, including women and children, were killed during a coalition operation in eastern Afghanistan. We underscore the responsibility of all parties, including the multinational forces, to ensure the security of civilians and comply strictly with the norms of international humanitarian law. We support a careful investigation into such incidents, including punishment for the guilty. That also applies to the activities of private security companies. The holding of hundreds of children in military jails in those countries on the basis of arbitrary accusations and without access to civilian justice is unacceptable."

The United States Ambassador stated: "The Security Council must not forget that the hostilities in Gaza had been started by Hamas, a terrorist organization that had called for the destruction of Israel and launched countless rockets and mortars into Israeli territory"...At the same time, she urged Israel to make all efforts to minimize impact on innocent civilians, and to allow safe and unhindered humanitarian access to needy populations.

On January 15, 2007, the last days of the Administration of George W. Bush in the United States, at the Tenth Emergency Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly, the Deputy Secretary-General stated: "The crisis in Gaza has entered its twentieth day....The Hamas rockets must stop. Israel's offensive must end....Over a thousand Palestinians are now reported dead, a large number of them women and children, with more than 4,700 injured. Three Israeli civilians have died and dozens been injured...Over-night and today the violence has intensified. Families trying to flee the fighting had nowhere to go. Over 40,000 people are now taking refuge in UNRWA shelters and people seeking sanctuary are being turned away. Hospitals have been hit. This is unacceptable and must stop. There is no question that the civilian population of Gaza faces an acute and deepening humanitarian crisis. Entire families have perished in the violence, including women and children, UN staff and medical workers...Today a United Nations compound in Gaza was shelled again. Secretary-General Ban-Ki moon has conveyed his strong protest and outrage to Israel's Prime Minister, Defense Minister and Foreign Minister, and he has demanded a full explanation of the attack....We must return to the road to peace, to end the occupation that began in 1967, attain the establishment of a Palestinian state which coexists alongside Israel in peace and security, and to achieve the goal of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the Middle East, based on Security Council resolutions."

Following the statement by the Deputy Secretary-General, two speeches were made, by Israel and by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, which seemed to be antithetical, yet their implications contain common cause. Israeli Ambassador Gabriela Shalev stated: "UN General Assembly resolution 377 states that emergency special sessions of the General Assembly are designed to act only when the Security Council ‘because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security,' meaning in case of veto only. Since there was no veto on this matter, and since the Security Council remains actively seized on this issue, the convening of this meeting of the General Assembly is one that defies its own rules...In its resolution on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism (A/RES/63/129) this Assembly reiterated its strong condemnation of ‘all acts, methods and practices of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations.' But where was this Assembly's condemnation of the Hamas terrorist attacks, its deliberate targeting of schools and hospitals, of the eight years in which the residents of southern Israel have had to live their lives within 15 seconds reach of bunkers to protect them from terrorist rockets and missiles?........Sadly, there are countless human tragedies and immeasurable human suffering around the globe. Victims of the most severe violations of their most basic rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, North Korea, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, and elsewhere cry out for their plight to be heard, for their suffering to be redressed by the international community."

Soon thereafter, Ambassador Sin Son Ho of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea stated: "Even at this time the Israeli armed forces are mercilessly killing the innocent Palestinian civilians and destroying houses, public buildings and schools at random...Now the entire world is denouncing Israeli aggression, calling for an immediate end to all its military actions. However, the United States alone is taking sides with Israel, even justifying its act of obstructing peace. This proves once again that the peace breaker and the worst human rights violator in the world is none other than the United States."

Considering that the North Korean Ambassador's statement was made in the dying hours of the globe-ravaged Bush Administration, his remarks are not only not far-fetched, they are extraordinarily resonant with observations of some of the most responsible officials highly placed within the United States Department of Justice. Four days after attending the Tenth Emergency Session of the UN General Assembly, when I arrived in Washington, D.C. and attended one of the Inaugural Balls celebrating the new Presidency of Barack Obama, I met a remarkable attorney working as a federal prosecutor at the Department of Justice. She told me that she considered it imperative that the public be informed of the full extent and detail of the tortures and other barbaric violations of human rights perpetrated by the Bush Administration. She stated that the authors of these heinous acts must be held accountable for war crimes and related crimes against humanity.

The Bush Administration's dismissal of the Geneva Conventions as "quaint," and their restriction of the definition of torture to "organ failure," led to the most obscene degeneration of human behavior in every country US soldiers invaded, under fraudulent pretexts, from Iraq to Afghanistan.

"The Dark Side," written by Jane Mayer, (2008) documents the fact that "U.S. held prisoners, some of them completely innocent, were subjected to treatment more reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition than the twenty-first century. On July 11, 2008, The New York Times reported: "Red Cross investigators concluded last year in a secret report that the Central Intelligence Agency's interrogation methods for high-level Qaeda prisoners constituted torture and could make the Bush Administration officials who approved them guilty of war crimes, according to a new book on counterterrorism efforts since 2001...the Red Cross document ‘warned that the abuse constituted war crimes, placing the highest officials in the U.S. government in jeopardy of being prosecuted." On page 148 ("The Dark Side"): "For the same reason that the White House could argue that Afghanistan was a ‘failed state,' unbound by international law, it was also an ideal spot for secret CIA prisons. Several other allied countries, including a number of former Soviet satellite states who were hoping to win US favor for their ambitions to join NATO, also agreed to host ghost prisons. Although their leaders have denied it, multiple credible reports have identified Poland and Romania in particular as host countries... ‘We told them we'd help them join NATO if they helped us torture people' a cynical former CIA officer said. There were financial rewards for the host countries, however. One year of the Afghan prison operation alone cost an estimated $100 million, which Congress hid in a classified annex of the first supplemental Afghan appropriations bill in 2002. Among the services that US taxpayers unwittingly paid for were medieval-like dungeons, including a reviled former brick factory outside of Kabul known as ‘The Salt Pit.' In 2004, a still unidentified prisoner froze to death there after a young CIA supervisor ordered guards to strip him naked and chain him overnight to the concrete floor. The CIA has never accounted for the death, nor publicly reprimanded the supervisor. Instead, the agency reportedly promoted him."

On page 153 "The Dark Side" recounts: "John Yoo (a deputy chief in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel) stated: ‘Congress doesn't have the power to tie the President's hand in regard to torture as an interrogation technique'...Yoo expanded on this theory when questioned about it by the director of Notre Dame's Center for Civil and Human Rights, law school professor Doug Cassel. If the President's right to torture was so absolute, Cassel asked, could no law stop him from ‘crushing the testicles of the person's child?' Yoo responded: ‘No treaty.' Pressed on whether a law rather than a treaty could prohibit the president from doing so, Yoo wouldn't rule out the possibility that no law could restrain the president from barbarism."

On May 20, 2005, front page, Tim Golden reported in The New York Times: "Even as the young Afghan man was dying before them, his American jailers continued to torment him. The prisoner, a slight 22 year old taxi driver known only as Dilawar, was hauled from his cell at the detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan, at around 2PM to answer questions about a rocket attack on an American base. When he arrived in his interrogation room an interpreter who was present said his legs were bouncing uncontrollably in the plastic chair, and his hands were numb. He had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell for much of the previous four days. ( First Platoon M.P. Specialist Corey F. Jones said: ‘It became a kind of a running joke, and people kept showing up to give this detainee a common personal strike just to hear him scream out ‘Allah.' Everyone heard him cry out and thought it was funny. It went on over a 24 hour period, and I would think that it was over 100 strikes to his knees') Mr. Dilawar asked for a drink of water, and one of the two interrogators. Specialist Joshua B. Claus picked up a large plastic bottle. But first he punched a hole in the bottom, the interpreter said, so as the prisoner fumbled weakly with the cap, the water poured out over his orange prison scrubs. The soldier then grabbed the bottle back, and began squirting the water forcefully into Mr. Diliwar's face. ‘Come on, drink' the interpreter said Specialist Claus had shouted, as the prisoner gagged on the spray. At the interrogator's behest, a guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling. ‘Leave him up' one of the guards quoted Specialist Claus as saying. Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen. It would be many months before Army investigators learned a final horrific detail: most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time."

May 13, 2007, Carlotta Gall and David E. Sanger wrote in The New York Times: Zerkoh, Afghanistan, May 9, 2007: "Scores of civilian deaths over the past months from heavy American and allied reliance on airstrikes to battle Taliban insurgents are threatening popular support for the Afghan government and creating severe strains within the NATO alliance. Afghan, American and other foreign officials say they worry about the political toll the civilian deaths are exacting on President Hamid Karzai, who last week issued another harsh condemnation of the American and NATO tactics, and even of the entire international effort here. What angers Afghans are not just the bombings, but also the raids of homes, the shooting of civilians in the streets and at checkpoints, and the failure to address those issues over the five years of war. Afghan patience is wearing dangerously thin, officials warn...The anger is visible here in this farming village in the largely peaceful western province of Herat, where American airstrikes left 57 villagers dead, nearly half of them women and children, on April 27 and 29. ...The villagers denied that any Taliban were in the area. Instead, they said they rose up and fought the Americans themselves, after the soldiers raided several houses, arrested two men and shot dead two old men on a village road. After burying the dead, the tribe's elders met with their chief, Hajji Arbab Daulat Khan, and resolved to fight American forces if they returned. ‘If they come again, we will stand against them,' he warned. Or in the words of one foreign official in Afghanistan, ‘the Americans went after one guerrilla commander and created a hundred more.' While NATO is now in overall command of the military operations in the country, many of the most serious episodes of civilian deaths have involved United States counterterrorism and Special Operations forces that operate separately from the NATO command....A villager, Abdul Waheed said the Americans had searched his family compound and found no weapons and certainly must have seen the women and children. Two days later they bombed the compound, killing six children, he said. ‘The Americans should leave Afghanistan because this is my own home,' he said. ‘I am sitting here and they come and just order a bomb to drop.'"

Unintentionally (or otherwise), the disastrous conduct of the military ‘war on terror' has paradoxically increased the power of the Taliban and the expansion of Sharia law (with its diabolically cruel punishments, including hurling acid at the faces of Afghan girls as punishment for attending school, stoning to death a 13 year old Somali girl victim of gang rape, double amputations in Iran, etc., etc.). And it cannot be overlooked that early supporters of the rise of the Taliban were none other than Dana Rohrabacher and UNOCAL Indeed, extremist sects of Islam were encouraged and funded by Washington decades ago, in an effort to destabilize the Soviet Union.

Newsweek, May 14, 2007: By Sami Yousafzai and Ron Moreau: "Following a US airstrike that killed nine Afghan civilians, including two women and five small children, an Afghan farmer cried out: ‘We hate the Americans so much now, we don't want to see their faces'"......"Anti-U.S. rallies in the towns of Shindand and Jalalabad each drew more than a thousand protesters last week, and Afghan President Hamid Karzai once again declared that his government can no longer tolerate the deaths of so many innocent Afghans. ‘We are very sorry when the U.S. led coalition force and NATO soldiers lose their lives or are injured,' he told a press conference. ‘It pains us. But Afghan civilians are human beings too.'"

The photographs of United States soldiers boasting and flaunting their obscene tortures of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib have destroyed the moral authority of the United States, and relegated our country to pariah status in the international community. The United States attacked Iraq without provocation and under fraudulent pretenses, and thereby we became no better than a rogue state. The Bush administration seized power in 2000 in what was a de facto coup d'état.

Last week I was privileged to meet a United States Justice Department federal prosecutor who wants to hold accountable those government officials responsible for these crimes against humanity which have so defiled our nation's place in world history. This federal prosecutor is quintessentially patriotic in her recognition that only by acknowledging these criminal actions can our country recover moral legitimacy. In Argentina, following the years of its military government's "dirty war," prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo restored the dignity of Argentina as he held accountable those military government officials responsible for the policies of kidnapping, "disappearing," torturing and assassinating political dissidents. President Ricardo Lagos helped restore dignity and honor to Chile when he published the two thousand page documentation of the crimes of the previous military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, crimes including the kidnapping, hideous torture and murder of many tens of thousands of Chileans who had sought freedom from Pinochet's dictatorship and a restoration of democracy and social and economic justice to Chile.

No one has counted the number of dead civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan since the Bush administration launched wars on both countries during the past ignominious eight years, but for our country to justly reclaim a respected place among the international community, there must be a reckoning. The Congress, the public and the media must demand full disclosure and transparency. Our national honor demands that we take responsibility for the crimes committed in our name, and paid for with our tax dollars. If we do not take this initiative, as the brave United States federal prosecutor passionately urges, one day history may impose this reckoning upon us, for, "those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it." And we cannot learn from what we do not know.

There is no greater act of treason against the United States of America than to torture a prisoner, and there is nothing which more ultimately endangers the safety of all American citizens, than a policy which attempts to justify torture. President Obama, with admirable speed, ordered the closing of the CIA "black sites," ended the practice of "extraordinary renditions," outlawed torture and coercive interrogation, and committed our nation to observe the Geneva Conventions, revealing his revulsion toward the shameful depths to which this country sank under the Bush administration policies. According to the New York Times, January 23, 2009, "John D. Hutson, a retired admiral and law school dean stated that: ‘banning coercive interrogation is the right thing to do morally, diplomatically, militarily and constitutionally, but it also makes us safer'" President Obama would further repair this country's international standing by ordering a truth commission, to make transparent, and hold our nation accountable for those horrific acts which shattered our country's moral authority. This would be an act or responsibility, humility, and a tiny step toward offering an apology to the family of an innocent Afghan taxi driver, Diliwar, who was crucified by U.S. soldiers who entertained themselves by pulpifying Diliwar's legs for the perverted amusement of hearing Diliwar's agonized screams of "Allah." And how many more suffered such a death? The honor of the United States demands an answer.

Barack Obama: The Naked Emperor and the real power behind the power in USA, no matter which party wins an election...

Barack Obama: The Naked Emperor

WWW.DAVIDICKE.COM/OBAMA

I am writing this in the last days of 2008 as I watch with dismay as vast numbers of people across the world, including many who should know better, have been duped by the mind-game called Operation Obama.

Even people with some understanding of the conspiracy have said things like: 'Well, at least he's not Bush' and 'Well, at least it's great to see such a new spirit of hope'. No, he's not Bush - he's potentially far more dangerous; and what is the use of a spirit of 'hope' if it's based on a lie? In fact, what use is 'hope' at all?

Obama's wife, Michelle, who I wouldn't trust to tell me the date in a calendar factory, said that 'everything begins and ends with hope'. Utter nonsense. Hope is a meaningless emotion because its fruits are always in the future and, by definition, never in the NOW.

Hope is like riding a carousel horse; no matter how fast you go you never get closer to the one in front. The idea, however, is to persuade you to stay on the horse, despite the evitable disappointment, in the 'hope' that things will change. But they don't because the very system is designed to prevent it.

That's the way 'hope' is employed by the dastardly and devious - take the crap we are giving you now in the 'hope' that things will get better (but we know they won't). Barack Obama is a purveyor of 'hope' because his masters want the people to accept what they are given now in the hope that good times will come.

Just do what we demand, oops, sorry, Barack demands, and in return he'll inspire you to hope that it is all leading to the Promised Land. It isn't, but, by the time you realise that, it's too late.

What terrifies the manipulators is that people will abandon hope, as a future, sometime-never projection, and start to demand fairness, justice and freedom now. To avoid this nightmare they need to keep those desires as something to aspire to, not to actually have.

Thus, their man, Obama, sells 'hope' as a diversion technique, a holding position, to keep the masses from truly rebelling. We have no job, no food on the table and our home has been foreclosed, but at least we have 'hope'. Phew, thank goodness for that.

'I'm hungry, mum, can I have some hope, please?'

'I'm so sorry, darling, you can't have hope today, only tomorrow - hope is always tomorrow.'

'So will I eat tomorrow, mum?'

'We can hope so now, dear, but when we get to tomorrow, we can only hope it's the next day.'

On and on it goes. That's how 'hope' works. Or rather doesn't.

Obama's predominant mantra has been 'change'. Indeed, his massively-funded, record-breaking campaign was based on that one word - change. This is a technique used by Bill Clinton and many others and it is highly effective because, at any point, the system ensures that most people are not happy with the way life is. So, when you don't like the status quo, 'change' can be a potent message, even if, like Obama, you don't say what it means.

It has been vital to his success, and that of his controllers, that he has never specified what his 'hope', 'change', and that other mind-control trigger-word, 'believe', were referring to in terms of policy and the way society in general will be affected. Hope for what? Change what? Believe in what? To answer those questions with specifics would have been fatal to Obama's appeal.

I studied the military/government mind-control programmes and techniques in great detail for many years during the late-1990s and across 2000, and the Obama 'phenomenon' is the most blatant mass-mind control operation you could wish to see.

At its core the plan has been to make Obama the focus of everything you hope for, believe in and want to change. This is why it has been crucial for him not to specify and detail what is meant by his 'hope, 'change' and 'believe'.

However, I can tell you what those words mean in the context of the Obama mind-game. They mean whatever you decide they mean or want them to mean. The idea is for you to project all that you stand for onto him and so he becomes the symbol of you and how you see the world. Specifics would destroy that 'I am whatever you want me to be' scenario and so you don't get any detail, just 'hope', 'change', and 'believe'.

They don't want him to be seen only as 'the Messiah'; they also want him to be Abraham Lincoln, JFK, or Buddha - anyone you choose to project on him, for he is a blank page, blank screen and empty suit. Obama is a make-your-own, do-it-yourself leader, a projection of your own mind. (If you are still asleep, that is. If you are in any way awake, he's an open book.)

See the video How Obama Got Elected to see how easy it is to manipulate the masses. It's child's play. Click here ...

'I am whatever you want me to be, for I am just a projection of you. And I got a big smile, see.'

There is no more powerful way of manipulating people than to tell them what they want to hear and to keep shtum about anything they wouldn't like. Double-glazing salesmen are trained to pick up in general conversation what their target likes and dislikes and to respond accordingly in the way the product is sold. The technique is simply to tell the potential buyer what you have gleaned they want to be told.

Obama comes from the same stable, but on a massively bigger scale and with a whole network of advisors and controllers steeped in the art of manipulating minds, opinions and actions.

Obama's written-for-him speeches are not from the heart, but from the autocue. The 'heart' bit comes from extensive training and his Bill Clintonesque ability to 'mean it when he says it', a state of delivery that goes beyond mere acting. Tony Blair was trained in the same way.

But if you take a step back and look at these people dispassionately you can clearly see the techniques they consciously employ. Blair is the most blatant fraud in the way he delivers a line, stops in mid-sentence for emphasis and looks down for fake emotional effect. Obama is a little more slick, but, from where I have been looking this past year, not much. And how have people not seen those cold eyes just above the painted smile?

You can watch his mind working, turning between autocue screens to his left and right, then straight down the camera for his key messages. From-the-heart orators don't do that; they are too immersed in what they are feeling and saying to give even a passing thought to where they are looking or how the line is delivered.

I worked in television for more than a decade, often reading autocue while a director spoke in my ear telling me what cameras to look at. I have, since the early 1990s, spoken my truth on public stages across the world. I know, therefore, the difference between artificial autocue delivery and body language and talking from the heart without a script. Obama, I repeat, is coming from the autocue, not the heart.

Obama's speeches are a mass of mind-control techniques and Neuro-Linguistic-Programming, or NLP, and they are carefully constructed to implant beliefs and perceptions into the mind of the viewer. Click here for a description of his psycho-babble, headed An Examination of Obama's Use of Hidden Hypnosis Techniques in His Speeches.

As I keep emphasising, the whole Obama circus is an exercise in mass mind control and it has been so successful because so many people live their lives in a permanent state of trance. All of which brings me to the parallels with Nazi Germany, fascist Italy and similar regimes throughout history.

Obama may not look like Hitler, nor sound like Hitler, but the themes are just the same. Germany was in a terrible state economically and militarily in the 1930s in the aftermath of the First World War and the reparations inflicted on the country by the Rothschild/Illuminati-controlled Versailles 'Peace' Conference in 1919.

From amid the chaos came the man that Germans saw then in much the same way that so many see Obama today. His name was Adolf Hitler and his oratory and rhetoric, again supported by a ritualistic presentation founded on mind-control techniques, made him appear to be the German 'messiah', the German Obama.

Hitler promised 'change', 'hope' and something to 'believe in' amidst the consequences of war and financial collapse. He spoke to vast rallies of adoring followers and a mass movement emerged in support of Hitler's vision of a new tomorrow.

As the writer Webster Tarpley points out, fascism in its true sense is not just a Police State imposed by a tiny hierarchy. It might end up like that, but first it is brought to power by a mass movement from within the people who have no understanding of what the 'change', hope' and 'believe' they are being offered really means. They just know that they want some because, as with Obama, they make it mean what they want it to mean. Only later do they see, to their horror, what they have signed up for.

Obama's America ...

... Hitler's Germany.

There may seem to be a world of difference, but the techniques are just the same.

Obama is far more dangerous than Bush because he can sell a line to those who are in the trance while Boy Bush could not do that on anything like the same scale. Bush was a transparent idiot with no communication skills who needed massive fraud at the polls to get him officially 'elected'. He could never be the figurehead to inspire a mass movement of the people to support some vacuous 'hope', 'change' and 'believe' when they don't even know what those words are supposed to mean.

But Obama clearly can, because he has.

One of 'his' (his controllers') prime targets are the young, just as they were with the Nazis and the Hitler Youth Movement. If you think this parallel is far-fetched then have a look at this video to see how extreme Obama worship has already become for some young people. Hitler Youth was just the same. Click here to watch ...

In line with this theme, the WorldNetDaily website reported:

'The official website of President-Elect Barack Obama, Change.gov, originally announced that Obama would "require" all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs; but after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama's proposed youth corps, the website's wording was softened.

Originally, under the tab "America Serves", Change.gov read, "President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps.

"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year," the site announced.'

For the full story, click here ...

Obama said in a speech in July 2008 in Colorado Springs that he wanted to see a 'civilian national security force' that would be as powerful and well-funded as the Marines, Navy and Air Force. As Joseph Farah, founder of WorldNetDaily, wrote:

'If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal? I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military.

How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together? Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?'

Obama meant, amid the flowery words, that he's not in favour of either peace or freedom. He is a front-man demagogue for the same force that controlled Boy Bush, Clinton, Father Bush, Reagan, Carter, ad infinitum; but the difference is that he has been hyped to such hysterical proportions that he will be allowed to get away with far more than they were, at least until reality dawns on the mass ranks of his hypnotised supporters. And, clearly, that could take some time.

The cabal will be anxious to squeeze every minute from Obama's honeymoon period and we can expect to see events move quickly after his inauguration in January.

When I was a journalist 30 years ago, I came across a technique that some tabloid newspaper reporters would use to get someone to speak with them. They would work in pairs with the first one knocking on the door of some distressed family who didn't want to talk with the media. He would tell them he was from a newspaper he didn't really work for and treat them with aggression and contempt to make them even more upset.

He would then leave and his colleague would knock on the door, tell them the real newspaper he was from, and act like Mr. Nice Guy. He would say that he understood completely how upsetting the other man must have been, but 'if you will only speak to me exclusively I will make sure that the other man, nor anyone like him, won't bother you again'. They usually agreed and the scam was complete.

Much the same thing is happening with regard to Bush and Obama. The Neoconservative 'Republican' wing of the Illuminati controlled Bush for eight years and led the country into foreign wars and financial chaos (bad guy/problem); now the 'Democratic' wing, led by the infamous Zbigniew Brzezinski, has brought forth the 'saviour', Barack Obama, to lead us into the sunshine with 'hope' and 'change' (good guy/solution).

Hence even some more aware people say: 'At least he's not Bush'.

Apart from the unspecified 'hope, 'change' and 'believe', few have any idea what Obama's policies will be. Public perception comes from having an 'image' of him, or a self-projection, not the fine print because Obama doesn't do fine print until the votes are cast and even then he will hide it in his windbag words.

There is an 'image' that Obama is against war, but no he's not. He says he's against the invasion of Iraq, though we'll see what he does about that in office. How can a man calling for more troops, including European troops, to be sent to Afghanistan be against war? He has also said he is prepared to bomb Pakistan and use military force to stop Iran building nuclear weapons and he has appointed Hillary 'Let's bomb 'em' Clinton (Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations) as Secretary of State and re-appointed Bush's 'Let's bomb 'em' Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates (Bilderberg Group, Council on Foreign Relations). So that's the 'change we can believe in', then.

Obama isn't against war at all and, if his controllers have their way, he will engage the US in even more foreign conflicts with the troops sent to their deaths, and the deaths of their targets, on a wave of oratory from the dark suit with the black face who would never go where he's sending them.

He claims to be a 'uniter', which is exactly what Bush said about himself before he came to office, but unity in and of itself is not the issue. Nazi Germany had unity in the early years of the war, but was that a good thing? What matters is what the unity is designed to achieve and Obama's much-vaunted 'unity' is to 'inspire' a mass movement to support the Orwellian plans of the Illuminati.

His constant rhetoric about 'bringing people together' can be used to justify the 'coming together' of the United States, Canada and Mexico in the North American Union; it can be used to concede America's sovereignty to the 'coming together' of the 'world community' (world dictatorship); it can be used to unite the believers in their opposition and condemnation of non-believers, which is precisely what happened in Nazi Germany with the book-burning and violent suppression of those who challenged the Hitler regime.

The potential of Obama Mania is endless when it comes to selling fascism as 'hope, change', 'freedom' and a 'New America', or 'New World' [Order].

Bush and Cheney were transparent warmongers and would always have struggled to bring in the draft, the compulsory enlistment of people into the military against their will. But it would not be as difficult for Obama in the current climate. For goodness sake, he's already talking about compulsory community service for middle school, high school and college students and creating a peoples' army in America.

That's why I say Obama is far more dangerous to freedom than Bush. In the last eight years Bush could only get part of the way to fascism - Obama has the potential to finish the job, for all the reasons I have mentioned and more.

You only have to look at the cabal behind Obama, and those he has already appointed to his administration team, to see what his 'change' is truly planned to be. His mentor, svengali and main controller is Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor, and the co-founder, with David Rockefeller, of the Illuminati's Trilateral Commission.

Brzezinski has admitted publicly that he began to fund and train what he would call today 'terrorists' in Afghanistan to oppose the Soviet-controlled government in the capital, Kabul, in the late 1970s. The idea, he said, was to entice the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan to protect the Kabul regime and thus give the rival superpower 'their Vietnam'. The plan worked at the cost of a million Afghan lives during the Soviet occupation from 1979 to 1989, a consequence that troubles Brzezinski not at all.

Brzezinski's 'freedom fighters' would become known as the 'Mujahideen' and later the Taliban and what is claimed to be 'Al-Qaeda'. This is the man behind 'anti-war', Barack Obama. It was common knowledge that President Carter would do nothing involving foreign policy without the okay from Brzezinski, the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission which chose Carter for president.

It is one of many great ironies of the Obama presidency that he is demanding massive troop reinforcements to be sent to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban terrorists who were initially armed, trained and organised by Brzezinski, the man behind Obama. As Morpheus says in The Matrix: 'Fate, it seems, is not without its sense of irony'.

But then, in Brzezinski's case, it is not 'fate', but cold calculation that has brought it all about. The Poland-born Brzezinski has a fierce hatred of Russia and that is still one of his key targets, together with China.

And if they are Brzezinski's targets, they are Obama's targets.

The Trilateral Commission and the wider Brzezinski network, including Illuminati fronts like the Ford Foundation, have now chosen Obama and the situation will be the same. Brzezinski will call the shots; Obama's job is simply to sell them to the people. This is rather alarming when you think that Brzezinski wants to trigger a war involving Russia and China. 'Obama's' policies come straight from Brzezinski's books. Here is one Brzezinski quote you might recognise and it was made before Obama ran for president:

'Needed social reassessment ... can be encouraged by deliberate civic education that stresses the notion of service to a higher cause than oneself. As some have occasionally urged, a major step in that direction would be the adoption of an obligatory period of national service for every young adult, perhaps involving a variety of congressionally approved domestic or foreign good works.'

Now where have I heard that before?

As an Illuminati operative, Brzezinski's aim is to create a world government, central bank, currency and army - a global dictatorship - underpinned by a microchipped population connected to a global computer/satellite system. He wrote a book in 1970, Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era, in which he described the global society that he and the Illuminati seek to impose:

'The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.'

He also said in the same book nearly 40 years ago:

'Today we are again witnessing the emergence of transnational elites ... [Whose] ties cut across national boundaries ... It is likely that before long the social elites of most of the more advanced countries will be highly internationalist or globalist in spirit and outlook ... The nation-state is gradually yielding its sovereignty ... Further progress will require greater American sacrifices. More intensive efforts to shape a new world monetary structure will have to be undertaken, with some consequent risk to the present relatively favorable American position.'

And what does his puppet, Obama, now say that Americans have to do to bring about 'change'? 'Make sacrifices'. As Mrs. Demagogue, Michelle, said:

'We need a different leadership because our souls are broken. We need to be inspired ... to make the sacrifices that are needed to push us to a different place.'

You can bet that this will include sacrificing more sovereignty and freedom on the road to the global dictatorship described by Brzezinski for decades.

Brzezinski's son, Mark, was an 'advisor' to the Obama campaign (doing what his father told him) and, in line with the American one-party-state, his other son, Ian, was foreign policy advisor to the McCain campaign (doing what his father told him). His daughter, the Obama-supporting Mika Brzezinski, reported the campaign for MSNBC television.

Obama has been the chosen one for a long time, a fact known only to a few in the deep inner circle, and his relationship with Brzezinski almost certainly goes back to the start of the 1980s when he attended the Ivy League, and big-time Illuminati, Columbia University where Brzezinski was head of the Institute for Communist Affairs. Obama simply will not talk in any detail about this period. He has been covertly funded and supported ever since by the Trilateral Commission and its network of foundations connecting into the Ford Foundation, for whom Obama's mother worked.

And a question: Does anyone really believe that someone, a 'man of the people', would simply appear from apparently nowhere to run the slickest and best-funded presidential campaign in American history? He was chosen long ago by those who wish to enslave the very people that Obama says he wants to 'set free'.

The sources of Obama funding read like a Wall Street Who's Who - Goldman Sachs, UBS, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, J.P. Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and so on. No wonder he went back on his pledge to accept the limitations of public funding for his campaign and instead took the no-limit option of 'private' funding.

And those people are going to support a candidate who does not represent their best interests?? Oh please.

Obama and his seasoned network of professional manipulators, sorry his 'campaign team', sold the lie that he had refused to take funding from 'lobbyists', those who are paid to ensure that politicians frame legislation, or block it, in the interests of their clients.

But like everything that surrounds Obama, past and present, it's a sleight of hand and mouth. They funnelled vast sums of money into the Obama accounts through law firms that represent lobbyists and lobby groups. It provided 'plausible denial' about funding from lobbyists while the money poured in from lobby interests via third parties.

Then there is the Jewish financier, George Soros, the multi-billionaire associate of Brzezinski and closely involved with the funding and marketing of Obama. Soros is a former board member of the Illuminati's Council on Foreign Relations and funds the European Council on Foreign Relations. In short, he is a major insider.

You can certainly see the Soros/Brzezinski techniques in the Obama 'revolution' in the United States. It was the complex and secretive network of Soros foundations and organisations, connected to the intelligence agencies of the US and Israel, that trained and funded students in the Ukraine, Georgia and elsewhere in the art of mass protest and overthrowing governments.

These manufactured protests were sold to the world as 'peoples' revolutions', but it just so happened that when they were over and the old regime was removed the new leaders were those waiting in the wings all along - the puppets of Soros, Brzezinski and their associated networks.

Obama is just more of the same, a big smile with strings attached, and controlled completely by the Illuminati networks that chose him, trained him, sold him and provided his record funding. It was they who kept his many skeletons under wraps, like the gay sex and crack cocaine allegations of Larry Sinclair, and they will continue to do so as long as he jumps to their bidding.

Obama is just another Banksters' moll prostituting himself for fame and power, and that's why he supported the grotesque bail-out of the banking system and why he will always put their interests before the people. His financial advisors are straight from the Wall Street 'A' list, including Paul Adolph Volker (Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg Group), the head of the Federal Reserve from 1979 to 1987 and Illuminati to his fingertips.

Obama has made him head of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board, which is dominated by insiders, including its staff director and chief economist, Austan Goolsbee, a close Obama associate from the University of Chicago. Goolsbee is an initiate of the infamous Illuminati Skull and Bones Society at Yale University, which also includes Boy and Father Bush. It was Goolsbee who told the Canadian government not to worry about Obama's attacks on the economic effects of 'free trade' agreements because his words were just to win votes in the election campaign.

Another Wall Street insider, the Zionist Timothy Geithner (Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations), was appointed by Obama to be his Treasury Secretary. Geithner was the President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, the most powerful in the private 'Federal' Reserve cartel that masquerades as America's 'central bank', and he is a former employee of both the Council on Foreign Relations and the appalling Kissinger Associates.

Obama's Treasury team locks into the inner circle around the Zionist Robert Rubin, the Director and Senior Counselor of Citigroup, co-chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, and economic advisor to Obama. Rubin, a member of the Illuminati Bilderberg Group, was the man behind Citigroup's strategy of expanding its risk in debt markets which forced it to be rescued by taxpayers' money.

The very people who caused the financial crisis are being appointed by Obama to decide how to respond to it (more taxpayers' money for them and their friends).

Rubin was Treasury Secretary to Bill Clinton and was followed in that post by Larry Summers (Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations) - another insider appointed to Obama's team of 'change'. Summers is a fanatical supporter of 'free trade' (freedom to exploit) and 'globalisation' (global dictatorship) and he wrote a memo in 1991, while chief economist to the World Bank, saying that the bank should dump toxic waste in poor countries because the costs of the ensuing ill-health and death would be lower. When the memo was made public, Brazil's then-Secretary of the Environment, Jose Lutzenburger, told Summers:

'Your reasoning is perfectly logical but totally insane ... Your thoughts [provide] a concrete example of the unbelievable alienation, reductionist thinking, social ruthlessness and the arrogant ignorance of many conventional 'economists' concerning the nature of the world we live in ... If the World Bank keeps you as vice president it will lose all credibility. To me it would confirm what I often said ...the best thing that could happen would be for the Bank to disappear.'

Lutzenburger was dismissed shortly after writing this letter while the horrific Summers was made US Treasury Secretary by Bill Clinton and now he has been appointed to head the National Economic Council by Mr. 'change', hope' and 'believe' Obama. It's all a fairy story.

Bloomberg.com reported that the Center for American Progress (CAP), housed just three blocks from the White House, has become a major source for policy initiatives for the Obama Democratic Party. Who funds the Center for American Progress? George Soros.

It is simply the Neocon Project for the New American Century and the American Enterprise Institute under another name. Those two organisations developed and dictated the Bush policy of war and suppression of freedom and the 'CAP' and others like it will do the same for Obama. The CAP will fit and Obama will wear it.

In fact, except in name and rhetoric, there is no difference in theme between the regimes of Bush and Obama. Bush policy was dictated through Illuminati 'think tanks' and so is Obama's.

Bush was surrounded by slavish pursuers of Israeli interests and so is Obama. Mr. 'Change' has pledged his unquestioning support for Israel to the point of 'pass the sick bag' and his vice-president, Joe Biden (Bilderberg Group, Council on Foreign Relations), is a vehement Zionist who makes a virtue of saying he will support Israel in all circumstances.

Obama has appointed the arch Zionist Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff and another super Zionist Jew, Dennis Ross, to be his Middle East Policy advisor. God help the Palestinians. Ross also served in the Bill Clinton and Father George Bush administrations. Oh, plenty of 'change' there, then.

Rahm Emanuel, a Chicago-born Congressman, is the son of Benjamin M. Emanuel, who was a member of the murderous Jewish terrorist organisation, Irgun, which helped to bomb and terrorise Israel into existence. The Open Secrets website reports that Emanuel was the top House recipient in 2008 for election contributions from 'hedge funds, private equity firms and the larger securities/investment industry'.

Emanuel was also appointed by Bill Clinton to the board of the mortgage giant Freddie Mac in 2000 and his tenure coincided with a stream of scandals and financial irregularities. It famously had to be bailed out by the taxpayer amid the sub-prime mortgage debacle.

Emanuel, like Obama himself, is an asset of the 'Illinois Combine', a cross-party network of politicians and business interests that conspires to manipulate Chicago politics for their own benefit. Even before taking over at the White House Emanuel faced calls for his resignation for alleged connections with the Rod Blagojevich scandal.

In December 2008 Blagojevich, the Illinois governor and associate of Obama, was arrested over a conspiracy involving massive corruption and moves to sell Obama's Senate seat in Chicago made vacant by his election to the presidency. It is yet another example of the staggering web on ongoing and infamous corruption in Chicago by the very networks that spawned Obama.

A close friend of Rahm Emanuel is another clone of the Illinois Combine, the Zionist, David Axelrod, who ran Obama's election campaign and will no doubt be highly influential in the Obama administration. Axelrod is a veteran of Chicago politics, one of the most corrupt political systems in the world and he worked for many Chicago mayors in the 1990s and on Obama's senate campaign in 2004.

Bill Clinton took his Arkansas cabal to Washington when he became president in 1993 and Obama is uploading his Chicago mob and handing them key positions of national power and influence. And these guys don't take prisoners.

All of this may be many things, none of them pleasant, but 'change' it isn't.

David Axelrod, Obama's 'narrator' and handler. Click here for a background article that needs some reading between the lines ...

Obama is a monumental fraud who talks a good story, but lives a very different one. He won his first political office as a state senator in Chicago in 1996, not through the power of his policies, but by coldly abusing the electoral process.

Instead of running against his opponents and letting the people decide, he had his cronies challenge hundreds of names on the nomination papers of his Democratic primary rivals until they were all forced off the ballot by technicalities. He then ran unopposed. One of them, Gha-is Askia, says that Obama's behaviour belied his image as a champion of the little guy and crusader for voter rights:

'Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates? He talks about honour and democracy, but what honour is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?'

Why? Because he would probably have lost and Obama isn't interested in losing by playing fair. He wants to win by any means necessary. The only voter-right he's interested in is the right to vote for him. He has also used his hatchet-men like Axelrod to employ scandal to discredit opponents to ensure his election when the real scandal is the truth about Obama himself.

He is a classically corrupt main-chancer spawned from the Chicago political cesspit. His close connections, therefore, to seriously dodgy 'businessmen' and fraudsters like the now-jailed slum landlord Tony Rezko are exactly what you would expect.

Rezko, yet another snout in the trough of the Illinois Combine, has heavily funded Obama's political career and that of the now-arrested Rod Blagojevich, and in return they have supported massive sums being paid to Rezko by Chicago taxpayers to run 'public housing'.

These properties were then allowed to fall into such a state of danger and disrepair, including sewage running into kitchen sinks, that they were deemed unfit for habitation by the often black poor that Obama was supposed to be representing as a Senator. Some buildings were so bad they had to be demolished.

Rezko also secured appointments for his business associates to state boards and was eventually indicted for using these connections to demand kickbacks from businesses that wanted to do business with the state.

Rezko and Obama toured the $1.6 million mansion in Hyde Park, Chicago, which the Obamas bought at $300,000 below the asking price in 2005 while the Rezkos purchased the adjoining land at the full asking price. Some of this land was later bought by the Obamas. Rezko contributed a quarter of a million dollars to Obama's political career and served on Obama's Senate campaign finance committee, which raised more than $14 million.

Then there is Obama's close association with the terrorists, William Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn. In the late sixties Ayers co-founded the terror organisation called the Weather Underground (also known as the Weathermen and similar derivatives) and launched a campaign of bombing public places like the Pentagon and the Capitol Building. Three members were killed making bombs in Greenwich Village.

In 1970 Ayers was said to have described their philosophy as: 'Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at ...' Mr. Ayers himself comes from the home of 'rich people'.

Bernardine Dohrn said this about the Charles Manson murders: 'Dig it! Manson killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they shoved a fork into a victim's stomach.''

William Ayers in 1968.

On the day of 9/11 he told the New York Times that he didn't regret the Weather Underground bombing campaign and believed they didn't do enough.

The case against Ayers and Dohrn was thrown out because of then illegal wire-taps and Ayers is now a professor in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, holding the titles of Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar.

Ayers recruited Obama to serve as chairman on the $100 million Chicago Annenberg Challenge and they worked together for seven years handing out grants to the 'educational' projects of people like ... William Ayers. They also worked together on another tax-exempt foundation, the Woods Fund in Chicago, which awarded grants to Obama's own Trinity United Church, home to his controversial pastor, Jeremiah Wright.

Obama's political career was effectively launched in 1995, just after he was made chairman of the Annenberg Challenge, at a meeting at the Chicago home of ... William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. They have been connected to his circle ever since if the truth be told.

The Chicago Annenberg Challenge, run by Obama and Ayers, didn't fund schools directly, but instead insisted that they affiliate with 'external partners' who were granted the money. These turned out to be far-left 'community organisers' so beloved of Bill Ayers and these groups included the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).

Obama also conducted 'leadership training' seminars with Acorn and its members began to become heavily involved in his political campaigns. It has also been behind efforts to 'register voters' (voters most likely to vote for Obama) and Nevada state officials raided Acorn's Las Vegas office after election authorities accused the group of submitting multiple voter registrations with fake and duplicate names.

Among the major funders of Acorn ... George Soros.

Obama even refuses to prove that he was born in the United States and thus qualifies to be President. He claims to have been born in Hawaii, but his grandmother, half-brother and half-sister in Kenya all insist he was born there.

'Mr. Clean' Obama has a deeply dirty background, but for now no scale of evidence will stop the swooning Obama zombies from believing the hype or burst their reality bubble. That is going to take hard experience and it could take some time and a lot of disappointment before they are released from the clutches of cognitive dissonance and have to admit to themselves they have been had.

It is the same for all the black people who voted for what they thought was the first black president when, in truth, he is a man in a black mask representing the interests of the white-faced Illuminati cabal, the very families and networks that ran the slave trade.

I don't want to be the bringer of bad news or the thwarter of dreams, but honesty demands it. The man is a trickster controlled by supertricksters. A sock puppet controlled by bigger sock puppets who serve an even greater and darker evil. To his masters, Obama is just a means to an end and if it suits them to assassinate him to trigger civil war and upheaval in the United States then that is what they will do.

Oh dear Oprah, how will you cope when reality dawns? But, then, will it ever??

'What? You mean you're not the Lord?'

I can understand the appeal of Obama because people want him to be what he claims to be, but isn't. They are sick of the conflict, the corruption, the struggle we call 'life' and they want it all to change. But Obama's change is illusory and represents only the continued transformation of society in the image envisaged by Orwell.

We will see some apparently good things announced, like the closing of Guantanamo, to give the impression that Obama means what he says. But keep your eye on the ball and you'll see how the agenda of the global tyranny is introduced under the guise of Obama's 'hope', 'change', 'believe', 'sacrifice' and 'coming together'.

It could take two years, maybe much more, before cognitive dissonance (lying to yourself) loses it current grip on the minds of the Obama faithful. Until then they will make endless excuses for him (lie to themselves) to keep the 'dream' alive.

But one day they will have to admit, by the power of the evidence before them, that they bought a dream and got a nightmare. What a pity they can't see the obvious now and save them themselves such painful disappointment.

Dick Cheney hurt his back while trying to remove giant boxes of EVIDENCE...

Dick Cheney hurt his back while trying to remove giant boxes of EVIDENCE...

For those with a discernible ear and good recall you may remember the odd off topic statement by Cheney during his post shooting interview with brit Hume. Out of the blue Cheney asserted the Vice President is allowed to disclose top secret information at their own discretion.

C-R-I-M-I-N-A-L and above the law of the land for decades....working for the Nexus of evils CIA2/MOSSAD and the power behind the power in USA...

Why doesn’t Cheney follow the law...?

For the third year in a row the Office of Vice President Dick Cheney has refused to disclose data on its classification and declassification activity, in an apparent violation of an executive order issued by President Bush.
“The Office of the Vice President (OVP), the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), and the Homeland Security Council (HSC) failed to report their data to ISOO this year,” the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) noted in its new 2005 Annual Report to the President http://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/2005rpt.pdf (at page 9, footnote 1).
The Office of the Vice President has declined to report such data since 2002. Yet it is clear that disclosure is not optional.
http://www.fas.org/ blog/ secrecy/ 2006/ 05/ vice_president_refuses_to_repo.html

Why was Dick Cheney meeting with a notorious “terrorist” supporter in the 1990’s? Why did the CEO of Ptech confirm Cheney’s close relationship to this man? What role did Ptech play in Cheney’s activities on 9/11?

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/ searchResults.jsp?searchtext=cheney&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go

Mid-1990s: Al-Qadi Claims Good Relationship with Cheney

Saudi multimillionaire Yassin al-Qadi will say in an interview shortly after 9/11, “I have also met with US Vice President and former Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney in Jeddah [Saudi Arabia]. I spoke to him for a long time and we still have cordial relations. The US had named al-Qadi a supporter of terrorism and frozen his assets two days before.

Oussama Ziade, CEO of Ptech, a US computer company that al-Qadi had invested in and that will be raided for suspected terrorism ties, later will claim that al-Qadi “talked very highly of his relationship with Cheney. Ziade will claim he only knew al-Qadi for a few years starting around 1994, so presumably the contact between al-Qadi and Cheney happens during the mid-1990s.

http://www.rumormillnews.com/ cgi-bin/ archive.cgi?read=68463

“Ptech was with MITRE Corporation in the basement of the FAA for two years prior to 9/11,” Singh said. “Their specific job is to look at interoperability issues the FAA had with NORAD and the Air Force in the case of an emergency. If anyone was in a position to know that the FAA – that there was a window of opportunity or to insert software or to change anything “ it would have been Ptech along with MITRE.”

http://www.rumormillnews.com/ cgi-bin/ archive.cgi?read=68985

Ptech “produced software that derived from PROMIS, had an artificial intelligence core, and was installed on virtually every computer system of the U.S. government and its military agencies on September 11, 2001,”

Cheney was in the Washington bunker, while Bush was at the school. He was in command. Scholars for 911 Truth point out

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

that Secretary of Transportation, Mineta Confirm this. Others point out he was also conducting numerous military drills that day that did confuse land workers.

Mineta’s testimony is devastating,” observed James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., McKnight Professor at the University of Minnesota. Fetzer is the founder and co-chair of the scholars’ society, which recently joined with Judicial Watch in calling for release of documents, films and videos, and physical evidence withheld from the public by the administration. “It pulls the plug on the Commission’s contention there was no advance warning that the Pentagon was going to be hit.”

According to Secretary Mineta’s testimony, which is in the public domain, when he (Mineta) arrived at an underground bunker at the White House (known as the Presidential Emergency Operations Center), the Vice President was in charge. “During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon”, he stated, “there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, ‘The plane is 50 miles out.’ ‘The plane is 30 miles out.’

“And when it got down to, ‘The plane is 10 miles out,’” Mineta continued, “the young man also said to the Vice President, ‘Do the orders still stand?’ And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, ‘Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?’” One way to construe these remarks could be that the orders were to shoot down the plane.

The scholars suggest that that is an implausible interpretation. The Pentagon, they observe, may be the most heavily defended building in the world. If the orders had been to “shoot it down,” then no doubt it would have been shot down. Moreover, there would have been no apparent reason for the young man to have expressed concern over whether or not “the orders still stand.” Shooting it down, under the circumstances, would have been the thing to do.

“The only reasonable interpretation of the orders,” Fetzer observed, “is that the incoming aircraft should not be shot down, which would have been an obvious source of anxiety for an aide. Since it contradicts the official story about the Pentagon,” he added, “it had to be suppressed and was not even included in The 9/11 Commission Report.” And other scholars, including Professor David Ray Griffin of Claremont Graduate University, have drawn the same conclusion.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul110.html

Under oath, Vice President Cheney’s former chief of staff Scooter Libby told a grand jury that he first learned that Joe Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA agent from conversations with the media. In fact, he first learned that information from Vice President Cheney himself.

Libby is now on trial for perjury. His defense is that he simply forgot who told him that Plame worked for the CIA. But in court today, prosecutors outlined a powerful case establishing that Libby had reason to remember who told him and motive to cover it up. MSNBC’s David Schuster said today’s revelations from prosecutors are “new and will astound a number of people, even those who have been following this case.” Among the new claims:

– “Vice President Cheney himself directed Scooter Libby to essentially go around protocol and deal with the press and handle press himself…to try to beat back the criticism of administration critic Joe Wilson.”

– Cheney personally “wrote out for Scooter Libby what Libby should say in a conversation with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper.”

– “Scooter Libby destroyed a note from Vice President Cheney about their conversations and about how Vice President Cheney wanted the Wilson matter handled.”

Transcript:

SCHUSTER: During opening arguments in the case against Scooter Libby, prosecutors outlined evidence about Vice President Cheney’s role in the leak of CIA operative Valerie Wilson that is new and will astound a number of people, even those who have been following this case. The prosecutors said the evidence will make it clear that the very first government official who told Scooter Libby about Valerie Wilson, the wife of a critic and the fact that she was working at the CIA, the very first person who told him that was Vice Ppresident Cheney. The prosecutor said the evidence will also show Vice President Cheney himself directed Scooter Libby to essentially go around protocol and deal with the press and handle press himself, that Scooter Libby should be the one talking to the press to try to beat back the criticism of administration critic Joe Wilson.

Prosecutors also revealed today that Vice President Cheney himself wrote out for Scooter Libby what Scooter Libby should say in a conversation with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper. It was during that conversation when Scooter Libby provided confirmation to Cooper that Valerie Wilson worked at the CIA. In addition, there were some blockbuster revelations this morning about Scooter Libby’s actions before he testified to the FBI about the original leak. According to prosecutors, the evidence will show that Scooter Libby destroyed a note from Vice President Cheney about their conversations and about how Vice President Cheney wanted the Wilson matter handled.

There was other information that came out about Vice President Cheney. The prosecutors talked about the State of the Union speech where the president made a false claim about reasons for war with Iraq — the idea that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger. When that came out, and the white house was trying to figure out who should take responsibility, according to prosecutors, Vice President Cheney repeatedly urged the Director of the CIA George Tenet to take full responsibility and that no blame whatsoever should land on the president or Office of the Vice President.

It was blockbuster developments about Vice President Cheney. This is the kind of information that supporters of the Vice President have feared would come out in this trial. The Vice President is not accused of any wrongdoin, but prosecutors are building their case, trying to give the jury a motive for why Scooter Libby did what he did as far as blaming reporters for passing along classified information when, the prosecutors allege, he learned that from the beginning from the Vice President.