From Creativeyouth.net
Barack Obama has made it clear that he supports a missile strike on Iran. His voting record proves he doesn't want to bring the troops home - despite his rhetoric. In his short time in the Senate, Obama has voted to shaft the poor, blacks, immigrants, the sick and other groups that expect better from a candidate endorsed by Jesse Jackson. Obama has supported nominees (such as through his cloture vote for Priscilla Owen) that make Alberto Gonzales look like a liberal Democrat.
Below is Obama's 2005 and 2006 voting record. This was collected by a national liberal Democratic organizaion. The news team at Creative Youth has thoroughly checked it out in Thomas.loc.gov and found it to be completely accurate. Get out your vomit bags and see who Obama is and what he really stands for.
1/06/05: Obama voted for Bush's Ohio electors. Roll Call 1
1/26/05: Obama voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State. Rice was largely responsible for 9/11, the Iraq War, threats of war against Iran, Syria,Venezuela and other nations. and for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent victims in unnecessary wars of her making. Roll call 2
2/01/05: Obama was part of a unanimous consent agreement not to filibuster the nomination of lawless torturer Alberto Gonzales as chief law enforcement officer of the United States (U.S. Attorney General). No roll call is available to view but the unanimous consent is noted in Thomas.loc.gov
2/10/05: Obama voted for an act known by liberals as The Class Action Extreme UnFairness Act of 2005 (S 5) that makes it much more difficult, if not impossible, for victims to seek and obtain damages in class action suits filed against wrongdoers who have harmed multiple victims. Roll call 9
2/15/05: Obama voted to confirm Michael Chertoff, a proponent of water-board torture, an individual connected to the financing of 9/11 and the man behind the round-up of thousands of people of Middle-Eastern descent following 9/11. By confirming him, Obama, in effect, endorsed terrorist attacks on America, water-board torture and racism. One consequence of Obama's' vote to confirm Chertoff was the Katrina disaster. Roll call 10. (In May, 2005, Obama voted to give Chertoff the authority to waive all laws with no judicial review and no relief. See below.)
4/21/05: Obama voted to make John "Death Squad" Negroponte the National Intelligence Director. In Central America, John Negroponte was connected to death squads that murdered nuns and children in sizable quantities. He is suspected of instigating death squads while in Iraq, resulting in the current insurgency. Instead of calling for Negroponte's prosecution, Obama rewarded him by making him National Intelligence Director. On 4/17/05, the California Democratic Party unanimously passed a resolution discussing the death squads and calling on Senators to reject the nomination of John Negroponte. Roll call 107
4/21/05: Obama voted for HR 1268, war appropriations in the amount of approximately $81 billion.a bill. Much of this funding went to Blackwater USA and Halliburton and disappeared. Roll call 109 [W FOR PRO-WAR VOTE]
5/10/05: Obama voted to give the Secretary of Homeland Security, the power to waive all laws (inclusive of murder, kidnapping and rape and all other heinous crimes) with no judicial review and no relief, and to essentially eliminate the ability of refugees to seek political asylum in the United States. This bill was was a combination of two bills (HR1268/HR418), both of which were harmful to life and freedom. HR 1268 was an appropriations bill which gave profits to contractors who benefitted from wars. HR 418 presumed to override Articles I,II and III of the U.S. Constitution. This bill allowed Chertoff to legally commit any crime he wanted to commit in New Orleans, and elsewhere, with the result being the Katrina disaster. It also set up the basis for a Nazi-style national ID Card, similar to the ones issued by Hitler's Regime. Obama voted for all this in Roll Call 117. [W]
5/24/05: Obama voted for cloture on Priscilla Owen for the 5th Circuit. Torture-proponent Alberto Gonzales even called Owen extreme in her right-wing stances. Her record shows that she is anti-environment, anti-labor, anti-civil rights, anti-human rights, pro-discrimination and pro-polluter. Activists tried to stop cloture as the confirmation vote was a sure thing once the Senate voted for cloture. Roll call 127
6/14/05: Obama further stabbed the women's movement in the back by voting to confirm Thomas B. Griffith to a lifetime appointment as a justice on the DC Circuit, a court often used as a stepping stone for the U.S. Supreme Court. Griffith, who is not licensed to practice law in Utah (his home state), believes that equal opportunity for women violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. In February, 2007, thanks to Obama's backing of Griffith, the DC circuit has now ruled that Guantanamo detainees have no right to habeas corpus. Roll call 136
6/23/05: Obama voted for cloture on HR 6, considered by environmental groups to be a sellout of the environment to the nuclear, coal and automotive industries. It provides for rewards for unsafe, pollution-ridden fuel sources and car makers who wanted to continue making inefficient cars. It also gave Bush the power to destroy the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. Roll call 152
6/28/05: Obama voted to pass HR 6, the sellout of the environment to the nuclear, coal-burning and automotive industries discussed above. Roll call 158
7/01/05: Obama voted for H.R. 2419, termed "The Nuclear Bill" by environmental and peace groups. It provided billions for nuclear weapons activities, including nuclear bunker buster bombs. It contains full funding for Yucca Mountain, a threat to food and water in California, Nevada, Arizona and states across America.. Roll call 172 [W]
7/20/05: Obama voted to punish countries opposed to the death penalty. Under Roll Call196, funds and assistance would no longer be made available to any country which refused to extradite individuals to the United States because of a moral objection to the use, by the United States, of the death penalty. The United States is essentially alone among Western nations in its use of the death penalty. S. Amdt 1271 to HR 3057.
7/29/05: Obama voted for the conference report on the Energy Bill (HR 6), which was a boon to Halliburton and subjected Americans to the risk of exposure to lethal levels of radiation and mercury poisoning. Roll call 213
9/15/05: Obama voted to allow the use of low-cost foreign labor, in violation of labor laws, in New Orleans following Katrina. He opposed the Dorgan Amendment to the appropriations for science, state, justice and commerce. The amendment attempted to stop the use of appropriated funding for low-cost foreign labor in violation of labor laws to rebuild New Orleans. Obama's vote stabbed American workers in the back and further damaged laborers hurt by the loss of their homes and businesses in New Orleans. Obama's vote resulted in the importation of under-paid foreign laborers to displace American workers. Roll call 232. S Amdt 1665 to HR 2862.
9/26/05 & 9/28/05: Obama failed and refused to place a hold on the nomination of John Roberts, a supporter of permanent detention of Americans without trial, and of torture and military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees. John Roberts's wife worked for Operation Rescue, an organization that uses extreme measures (including violence) to oppose women's doctors. John Roberts has questioned the Constitutionality of the Violence Against Women Act and of the Endangered Species Act. He has also expressed opposition to equal pay for women. Roberts was responsible for a plan to disenfranchise tens of thousands of African-Americans in Florida in 2000. Roberts was a personal pick of Pat Robertson, a man who has called for the assassination of the first world leader (of all world leaders, including our own) to offer aid to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. In his confirmation hearings, Roberts refused to say whether he would uphold legislation that overrode a presidential veto. A unanimous consent agreement was necessary to take Roberts's nominatin to the floor, and Obama could have placed a hold on the nomination but would not do so despite the opposition of over 80% of the American public to the Roberts nomination.
10/07/05: Obama voted for HR2863, which appropriated $50 billion in new money for war. Roll call 2 [W]
10/27/05: Obama voted to confirm Susan Blake Neilson for the Sixth Circuit. She had a history of being a judicial activist against plaintiffs in civil rights, employment, personal injury and government negligence cases and a tendency to dismiss claims that present triable issues of fact. Both of her state Senators felt she was so extreme that they blue-slipped her. Roll call 277
10/27/05: Obama voted to slash funding for health care, education and other programs., such as those to help the uninsured by backing cloture on HR 3010 and then voted for the bill . Roll calls 275 and 281
11/14/05: Obama voted again for "The Nuclear Bill" in Roll Call 321. This was the vote on the Conference Report on the Nuclear Bill (HR 2419). As the House had already approved the Conference Report, this was the last opportunity for anyone in Congress to say "no" to this disastrous bill which threatened California's water and food supply and provides billions of dollars for the kind of nuclear weapons activities violative of international law. [W]
11/15/05: Obama voted for continued war, again. Roll call 326 was the vote on the Defense Authorization Act (S1042) which kept the war and war profiteering alive, restricted the right of habeas corpus and encouraged terrorism. Pursuant to his pattern, Obama voted for this. [W]
12/21/05: Obama confirmed his support for war by voting for the Conference Report on the Defense Appropriations Act (HR 2863), Roll call 366, which provided more funding to Halliburton and Blackwater. [W]
2/2/06: Obama voted to extend the USA-PATRIOT's attack on the Constitution for five weeks to allow Congress time to put together the support to adopt the renewal of USA-PATRIOT. Roll call 11
2/16/06: Obama voted for cloture on "USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006," S2271. The USA PATRIOT Act The act still contained the most objectionable provisions from 2001 and had a new provision allowing the government to collect lists of people and kids suffering from colds and allergies. The renewal still allowed the government to do all the other really bad stuff it had been doing under the PATRIOT Act and it could still obtain library records (even though the public was misled into believing otherwise). Those voting on the bill knew that it was worse than the original but worked to deceive the public about how much more freedom had been taken away. This cloture vote guaranteed passage. Roll call 22
3/1/06: Obama voted to pass S2271, the USA PATRIOT Act. Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006, which strengthened and made worse the original USA-PATRIOT Act. Roll call 25
3/1/06: Obama voted for cloture on the USA-PATRIOT Act (HR 3199), Conference Report. This was the last real chance to stop the Act. It was known that there would not be enough votes to stop the act and so stopping cloture was the most important issue. Obama voted for this. Roll call 28
3/2/06: Obama voted for the conference report on USA-PATRIOT, itself, made worse than the original by changes that removed more freedom from the American people and gave more power to agencies trying to deprive Americans of their Constitutional Rights and making most of the most intrusive provisions permanent. This was the last chance to stop USA-PATRIOT. Roll call 29.
3/27/06: Obama voted to confirm pro-nuclear war profiteer Dennis Spurgeon as Assistant Secretary of Energy. Spurgeon's appointment will likely lead to Chernobyls in the U.S. and to more wars. Roll call 76.
5/2/06: Obama voted for money for more war by voting for cloture on HR 4939, the emergency funding to Halliburton, Blackwater and other war profiteers. Roll call 103 [W]
5/4/06: Obama, again, voted to adopt HR4939 the emergency funding to war profiteers. Roll call 112. [W]
5/8/06: Obama didn't care enough about the sick to show up to vote on the cloture vote on S. 22, AKA the Legalize Medical Murder by Capping the Malpractice Damages Bill. Roll call 115
5/16/06: Obama voted to confirm Milan D. Smith to the 9th Circuit. The appointment was part of an Bush's effort to turn the 9th Circuit from moderate to extreme right wing by adding justices to the Circuit who would support the Bush Agenda. This directly damaged the chances of getting a fair trial on the West Coast. Roll call 120
5/25/06: Obama voted against immigrants by backing S 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006, which was less fair to immigrants than the previous system or no bill at all.. Roll call 157.
5/25/06: Obama voted for cloture on the nomination of Brett M. Kavanaugh to be a justice on the D.C.Circuit, placing him in line for a future Supreme Court nomination. The trouble is that he is another right-wing extremist who will undercut human rights on the cases he judges. A result of his confirmation is the recent decision to deny Guantanamo detainees the right of habeas corpus. Roll call 158
5/26/06: Obama, again, opposed environmentalists in voting for the cloture on anti-environmentalist Dirk Kempthorne, who was nominated for Secretary of the Interior Roll Call 161
6/13/06: Obama voted to commend the armed services for a bombing that killed innocent people and children and reportedly resulted in the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a person unlikely ever to have existed and who was reported killed three times previously. Michael Berg, whose son was reportedly killed by al-Zarqawi, condemned the attack and expressed sorrow over the innocent people and children killed in the bombing that Obama commended. Roll call 168 [W]
6/15/06: Obama voted for the conference report on HR4939, a bill that gave warmongers more money to continue the killing and massacre of innocent people in Iraq and allows profiteers to collect more money for scamming the people of New Orleans. Roll Call 171 [W]
6/15/06: Obama, again, opposed withdrawal of the troops, by voting to table a motion to table a proposed amendment would have required the withdrawal of US. Armed Forces from Iraq and would have urged the convening of an Iraq summit (S Amdt 4269 to S. Amdt 4265 to S2766). The result of Obama's vote is that the reported US death toll is now over 3000 and the reported civilian death toll is about 700,000. Families of those who have died in Iraq since 6/15/06 can send their bills for the funeral expenses to Barack Obama. Roll Call 174 [W]
6/19/06: Obama voted to confirm Sandra Segal Ikutu, another opponent of human rights, to the 9th Circuit. This was part of Bush's stacking of the 9th Circuit in a seeming effort to turn the 9th circuit from moderate to right-wing. Roll call 175
6/22/06: Obama voted against withdrawing the troops by opposing the Kerry Amendment (S. Amdt 4442 to S 2766) to the National Defense Authorization Act. The amendment, which was rejected, would have brought our troops home, ended the fighting and forced the Iraqi people to take charge of their security. Roll Call 181 [W]
6/22/06: Obama voted for cloture (the last effective chance to stop) on the National Defense Authorization Act (S 2766), which provided massive amounts of funding to defense contractors to continue the killing in Iraq. Roll Call 183 [W]
6/22/06: Obama again voted for continued war by voting to pass the National Defense Authorization Act (S 2766) continued war funding. Roll Call 186 [W]
6/29/06: Obama voted to adopt the United States - Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (S. 3569), which gave American jobs to foreign child slave laborers and eliminated environmental requirements for industries. Roll call 190
8/2/06: Obama voted to use $1.8 billion to guild a fence along the Mexican border to satisfy a group of anti-immigrant racists. Roll call 220
8/3/06: Obama voted to gut pensions of American workers in voting for HR4, AKA the Pension Destruction Act. Roll Call 230
9/7/06: Obama voted to give more money to profiteers for more war (H..R. 5631). . Roll Call 239 [W]
9/19/06: Voted for United States-Oman Cut Jobs for American Workers and Send them to India Trade Implementation Act (H. R. 5684). This and similar bills perpetuate the use of child slave labor and undercutting the environment while sending US jobs to foreign low-cost labor. Roll Call 250
9/29/06: Obama voted vote for the conference report on more funding for war, HR 5631. Roll Call 261 [W]
11/16/06: Obama voted for nuclear proliferation in voting to pass HR 5682, a bill to exempt the United States-India Nuclear Proliferation Act from requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Roll Call 270 [W]
12/06/06: Obama voted to confirm pro-war Robert M. Gates to be Secretary of Defense. Gates is a supporter of Bush's policies of pre-emptive war and conquest of foreign countries. Roll Call 272
12/07/06: Obama voted for cloture and confirmation of the confirmation of Andrew Von Eschenbach to be Commissioner of the FDA. Eschenbach favors unlabeled use of genetically-modified and cloned food products, Obama voted for cloture and confirmation (Roll Call 274). Roll Call 273 and 274.
12/8/06: In Roll Calls 275 and 276, Obama voted for cloture and confirmation of another of Bush's right wing Circuit Court nominees, Kent A. Jordan
(A note about cloture: often, with the Republicans in a majority in 2005 and 2006, the only way to stop nominees or bills was through opposing cloture. This frequently made Obama's votes for cloture worse than his vote for the bill itself . In some cases there was no role call on cloture and only the roll call to confirm or adopt the bill or nominee is available. Opposing cloture allows a minority party to stop a bill.)
Obama's voting record in 2007 establishes that he continues to be pro-war. On March 28, 2007 and March 29th, 2007, he voted for cloture and passage of a bill designed to give Bush over $120 billion to continue the occupation for years to come (with a suspendable time table) and inclusive of funding that could be used to launch a war with Iran. Roll calls 117 and 126.
Obama's record shows a minimum of 20 major pro-war votes. After voting 20 times for war, how dishonest is Obama when he claims to be for peace?
Barack Obama has been vetted and approved by the Bilderbergs and AIPAC, in part because of his strong stance in support of a military strike on Iran.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Monday, July 14, 2008
A Great Comment On Blind Faith in Party Politics
Obama himself said that dissent was perhaps the truest form of patriotism, yet I made a remark earlier today and received a reply asking if my check from McCain had cleared.
In my view, much of the division in the Democratic Party has come from supporters of the candidate, many who participate here, that stresses unity and change and to leave small politics behind. Perhaps some of these people should look in the mirror.
As a lifelong Democrat and activist who was involved when many here were in need of diaper changes, I am sick of the intolerance to dissenting views.
I vote Democratic, yet I am free to voice my views about my party. Just as I am free to dissent about my country. It makes me no less a Democrat or an American.
Some of these people should wake and stop expecting that to be a good Democrat means to follow the leader in lockstep or be impugned for not doing so. That is the way the other side does things. It reminds me more of Bushies for us or against us mentality, and I find that distressing.
Democrats are known for being able to have far reaching and diverse views, yet still be Democrats. Where that went, especially around here, I don't know.
by citizen53 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:57:40 AM PDT
In my view, much of the division in the Democratic Party has come from supporters of the candidate, many who participate here, that stresses unity and change and to leave small politics behind. Perhaps some of these people should look in the mirror.
As a lifelong Democrat and activist who was involved when many here were in need of diaper changes, I am sick of the intolerance to dissenting views.
I vote Democratic, yet I am free to voice my views about my party. Just as I am free to dissent about my country. It makes me no less a Democrat or an American.
Some of these people should wake and stop expecting that to be a good Democrat means to follow the leader in lockstep or be impugned for not doing so. That is the way the other side does things. It reminds me more of Bushies for us or against us mentality, and I find that distressing.
Democrats are known for being able to have far reaching and diverse views, yet still be Democrats. Where that went, especially around here, I don't know.
by citizen53 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:57:40 AM PDT
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
McCain Issues Top Ten Funniest Ways to Kill Iranians
Titled "John McCain's Top Ten Funniest Ways to Kill Iranians," the list was published on his official campaign website at
www.JohnMcCain.com/funnywaystokilliranians.
Speaking in a video on the site, a smiling Sen. McCain says, "My friends, in these trying times in which we live, there's one thing all Americans can agree on: killing Iranians is hilarious."
The list ends with what Sen. McCain dubs the number one funniest way to kill Iranians: "Vote for me."
Full Story here....
www.JohnMcCain.com/funnywaystokilliranians.
Speaking in a video on the site, a smiling Sen. McCain says, "My friends, in these trying times in which we live, there's one thing all Americans can agree on: killing Iranians is hilarious."
The list ends with what Sen. McCain dubs the number one funniest way to kill Iranians: "Vote for me."
Full Story here....
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Obama Voters Protest His Switch on Telecom Immunity
'Senator Barack Obama’s decision to support legislation granting legal immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the Bush administration’s program of wiretapping without warrants has led to an intense backlash among some of his most ardent supporters.'
For fuck's sake! If they're mad at this, wait till Mr. Switch, or Brzezinski's child, really gets going. As I have said from the start - Obama is a blatant fraud with strings attached to every limb.
Read more ...
Here is something else that shouldn't surprise you at all.
Washington Times - Obama aide signals shift on Iraq policy
As I have pointed out months ago.....
-At first, he opposed the war in Iraq while in the Illinois state legislature. When he began running for US Senate though, when public opinion and support for the war was at its highest, he was quoted in the July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune as saying, "There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute." The Tribune went on to say that Obama, "now believes US forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation – a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration."
-Since taking office in January 2005 he has voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward, totaling over $300 billion.
-Obama committed to keeping enough soldiers in Iraq to "carry out our counter-terrorism activities there" which includes "striking at al Qaeda in Iraq." What he didn’t say is this continued warfare will require an estimated 60,000 troops to remain in Iraq according to a May 2006 report prepared by the Center for American Progress.
-Obama voted to re-authorize Bush's Patriot Act.
Obama's speech to AIPAC Regarding Iran (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) 6/4/08
This is the same AIPAC that just recently pushed House resolution 362 upon us. Otherwise known as the Iran war resolution. Rest assured, Obama is busy on his bony little knees waxing their ballsacks so well that he recieved 13 standing ovations from AIPAC.
"I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon - everything," he said to a standing ovation.
“We will present a clear choice. If you abandon your dangerous nuclear program, your support for terror, and your threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives—including the lifting of sanctions and political and economic integration with the international community. If you refuse, we will ratchet up the pressure.”
Ok...so they start off by pushing war propaganda through the mainstream media, what I now call the tabloid media. After 3 years of being bombarded by this propaganda (Iran is building nukes, threatening to wipe israel off the map [Misquote], etc...) they give us the option of having a candidate who will at least negotiate with the Iranians. Yet the negotiations are all based on false war propaganda. He is asking Iran to disprove a negative. He is assuming that all of his and his cousin Cheney's talking points on Iran are true. And he is asking the Iranians to basically submit to our will or die. No mention of their independence or national sovereignty. This is the same kind of interventionist foreign policy that got us into this mess in the first place.
This recent shift in direction on Iraq will only shock and surprise the fucking retarded sheeple out there who STILL cling to the television as if it were the holy see of information. The internet readers have been onto this for a long time. Its nothing more than a shift back to his previously stated position was back in July 2004. He told you guys exactly what you wanted to hear during the campaign carnival and you ate it up. It's almost as if he knows you better than you know yourselves. Now we're stuck with him because of the public's unwillingness to question anything at all. You must look at what they DO, not just what they SAY. And its becoming more and more obvious now that he's nothing more than a neo-con hawk in sheeps clothing. You fucking moron's really thought he was anti-war too. Its a tragedy, but for me its comic gold. We have become the authors of our own destruction through our own ignorance and we can only blame ourselves for being so stupid.
Thank you.
Once again, you sheeple are fucking retarded.
More information on O-Bomb-Ya's puppet-master Brzezinski (ZBIG) that you should have known about 7 years ago.
Ruppert about Brzezinski (2001) : part 1 of 2
Ruppert about Brzezinski (2001) : part 2 of 2
Washington Times - Obama aide signals shift on Iraq policy
As I have pointed out months ago.....
-At first, he opposed the war in Iraq while in the Illinois state legislature. When he began running for US Senate though, when public opinion and support for the war was at its highest, he was quoted in the July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune as saying, "There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute." The Tribune went on to say that Obama, "now believes US forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation – a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration."
-Since taking office in January 2005 he has voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward, totaling over $300 billion.
-Obama committed to keeping enough soldiers in Iraq to "carry out our counter-terrorism activities there" which includes "striking at al Qaeda in Iraq." What he didn’t say is this continued warfare will require an estimated 60,000 troops to remain in Iraq according to a May 2006 report prepared by the Center for American Progress.
-Obama voted to re-authorize Bush's Patriot Act.
Obama's speech to AIPAC Regarding Iran (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) 6/4/08
This is the same AIPAC that just recently pushed House resolution 362 upon us. Otherwise known as the Iran war resolution. Rest assured, Obama is busy on his bony little knees waxing their ballsacks so well that he recieved 13 standing ovations from AIPAC.
"I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon - everything," he said to a standing ovation.
“We will present a clear choice. If you abandon your dangerous nuclear program, your support for terror, and your threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives—including the lifting of sanctions and political and economic integration with the international community. If you refuse, we will ratchet up the pressure.”
Ok...so they start off by pushing war propaganda through the mainstream media, what I now call the tabloid media. After 3 years of being bombarded by this propaganda (Iran is building nukes, threatening to wipe israel off the map [Misquote], etc...) they give us the option of having a candidate who will at least negotiate with the Iranians. Yet the negotiations are all based on false war propaganda. He is asking Iran to disprove a negative. He is assuming that all of his and his cousin Cheney's talking points on Iran are true. And he is asking the Iranians to basically submit to our will or die. No mention of their independence or national sovereignty. This is the same kind of interventionist foreign policy that got us into this mess in the first place.
This recent shift in direction on Iraq will only shock and surprise the fucking retarded sheeple out there who STILL cling to the television as if it were the holy see of information. The internet readers have been onto this for a long time. Its nothing more than a shift back to his previously stated position was back in July 2004. He told you guys exactly what you wanted to hear during the campaign carnival and you ate it up. It's almost as if he knows you better than you know yourselves. Now we're stuck with him because of the public's unwillingness to question anything at all. You must look at what they DO, not just what they SAY. And its becoming more and more obvious now that he's nothing more than a neo-con hawk in sheeps clothing. You fucking moron's really thought he was anti-war too. Its a tragedy, but for me its comic gold. We have become the authors of our own destruction through our own ignorance and we can only blame ourselves for being so stupid.
Thank you.
Once again, you sheeple are fucking retarded.
More information on O-Bomb-Ya's puppet-master Brzezinski (ZBIG) that you should have known about 7 years ago.
Ruppert about Brzezinski (2001) : part 1 of 2
Ruppert about Brzezinski (2001) : part 2 of 2
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Obama The Dummy - Brzezinski The Ventriloquist
- Rense.com
- WASHINGTON, DC -- In my book Obama The Postmodern Coup: The Making of a Manchurian Candidate, I argue that presidential candidate Barack Obama is a wholly owned puppet of Zbigniew Brzezinski and his associates of the Trilateral Commission, founded by David Rockefeller. As some have noted, Brzezinski has been attempting to conceal his actual domination of the Obama campaign, for which he is the chief guru and controller. Now a rhetorical outburst by Obama on the campaign trail in Oregon has once again pointed to the reality that Obama is a ventriloquist's dummy, with the Russia-hating fanatic Brzezinski, a barbarous relic of the Cold War, acting as the ventriloquist.
- At a recent campaign stop in Oregon, Obama stated:
- "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said. "That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added. If India and China's "carbon footprint gets as big as ours, we're gone." (AFP)
- This remarkable statement reveals the true program of a future Obama administration: savage austerity, brutal economic sacrifice, and a massive further reduction in the standard of living of the depleted and exhausted US population as demanded by David Rockefeller, George Soros, and Obama's Wall Street backers. This will be done under left cover through a global warming tax, a third world solidarity tax, and other demagogic frauds, with the revenue going to bail out Goldman Sachs, Citibank, and JP Morgan Chase. The tired, discredited post-9/11 "war on terror" slogans will be dumped. Most interesting is that Obama's sound bytes are actually a sloganized version of a key passage from Zbigniew Brzezinski's recent book Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower (New York: Basic Books, 2007), pp. 198-199. This book contains Zbig's desperate strategy for preserving the crisis-ridden US-UK world empire, including by making the US "social model" more attractive to developing sector publics. Zbig writes:
- "In mutually compounding ways, material self-indulgence, persistent social shortcomings, and public ignorance about the world increase the difficulty the American democracy faces in formulating a globally appealing platform for effective world leadership. Americans must recognize that their patterns of consumption will soon collide head-on with increasingly impatient egalitarian aspirations. Whether through the exploitation of natural resources, excessive energy consumption, indifference to global ecology, or the exorbitant size of houses for the well-to-do, indulgent self-gratification at home conveys indifference to the persisting deprivations of much of the world. (Just try to imagine a world in which 2.5 billion Chinese and Indians consume as much energy per capita as Americans do.) That reality the American public has yet to assimilate. To lead, America must not only be sensitive to global realities. It must also be socially attractive. That calls for a broader national consensus in favor of correcting the key failings of the American social model."
- Obama has thus unmasked himself as the exterminating angel of super-austerity dictated by the elitist Trilateral bankers' clique. Will he cut the current US standard of living by 40%? By 50%? When he does, will he still call it the politics of hope? Obama has been trained to hate the American people through two decades of association with hate-mongers like Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, and Brzezinski himself. For Rockefeller and Soros, Obama's hatred of the American people is a positive guarantee that he will enforce Wall Street's austerity decrees with a vengeance. Forget the utopian platitudes and the messianic rhetoric: Obama's real economic program is now clear for all to see. It is a path that leads to genocide against the US population, among others.
- Obama's Oregon outburst needs to be read in the light of earlier unguarded statements by Michelle Obama, who has said at various times in her stump speech: "before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls - our souls are broken in this nation. If we can't see ourselves in one another, we will never make those sacrifices.We need a different leadership because our souls are broken. We need to be inspired...to make the sacrifices that are needed to push us to a different place. The change Barack is talking about is hard, so don't get too excited because Barack is going to demand that you too be different." Here the theme of purification and redemption by means of sacrifice and economic austerity is clearly conveyed. Now Barack has begun to fill in the details.
- Insiders have long recognized that Zbigniew Brzezinski (helped by his son Mark) owns and runs Obama. David Ignatius has pointed to Second Chance as a scenario for a future Obama administration. Ignatius commented over a year ago: "Zbigniew Brzezinski has written a new book that might be a foreign policy manifesto for Barack Obama The most intriguing part of Brzezinski's book is what I would describe as the Obama manifesto. (David Ignatius, "A Manifesto for the Next President," Washington Post, March 14, 2007) It has also long been known that Zbig does the thinking for Obama; the London Economist last year hailed "a new brain for Barack Obama! It's 78 years old and it still works perfectly. It belongs to Zbigniew Brzezinski, the peppery ex-national security adviser to Jimmy Carter." ("A New Brain for Barack Obama, Economist.com, March 14, 2007)
- Obama's campaign has long been attacking Bush from the right, criticizing the current regime for not exploiting 9/11 to impose savage economic austerity, as seen in Samantha Power's "monster" interview. We now have good evidence that Obama will flay the American people alive with his elitist economic policies. Obama has committed a major error by showing his hand. Will voters react in time to stop him?
Monday, May 12, 2008
In Obama We Trust -The Myth of "Democratic" Elections In America
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
-George Orwell
The 2008 election; faker than pro-wrestling
I'm going mad..... All I hear are catchy statements. Hypnotizing speeches. The word "Change" repeated over and over again. His face on every magazine I come across. But the one thing I wait for never comes. Substance. A deeper explanation of actual policy. Any depth whatsoever. Is it all being whitewashed? Are voters being hypnotized, or better yet, hyped up by someone who's policies are really not that different at all? We experience hype on a constant basis with every upcoming blockbuster hollywood film, is this hype also experienced in politics? What kind of change are we looking at here? I wanted to know more, so I dug a little deeper. By the end of this post, you should understand my underlying skepticism. This man needs to be examined deeper.
This is the end all be all compilation of all Obama related facts and statements and policy plans.
"Clearly, Obama is the candidate the neoconservatives fear and loathe: the loathing is on account of his antiwar views, at least when it comes to Iraq." -Antiwar.com, March 17, 2008
This is the view that many in the public share of him. But let us take a second look, beyond the statements of a political campaign, to study what he has actually done. Read on so I may show you just how deep the rabbit hole goes.
THE IRAQ WAR
-At first, he opposed the war in Iraq while in the Illinois state legislature. When he began running for US Senate though, when public opinion and support for the war was at its highest, he was quoted in the July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune as saying, "There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute." The Tribune went on to say that Obama, "now believes US forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation – a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration."
-Since taking office in January 2005 he has voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward, totaling over $300 billion.
-In April 2007, Obama voted “Yes” for a $104 billion appropriations bill for the War in Iraq.
-And “Yes” again in November 2007 for another $50 billion. Since then, he hasn’t voted on any bills related to the non-funding of the war.
-He has never voted to NOT fund the war.
-He was absent for a bill that would set the budget for the next fiscal year for the war and was absent from a vote for troop withdrawal.
Why wouldn’t he have taken the opportunity to urge withdrawal if he truly opposed the war?
-He voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State despite her complicity in the Bush Administration’s various fabricated justifications for going to war in Iraq.
- In March 2006, Obama went out of his way to travel to Connecticut to campaign for Senator Joseph Lieberman who faced a tough challenge from anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. At a Democratic Party dinner attended by Lamont, Obama called Lieberman "his mentor" and urged those in attendance to vote and give financial contributions to him. This is the same Lieberman who Alexander Cockburn called "Bush’s closest Democratic ally on the Iraq War." Why would Obama have done that if he was truly against the war?
-He has repeatedly stated his desire to add 92,000 combat troops to the military. 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.
-Obama committed to keeping enough soldiers in Iraq to "carry out our counter-terrorism activities there" which includes "striking at al Qaeda in Iraq." What he didn’t say is this continued warfare will require an estimated 60,000 troops to remain in Iraq according to a May 2006 report prepared by the Center for American Progress.
Regarding Pakistan and Iran
-’If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will’. -Barack Obama -August 1, 2007
That’s exactly what Bush said, and DID, when he made the ’actionable intelligence’ fit the agenda for invading Afghanistan and Iraq. The "intelligence", was flat out wrong. Keep in mind, this is a country that might actually fight back with nuclear weapons. This psychotic proposal makes Obama the most explicit and outspoken warmonger in the democratic field.
He advocates re-deploying troops in Iraq to Pakistan and Afghanistan to fight ’terrorists’ and he says of Iran: ’We should take no option, including military action, off the table’. So he is not against war, which appears to be his image for many, he is against one war.
From the Obama website under the Foreign Policy section...
"The Problem: Iran has sought nuclear weapons, supports militias inside Iraq and terror across the region, and its leaders threaten Israel and deny the Holocaust."
This is basically, the same exact line used by the hawks and hardliners within the Bush Administration in order to whip up a hysteria against Iran. They have never threatened to wipe Israel off the map, never denied the Holocaust having happened, and there is no evidence proving that Iran is building or trying to build nuclear weapons. Also, there is no evidence of Iran supporting "militias inside iraq". Those are all LIES being pushed by the mainstream media on a continual repetitive basis and Obama is complicit in pushing these lies. Repeating an untruth over and over again does not make it the truth. Obama is being duped by the same hawks who told us about "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq. More from the Iran section of his website, diplomatically...
"Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its (non-existent) nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress."
Thats some "choice" there, a nice ultimatum, submit to our will or suffer and die. This sounds very similar to John McCain's stance on Iran.
"John McCain believes Syria and Iran have aided and abetted the violence in Iraq for too long. Syria has refused to crack down on Iraqi insurgents and foreign terrorists operating from within its territory. Iran has aided the most extreme and violent Shia militias, providing them with training, weapons, and technology that they have used to kill American troops.... The answer is for the international community to apply real pressure to Syria and Iran to change their behavior. The United States must also bolster its regional military posture to make clear to Iran our determination to protect our forces in Iraq and to deter Iranian intervention in that country."
Furthermore....
"'The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?' Obama asked.
"The United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran"
"Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world. 'On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. … And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point" -September 2004 Chicago Tribune
Authors Update: June 17, 2008 -Video
Barack Obama's Speech before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Washington, DC June 4, 2008 (About 12 hours after winning the Democratic party nomination). This is the section dealing with Obama's position on Iran. Here he uses ALL of the neo-con talking points on Iran. All of these points have been proven to be nothing more than thin propaganda. All of them are lies. This speech confirms what I have been saying about him all along.
-Iran has a Nuclear program that MUST be stopped
-The Iranian President denies the Holocaust
-Iran supports terrorism and violent extremists who challenge us across the region
-Raises the prospect of a transfer of "nuclear know-how to terrorists"
-The Iranian President has threatened to "Wipe Israel off the map"
-His goal will be to "eliminate this threat"
"I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon - everything," he said to a standing ovation.
Well that about clears that up!
On Policing The Globe...
"So the second step in my strategy will be to build our capacity and our partnerships to track down, capture or kill terrorists around the world." -Barack Obama - August 01, 2007
This is hardly a position to get excited about. Its no different from the neoconservative philosophy of the past 8 years. He is talking about an interventionist, pre-emptive war, aggressive strategy of continued warfare.
People love to compare Barack Obama to Martin Luther King Jr. I see that as an insult to what he stood for. And here’s why...
"Don’t let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine, messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with judgment, and it seems that I can hear God saying to America, "You’re too arrogant! And if you don’t change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I’ll place it in the hands of a nation that doesn’t even know my name."
-Martin Luther King Jr. "Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam" Sermon at the Ebenezer Baptist Church on April 30, 1967
Also see - The Neo-Con Philosophy
"After thousands of lives lost and billions of dollars spent [by the Bush administration]," Obama writes, "many Americans may be tempted to turn inward and cede our leadership in world affairs. But this is a mistake we must not make. America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, and the world cannot meet them without America." -Barack Obama - Renewing American Leadership - (CFR Publication) Foreign Affairs, July/August 2007
Zbigniew Brezezinski - The Man In The Shadows
The true face of Obama.
Then there’s Zbigniew Brezezinski (pictured above), who in his 1997 book wrote...
"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct and external threat." (p.211)
"It follows that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space (Eurasia, The Middle East) and that the global community (America) has unhindered financial and economic access to it." (p148)
"It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America’s power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (That is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." -The Grand Chessboard (Pg. 35-36)
IMPERIAL Mobilization?
This is the man responsible, without regret either, for the creation of the Mujahadeen resistance in Afghanistan. This assemblage of religious fanatics was used by Brzezinski to attack the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Brzezinski and the CIA worked together with the Pakistani military dictator Zia ul-Haq to spread Wahabi fundamentalism all across Central Asia and the Middle East. They had a preference for demented religious fanatics over the less mentally unstable. This is the same movement which spawned Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda.
"Regret what? That secret operation (the CIA backing of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists) was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it?"
"What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?" -Zbigniew Brzezinski quoted in the Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76
"Clearly, Obama is the candidate the neoconservatives fear and loathe: the loathing is on account of his antiwar views, at least when it comes to Iraq." -Antiwar.com, March 17, 2008
He's only anti-war when it comes to Iraq? Oh, the irony.....
Some background on Brezezinski....
-Advisor to President Jimmy Carter (1977-81).
-Co-Chair of the Bush National Security Advisory Task Force.
-Board of Directors, The Council On Foreign Relations (CFR) 1988
-Under Ronald Reagan - member of NSC-Defence Department Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy.
-Under Ronald Reagan - member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.
-Associate of Henry Kissinger.
-Brzezinski was the foreign policy adviser for John McCain’s presidential campaign in 1999-2000.
-Trustee and founder of the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller.
-Brezezinski is also a past attendee and presenter at several conferences of the Bilderberger group. A non partisan affiliation of the wealthiest and most powerful families and corporations on the planet.
Take a deep breathe.... He is now advising Obama on foreign policy. His primary agenda is maintaining control over the geopolitical space of Eurasia to maintain America's status as the world's preeminent superpower. He is another Henry Kissinger. So you can forget about bringing the troops home. That's nothing more than empty political rhetoric thrown around to sway voters. He is just telling people what they want to hear. We should know how this game is played by now.
Again, from the horse's mouth....
"It is conceivable that a significantly reduced U.S. force might remain in Iraq for a more extended period of time [if the Iraqi government fulfills a number of conditions, including disbanding militias and moving toward political reconciliation.] Such a reduced but active presence will also send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in this region."
-Barack Obama November 2006 at the Chicago Council On Global Affairs
Youtube - More of Obama's advisers exposed
Update - June 17, 2008 -What Does a Future Brzezinski Administration hold in store for us?
See latest blog....
Obama's Plan to Expand the Eurasia War and Remain Engaged in the Region
On Obama's webpage, under the section Issues – Iraq , scroll down to the sub title “Bring our troops home”. That’s a misleading statement that should not even be there. Read the paragraph, it does not say that the troops will come home.
-Obama voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act in July 2005, easily the worse attack on civil liberties and the Bill Of Rights in the last half-century. It expands governmental powers for wholesale eavesdropping on American Citizens under the ruse of "fighting terrorism."
-Obama supports hate crimes legislation which would brand certain types of free speech a federal offense. This will allow federal "thought police" to enforce "anti-hate" laws, making it a federal crime to express bias against specifically protected groups. The First amendment, reason, and rationality are flushed in favor of political correctness.
“I may disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it” -Voltaire
-Obama voted in favor of the "Class Action Fairness Act of 2005". Under this act, citizens are denied the right to bring class actions against corporations by moving these state law cases into federal court. This will delay, and likely deny justice altogether for working men and women who are victims of discrimination. The federal courts are already overburdened, and are less likely to provide relief for violations of state law. This bill which dramatically impaired labor rights, consumer rights and civil rights involved years of pressure from 100 corporations, 475 lobbyists, tens of millions of dollars buying influence in government, and the active participation of the Wall St. firms now funding the Obama campaign.
FOREIGN AIDE
-Obama says he wants to double foreign aid to $50 billion by 2012, and focus on the world’s "weakest states" to improve health, education and business opportunities.
Meanwhile 28 million Americans are on food stamps and poverty is rampant. We should focus solely on improving the situation at home first before attempting to "save the world." You can't cleanup the world when your own home is THIS dirty...
Conclusion
Obama - (CFR member) Neoconservative Zbigniew Brzezinski backed "Soft-Imperialist"
McCain - (CFR member) Neoconservative Henry Kissinger backed hardline Imperialist
This choice is akin to whether or not I should eat chicken tenders, or chicken fries. Coke or Diet Coke? In essence, they are the same fucking thing! One may be just a little bit sweeter than the other. Therefore, I'm with George Carlin on this one, "Fuck em"!
All of the candidates cling to the "They hate us because of our freedoms" line; which is an absolute laugh. They hate us because of what we do to them, not because we're free and rich and wonderful. We are not free! According to the prison studies center, America's incarceration rate is 751 people in prison for every 100,000 in the population. The highest in the world! England's rate is 151 prisoners per 100,000. The median among all nations is about 125, roughly a sixth of the American rate.
Watch video - Machine Gun Toting guards in the NYC subway.
We need candidates who have the balls to question the legitimacy of this "War on Terror" idea. The current front-runners do not have any balls at all from what I've seen. A person is more likely to die from a lightning strike than from terrorism. Drunk drivers cause 1,000 times more deaths than terrorists, yet no one has claimed that these drivers threaten international peace and security. Terrorism only appears as a global threat because governments say so and because the mainstream media have amplified this phenomenon beyond reasonable proportions. By painting terrorism as a global conspiracy threatening to attack anyone, anywhere and at any time, whole populations are terrorized to fear the unknown and consent to increased surveillance, security measures and restrictions of liberties. It is a deceptive concept, an oxymoron. With no clearly defined enemy how could it ever be declared "Won"? How can you fight a "War on Terror" when war IS terror? Remember the "Shock and Awe" bombings?
Would you be terrified if you saw that outside your window?
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." -Voltaire
And we have....
As Ron Paul has stated....
The mainstream media has a preference for hooplah and sensationalism in relation to this election season. They focus solely on personality differences between the candidates. Small time little scuffles that happen back and forth between them. Hillary called Obama an "elitist" and now he's firing back. Stuff like that. Who gives a fuck? Its all diversion and distraction. Its all completely irrelevant. Lets focus on whats really happening, policy and the men behind the curtains of this stageplay. If we refuse to use our intelligence, then we are no better than animals who have no intelligence and we will be controlled by those who WILL use it. That is what is happening to us. And that is why it is happening to us. Our own willful ignorance. These elites have stepped in to fill in for our own weaknesses, lack of intelligence, and lack of personal responsibility for our own actions.
The Problem
Man has turned himself, willingly and by choice, into an automaton and is afraid of asking original questions to come to genuine answers. People are more than happy to stay silent about the things that really matter. Nobody questions anything anymore out of a sort of groupthink and political correctness. And for most people, the real truth is too scary to even contemplate looking into.
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
-- Martin Luther King Jr.
The Solution
Face and overcome your fears and personal insecurities. Gain a deeper sense of self, insight, and intuition. And most importantly....
Leave your own conclusions on this in the comments section for discussion.....
Related Links, Info, and Videos..... Credit goes to Ry of Anti-neo-cons for providing most of these links....
-December 26, 2007 Obama would not vote against HR 2764 which gave Bush $555 Billion more for the War.
Obama never gives any oposition to any part of the Iraq war in the senate. He either votes for it, or he doesn't vote. He talks about opposing the Iraq War, even though he supports every other war, yet in practice he has done NOTHING to oppose any aspect of the Iraq War.
-Anti-War.com - Can Obama Save Us? Messiah or Snake Oil Salesman?
-Anti-War.com - O-bomb-a and the War Party - Barack Obama: He's more of the same…
-Obama Voted to Give Bush Money for the war three times
- Obama supports war with Iran
-Obama said 'no' to Iraq money in theory, 'yes' in reality
-Obama votes with Israel on Lebanese invasion
-Obama support for Israel
-Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran and Pakistan
-Obama, Brzezinski, and the Neolib-Neocon Family Feud
-Barack Obama is a Neocon In Disguise
-Youtube - Obama on Iran
-CNN - Obama on Iran
-Obama still believes Iran is building a nuclear program
-Mike Gravel & Ron Paul educate others on Iran. Obama uses the same talking points on Iran that Bush uses.
Obama's Globalist, Neoconservative Foreign Policy
CFR Publication Foreign Affairs -Barack Obama - Renewing American Leadership
Obama is in Bed With The Globalists
"Though I would certainly like to vote for a black president, Obama’s clear intention to extend the sphere of America’s preemptive wars and terrorist hunts shows that he is in bed with the globalists and cannot be trusted. "
-George Orwell
The 2008 election; faker than pro-wrestling
I'm going mad..... All I hear are catchy statements. Hypnotizing speeches. The word "Change" repeated over and over again. His face on every magazine I come across. But the one thing I wait for never comes. Substance. A deeper explanation of actual policy. Any depth whatsoever. Is it all being whitewashed? Are voters being hypnotized, or better yet, hyped up by someone who's policies are really not that different at all? We experience hype on a constant basis with every upcoming blockbuster hollywood film, is this hype also experienced in politics? What kind of change are we looking at here? I wanted to know more, so I dug a little deeper. By the end of this post, you should understand my underlying skepticism. This man needs to be examined deeper.
This is the end all be all compilation of all Obama related facts and statements and policy plans.
"Clearly, Obama is the candidate the neoconservatives fear and loathe: the loathing is on account of his antiwar views, at least when it comes to Iraq." -Antiwar.com, March 17, 2008
This is the view that many in the public share of him. But let us take a second look, beyond the statements of a political campaign, to study what he has actually done. Read on so I may show you just how deep the rabbit hole goes.
THE IRAQ WAR
-At first, he opposed the war in Iraq while in the Illinois state legislature. When he began running for US Senate though, when public opinion and support for the war was at its highest, he was quoted in the July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune as saying, "There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute." The Tribune went on to say that Obama, "now believes US forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation – a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration."
-Since taking office in January 2005 he has voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward, totaling over $300 billion.
-In April 2007, Obama voted “Yes” for a $104 billion appropriations bill for the War in Iraq.
-And “Yes” again in November 2007 for another $50 billion. Since then, he hasn’t voted on any bills related to the non-funding of the war.
-He has never voted to NOT fund the war.
-He was absent for a bill that would set the budget for the next fiscal year for the war and was absent from a vote for troop withdrawal.
Why wouldn’t he have taken the opportunity to urge withdrawal if he truly opposed the war?
-He voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State despite her complicity in the Bush Administration’s various fabricated justifications for going to war in Iraq.
- In March 2006, Obama went out of his way to travel to Connecticut to campaign for Senator Joseph Lieberman who faced a tough challenge from anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. At a Democratic Party dinner attended by Lamont, Obama called Lieberman "his mentor" and urged those in attendance to vote and give financial contributions to him. This is the same Lieberman who Alexander Cockburn called "Bush’s closest Democratic ally on the Iraq War." Why would Obama have done that if he was truly against the war?
-He has repeatedly stated his desire to add 92,000 combat troops to the military. 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.
-Obama committed to keeping enough soldiers in Iraq to "carry out our counter-terrorism activities there" which includes "striking at al Qaeda in Iraq." What he didn’t say is this continued warfare will require an estimated 60,000 troops to remain in Iraq according to a May 2006 report prepared by the Center for American Progress.
Regarding Pakistan and Iran
-’If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will’. -Barack Obama -August 1, 2007
That’s exactly what Bush said, and DID, when he made the ’actionable intelligence’ fit the agenda for invading Afghanistan and Iraq. The "intelligence", was flat out wrong. Keep in mind, this is a country that might actually fight back with nuclear weapons. This psychotic proposal makes Obama the most explicit and outspoken warmonger in the democratic field.
He advocates re-deploying troops in Iraq to Pakistan and Afghanistan to fight ’terrorists’ and he says of Iran: ’We should take no option, including military action, off the table’. So he is not against war, which appears to be his image for many, he is against one war.
From the Obama website under the Foreign Policy section...
"The Problem: Iran has sought nuclear weapons, supports militias inside Iraq and terror across the region, and its leaders threaten Israel and deny the Holocaust."
This is basically, the same exact line used by the hawks and hardliners within the Bush Administration in order to whip up a hysteria against Iran. They have never threatened to wipe Israel off the map, never denied the Holocaust having happened, and there is no evidence proving that Iran is building or trying to build nuclear weapons. Also, there is no evidence of Iran supporting "militias inside iraq". Those are all LIES being pushed by the mainstream media on a continual repetitive basis and Obama is complicit in pushing these lies. Repeating an untruth over and over again does not make it the truth. Obama is being duped by the same hawks who told us about "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq. More from the Iran section of his website, diplomatically...
"Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its (non-existent) nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress."
Thats some "choice" there, a nice ultimatum, submit to our will or suffer and die. This sounds very similar to John McCain's stance on Iran.
"John McCain believes Syria and Iran have aided and abetted the violence in Iraq for too long. Syria has refused to crack down on Iraqi insurgents and foreign terrorists operating from within its territory. Iran has aided the most extreme and violent Shia militias, providing them with training, weapons, and technology that they have used to kill American troops.... The answer is for the international community to apply real pressure to Syria and Iran to change their behavior. The United States must also bolster its regional military posture to make clear to Iran our determination to protect our forces in Iraq and to deter Iranian intervention in that country."
Furthermore....
"'The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?' Obama asked.
"The United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran"
"Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world. 'On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. … And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point" -September 2004 Chicago Tribune
Authors Update: June 17, 2008 -Video
Barack Obama's Speech before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Washington, DC June 4, 2008 (About 12 hours after winning the Democratic party nomination). This is the section dealing with Obama's position on Iran. Here he uses ALL of the neo-con talking points on Iran. All of these points have been proven to be nothing more than thin propaganda. All of them are lies. This speech confirms what I have been saying about him all along.
-Iran has a Nuclear program that MUST be stopped
-The Iranian President denies the Holocaust
-Iran supports terrorism and violent extremists who challenge us across the region
-Raises the prospect of a transfer of "nuclear know-how to terrorists"
-The Iranian President has threatened to "Wipe Israel off the map"
-His goal will be to "eliminate this threat"
"I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon - everything," he said to a standing ovation.
Well that about clears that up!
On Policing The Globe...
"So the second step in my strategy will be to build our capacity and our partnerships to track down, capture or kill terrorists around the world." -Barack Obama - August 01, 2007
This is hardly a position to get excited about. Its no different from the neoconservative philosophy of the past 8 years. He is talking about an interventionist, pre-emptive war, aggressive strategy of continued warfare.
People love to compare Barack Obama to Martin Luther King Jr. I see that as an insult to what he stood for. And here’s why...
"Don’t let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine, messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with judgment, and it seems that I can hear God saying to America, "You’re too arrogant! And if you don’t change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I’ll place it in the hands of a nation that doesn’t even know my name."
-Martin Luther King Jr. "Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam" Sermon at the Ebenezer Baptist Church on April 30, 1967
Also see - The Neo-Con Philosophy
"After thousands of lives lost and billions of dollars spent [by the Bush administration]," Obama writes, "many Americans may be tempted to turn inward and cede our leadership in world affairs. But this is a mistake we must not make. America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, and the world cannot meet them without America." -Barack Obama - Renewing American Leadership - (CFR Publication) Foreign Affairs, July/August 2007
Zbigniew Brezezinski - The Man In The Shadows
The elementary principle of all deception is to attract the enemy’s attention to what you wish him to see & to distract his attention from what you so not wish him to see - General Sir Archibald Wavel
The true face of Obama.
Then there’s Zbigniew Brezezinski (pictured above), who in his 1997 book wrote...
"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct and external threat." (p.211)
"It follows that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space (Eurasia, The Middle East) and that the global community (America) has unhindered financial and economic access to it." (p148)
"It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America’s power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (That is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." -The Grand Chessboard (Pg. 35-36)
IMPERIAL Mobilization?
This is the man responsible, without regret either, for the creation of the Mujahadeen resistance in Afghanistan. This assemblage of religious fanatics was used by Brzezinski to attack the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Brzezinski and the CIA worked together with the Pakistani military dictator Zia ul-Haq to spread Wahabi fundamentalism all across Central Asia and the Middle East. They had a preference for demented religious fanatics over the less mentally unstable. This is the same movement which spawned Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda.
Norm Dixon writes:
Washington’s favored mujaheddin faction was one of the most extreme, led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The West’s distaste for terrorism did not apply to this unsavory “freedom fighter”. Hekmatyar was notorious in the 1970s for throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil.
After the mujaheddin took Kabul in 1992, Hekmatyar’s forces rained US-supplied missiles and rockets on that city — killing at least 2000 civilians — until the new government agreed to give him the post of prime minister. Osama bin Laden was a close associate of Hekmatyar and his faction.
"Regret what? That secret operation (the CIA backing of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists) was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it?"
"What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?" -Zbigniew Brzezinski quoted in the Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76
"Clearly, Obama is the candidate the neoconservatives fear and loathe: the loathing is on account of his antiwar views, at least when it comes to Iraq." -Antiwar.com, March 17, 2008
He's only anti-war when it comes to Iraq? Oh, the irony.....
Some background on Brezezinski....
-Advisor to President Jimmy Carter (1977-81).
-Co-Chair of the Bush National Security Advisory Task Force.
-Board of Directors, The Council On Foreign Relations (CFR) 1988
-Under Ronald Reagan - member of NSC-Defence Department Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy.
-Under Ronald Reagan - member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.
-Associate of Henry Kissinger.
-Brzezinski was the foreign policy adviser for John McCain’s presidential campaign in 1999-2000.
-Trustee and founder of the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller.
-Brezezinski is also a past attendee and presenter at several conferences of the Bilderberger group. A non partisan affiliation of the wealthiest and most powerful families and corporations on the planet.
Take a deep breathe.... He is now advising Obama on foreign policy. His primary agenda is maintaining control over the geopolitical space of Eurasia to maintain America's status as the world's preeminent superpower. He is another Henry Kissinger. So you can forget about bringing the troops home. That's nothing more than empty political rhetoric thrown around to sway voters. He is just telling people what they want to hear. We should know how this game is played by now.
Again, from the horse's mouth....
"It is conceivable that a significantly reduced U.S. force might remain in Iraq for a more extended period of time [if the Iraqi government fulfills a number of conditions, including disbanding militias and moving toward political reconciliation.] Such a reduced but active presence will also send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in this region."
-Barack Obama November 2006 at the Chicago Council On Global Affairs
Youtube - More of Obama's advisers exposed
Update - June 17, 2008 -What Does a Future Brzezinski Administration hold in store for us?
See latest blog....
Obama's Plan to Expand the Eurasia War and Remain Engaged in the Region
On Obama's webpage, under the section Issues – Iraq , scroll down to the sub title “Bring our troops home”. That’s a misleading statement that should not even be there. Read the paragraph, it does not say that the troops will come home.
He talks about removing "combat brigades". According to the Pentagon ,they make up about 23% of the troops currently assigned to the Iraq mission. So, he’s actually talking about a sub section of the troops.
So where will these "combat brigades" go when they are removed from Iraq? Lets look at Obama's plan entitled, “Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007”.
Under Section 4 – "Redeployment" – it states...
"(e) Sense of Congress on Location of Redeployment- It is the sense of Congress that, in redeploying the Armed Forces from Iraq under this section, appropriate units of the Armed Forces should be redeployed--
1. to the United States.
2. to Afghanistan, to enhance US military operations in that country;
3. elsewhere in the region, to serve as an over-the-horizon force to prevent the conflict in Iraq from becoming a wider war, to reassure allies of the United States of the commitment of the United States to remain engaged in the region to, and to position troops to strike directly at al-Qaeda, and
4. elsewhere, to meet urgent United States security needs."
So they aren't coming home, they're just going to be shuffled around from one point on the map to another. And again, we hear of his commitment to "remain engaged in the region".
Obama also claims that he will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. This is an empty statement. It’s empty because the Pentagon does not call the bases it builds in Iraq “permanent bases”, but “enduring bases”. The Pentagon has stated many times that it doesn’t plan on building “permanent bases” in Iraq, but to build “Enduring bases”. Orwellian double-speak at its finest.
CIVIL RIGHTS-Obama voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act in July 2005, easily the worse attack on civil liberties and the Bill Of Rights in the last half-century. It expands governmental powers for wholesale eavesdropping on American Citizens under the ruse of "fighting terrorism."
-Obama supports hate crimes legislation which would brand certain types of free speech a federal offense. This will allow federal "thought police" to enforce "anti-hate" laws, making it a federal crime to express bias against specifically protected groups. The First amendment, reason, and rationality are flushed in favor of political correctness.
“I may disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it” -Voltaire
-Obama voted in favor of the "Class Action Fairness Act of 2005". Under this act, citizens are denied the right to bring class actions against corporations by moving these state law cases into federal court. This will delay, and likely deny justice altogether for working men and women who are victims of discrimination. The federal courts are already overburdened, and are less likely to provide relief for violations of state law. This bill which dramatically impaired labor rights, consumer rights and civil rights involved years of pressure from 100 corporations, 475 lobbyists, tens of millions of dollars buying influence in government, and the active participation of the Wall St. firms now funding the Obama campaign.
FOREIGN AIDE
-Obama says he wants to double foreign aid to $50 billion by 2012, and focus on the world’s "weakest states" to improve health, education and business opportunities.
Meanwhile 28 million Americans are on food stamps and poverty is rampant. We should focus solely on improving the situation at home first before attempting to "save the world." You can't cleanup the world when your own home is THIS dirty...
Conclusion
Obama - (CFR member) Neoconservative Zbigniew Brzezinski backed "Soft-Imperialist"
McCain - (CFR member) Neoconservative Henry Kissinger backed hardline Imperialist
This choice is akin to whether or not I should eat chicken tenders, or chicken fries. Coke or Diet Coke? In essence, they are the same fucking thing! One may be just a little bit sweeter than the other. Therefore, I'm with George Carlin on this one, "Fuck em"!
Why did I preface this article by saying that the 2008 election is faker than pro-wrestling? What Presidential Candidates are part of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)?
John McCain
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
Fred Thompson
Rudy Giuliani
Mitt Romney
Jim Gilmore
Newt Gingrich
John Edwards
Joe Biden
Chris Dodd
Bill Richardson
I knew this thing was a set-up job from the very first day they announced the candidates. The CFR is the elite ruling class of America. ONLY establishment (that ol' status-quo Obama pretends to fight against) pre-approved candidates get to run for President in America.
Who Opposes the CFR, the "Big Club?"
Presidential Candidate Ron Paul …just look at how he was treated in the media.
There is a political solution to the American caused aggressive wars in the middle-east, although its seen as an extremely radical or "fringe" view by both parties and the forces controlling them, Get out NOW! This is not our war. Redeployment and intensifying the war in Afghanistan are not viable options in this stage of the game. We cannot afford to maintain this global empire. The British, followed by the Soviets, found it impossible to maintain control in Afghanistan. Only an immediate withdrawal can save us and our economy from imploding the same way the Soviets did. Ending oil dependency can be done, but it will take tremendous personal changes in the lives of individual Americans. I for one am willing to make that change.All of the candidates cling to the "They hate us because of our freedoms" line; which is an absolute laugh. They hate us because of what we do to them, not because we're free and rich and wonderful. We are not free! According to the prison studies center, America's incarceration rate is 751 people in prison for every 100,000 in the population. The highest in the world! England's rate is 151 prisoners per 100,000. The median among all nations is about 125, roughly a sixth of the American rate.
Watch video - Machine Gun Toting guards in the NYC subway.
We need candidates who have the balls to question the legitimacy of this "War on Terror" idea. The current front-runners do not have any balls at all from what I've seen. A person is more likely to die from a lightning strike than from terrorism. Drunk drivers cause 1,000 times more deaths than terrorists, yet no one has claimed that these drivers threaten international peace and security. Terrorism only appears as a global threat because governments say so and because the mainstream media have amplified this phenomenon beyond reasonable proportions. By painting terrorism as a global conspiracy threatening to attack anyone, anywhere and at any time, whole populations are terrorized to fear the unknown and consent to increased surveillance, security measures and restrictions of liberties. It is a deceptive concept, an oxymoron. With no clearly defined enemy how could it ever be declared "Won"? How can you fight a "War on Terror" when war IS terror? Remember the "Shock and Awe" bombings?
Would you be terrified if you saw that outside your window?
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." -Voltaire
And we have....
As Ron Paul has stated....
"According to the original authorization (Public Law 107-243) passed in late 2002, the president was authorized to use military force against Iraq to achieve the following two specific objectives only:
“(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ”
I was highly critical of the resolution at the time, because I don’t think the United States should ever go to war to enforce United Nations resolutions. I was also skeptical of the claim that Iraq posed a “continuing threat” to the United States. As it turned out, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, no al-Qaeda activity, and no ability to attack the United States . Regardless of this, however, when we look at the original authorization for the use of force it is clearly obvious that our military has met both objectives."
The mainstream media has a preference for hooplah and sensationalism in relation to this election season. They focus solely on personality differences between the candidates. Small time little scuffles that happen back and forth between them. Hillary called Obama an "elitist" and now he's firing back. Stuff like that. Who gives a fuck? Its all diversion and distraction. Its all completely irrelevant. Lets focus on whats really happening, policy and the men behind the curtains of this stageplay. If we refuse to use our intelligence, then we are no better than animals who have no intelligence and we will be controlled by those who WILL use it. That is what is happening to us. And that is why it is happening to us. Our own willful ignorance. These elites have stepped in to fill in for our own weaknesses, lack of intelligence, and lack of personal responsibility for our own actions.
The Problem
Man has turned himself, willingly and by choice, into an automaton and is afraid of asking original questions to come to genuine answers. People are more than happy to stay silent about the things that really matter. Nobody questions anything anymore out of a sort of groupthink and political correctness. And for most people, the real truth is too scary to even contemplate looking into.
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
-- Martin Luther King Jr.
The Solution
Face and overcome your fears and personal insecurities. Gain a deeper sense of self, insight, and intuition. And most importantly....
Leave your own conclusions on this in the comments section for discussion.....
Related Links, Info, and Videos..... Credit goes to Ry of Anti-neo-cons for providing most of these links....
-December 26, 2007 Obama would not vote against HR 2764 which gave Bush $555 Billion more for the War.
Obama never gives any oposition to any part of the Iraq war in the senate. He either votes for it, or he doesn't vote. He talks about opposing the Iraq War, even though he supports every other war, yet in practice he has done NOTHING to oppose any aspect of the Iraq War.
-Anti-War.com - Can Obama Save Us? Messiah or Snake Oil Salesman?
-Anti-War.com - O-bomb-a and the War Party - Barack Obama: He's more of the same…
-Obama Voted to Give Bush Money for the war three times
- Obama supports war with Iran
-Obama said 'no' to Iraq money in theory, 'yes' in reality
-Obama votes with Israel on Lebanese invasion
-Obama support for Israel
-Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran and Pakistan
-Obama, Brzezinski, and the Neolib-Neocon Family Feud
-Barack Obama is a Neocon In Disguise
-Youtube - Obama on Iran
-CNN - Obama on Iran
-Obama still believes Iran is building a nuclear program
-Mike Gravel & Ron Paul educate others on Iran. Obama uses the same talking points on Iran that Bush uses.
Obama's Globalist, Neoconservative Foreign Policy
CFR Publication Foreign Affairs -Barack Obama - Renewing American Leadership
Obama is in Bed With The Globalists
"Though I would certainly like to vote for a black president, Obama’s clear intention to extend the sphere of America’s preemptive wars and terrorist hunts shows that he is in bed with the globalists and cannot be trusted. "
Sunday, May 11, 2008
How Barack Obama Fronted for the Most Vicious Predators on Wall Street
Should there be any doubt left as to who owns our government?
Senator Obama has become the inspiration and role model to millions of children and young people in this country. He has only two paths now: to be a dream maker or a dream killer. But be assured of one thing: this country will not countenance any more grand illusions.
full article here...
Senator Obama has become the inspiration and role model to millions of children and young people in this country. He has only two paths now: to be a dream maker or a dream killer. But be assured of one thing: this country will not countenance any more grand illusions.
full article here...
Hypocrisy Alert: Tiny tribe thorn in Gore's side
| Tom Carver BBC News Fri, 14 Mar 2008 18:06 EDT  |
| U'wa people: Trying to defend sacred land |
US presidential candidate Al Gore has carefully cultivated his image as an environmentalist.
But now he is under fire over his close links to the oil company, Occidental Petroleum, which has begun looking for oil in the Amazon against the wishes of a tiny local tribe called the U'wa.
The tribe is threatening to commit mass suicide if the drilling goes ahead.
The U'wa tribe is trying to stop Occidental Petroleum, from drilling on its sacred land.
But Occidental is undeterred. It has started moving its heavy equipment in, backed by the Colombian Government.
Last year, three American environmental activists were killed by guerrillas while trying to defend the U'wa. They included Terence Freitas. During an interview in March 1998, he explained what was at stake for the U'wa people. "The struggle now is simply life or death," he explained at the time.
"It's not whether they will lose 100 hectares or 10 hectares. It's whether or not the blood of Mother Earth or the U'wa is going to be taken out from under their territory and used in a way that they feel is wrong."
Gore reputation at stake
This dispute is threatening Al Gore's reputation as an environmentalist.
He has close ties and a large financial stake in Occidental Petroleum, despite its poor environmental image.
His father, Al Gore senior, was on Occidental's board for three decades.
As vice president of the United States, his son helped the company win drilling concessions.
Charles Lewis, of the Center for Public Integrity, has examined the ties between Al Gore and Occidental. "We have looked at the records for 25 years around Al Gore," he says. "We've followed every penny he has ever received and I'm telling you that the company he is beholden to, the one company that has helped make him financially whole and has helped him politically is Occidental Petroleum."
Environmentalists accuse Mr Gore of a major conflict of interest. Al Gore refuses even to speak about the U'wa's plight.
Colombia needs oil
Some say that without oil, Colombia would not be able to survive.
According to Lowell Fleischer of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, money from companies like Occidental provide much needed foreign earnings. "It's going to take more than money to solve all of Colombia's problems, but without the money they can't go forward at all," he says.
"Oil is extremely important to the Colombian economy and I think without it they would be in very serious difficulties."
The US Government is pouring troops and equipment into Colombia to help the fight against drugs and guerrillas. It is a controversial policy, now complicated even further by Al Gore's financial dealings.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Government Apologists Keep Moving the Goal Posts
Government Apologists Keep Moving the Goal Posts
The people defending the government's version of 9/11 have continuously moved the goal posts:
- Initially, the government apologists pretended that everyone believed the "official story" of 9/11
- Then, when the family members of the victims and everyday Americans started to publicly question the government's story, they said "but, all of the experts confirm the government"
- Then, when hundreds of top experts in relevant fields - military officials, intelligence officers, physicists, chemists, mathematicians, air traffic controllers, etc. - publicly questioned the government's story, they said "well, no structural engineers question 9/11"
- Then, when numerous structural engineers decided to risk their careers to question the official version of events, they said "yeah, but no criticism of the government's claims has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal"
- Then, when papers began to be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, they scrambled with new arguments . . .
Indeed, if Bush, Cheney, and Rummie all confessed under oath that they carried out 9/11, the defenders of the official version would probably try to move the goal posts yet again:
"true, but no one checked to see if they had their fingers crossed behind their backs at the time.If you have questioned 9/11 for a couple of years as I have, you'll know that the above-described history of goalpost-moving is accurate. If you haven't, google around and you'll probably see what I mean.
And they've been under alot of stress recently. Maybe they've suffered from short-term memory loss.
And you don't have any video actually showing them ordering the stand down, do you?! Why should we believe you if you don't have video of them doing it?!"
Government Itself Won't Swear To Official Theory of 9/11
Government Itself Won't Swear To Official Theory of 9/11
Original link and recommended resource - http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/05/government-itself-cant-swear-by.htmlWhile many people question the government's conclusions about 9/11, rest assured that the government agencies tasked with investigating 9/11 are confident that the government's answer to the following questions is correct:
(1) How could a rag-tag bunch of hijackers penetrate the strongest military in history and disable normal defensive procedures?
(2) How could 3 super-strong, over-engineered buildings collapse due to fire, falling at virtually free-fall speed, and exhibiting many other indications normally associated with controlled demolition?
At least the government itself is confident about the answers to these questions, right?
Well, actually:
- Bush, Cheney and all other key officials refused to testify under oath, and Bush and Cheney would not even speak to the 9/11 Commission unless they did so together
- The 9/11 Commission admits that the U.S. military intentionally lied about what happened that day, the Commission reached conclusions based on political considerations, and that its conclusions were largely based on third-hand information conveyed through military spokespeople about what severley tortured, crazy people supposedly said
- NIST admits "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse", even though no modern steel-frame building has ever before or since totally collapsed due to fire, even with much hotter and longer-burning fires
- FEMA admits that its best hypothesis for why WTC 7 collapsed has only "a low probability of occurring"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
