Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter are for Obama. People are likening Barack Obama to John and more so Robert Kennedy.
Barack Obama wants to increase the U.S. military. He's also said he would go into Pakistan to hunt down al Qaeda with or without Pakistani permission. He's made many statements against Iran that sound designed to placate false Zionists. He said he was against the Iraq War, but he's voted for the money to continue that war. John F. Kennedy too couldn't come across as soft (on Communism), so he drove home the point that he wouldn't back down.
However, once in office for a while, Kennedy started to learn just how insane U.S. expansion really is. He refused to destroy Cuba. He started taking away CIA power. He started pulling out of Vietnam. He started talking about peace with the U.S.S.R. Add to that, he also started changing the currency away from the usurers behind the Federal Reserve.
His brother, Robert F. Kennedy ("Bobby"), tangled with and somewhat backed down J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI. He also went after the Mafia, who it is alleged, felt betrayed by the Kennedy brothers' father, Joseph, who had long ties with organized crime dating back to Prohibition and who reputedly made deals through Frank Sinatra for the mob to swing votes particularly in critical West Virginia. Who knows what else was going on that hasn't been allowed into the daylight?
For those things and more, they killed JFK. The Empire murdered him. The plutocrats ordered it. The system carried it out and bungled the cover-up. Vice President Johnson took over and revved up the military-industrial complex through the false-flag operation in the Gulf of Tonkin and tried again to do the same in the Middle East with the USS Liberty that he allowed Israel to attack and very nearly sink.
So who is Barack Obama? Has he been to the Trilateral Commission? Is he a member of the Council on Foreign Relations? He's taking plenty of money isn't he?
Zbigniew Brzezinski, who founded the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller, is backing Barack Obama. Starting with the Carter administration, either the President or Vice-president has apparently represented the Trilateral Commission.
What about those who are supporting him? Does it say anything about him? Well, what does a Church do when someone who is unrepentant donates? The Church cannot sell indulgences. It has no "get out of hell or purgatory" passes for sale to the unrepentant. A U.S. president, on the other hand, can sell powerful favors. Would Barack Obama sell out in that way? Where's the fruit to be able to tell? We read what he's saying. He's a politician, low-key preacher. He's a motivational speaker. His talk though attempts to divert from his militarism. That cannot be denied. Those with the money though can hear him saying that he will change things but not in any way that will truly correct things. He'll change direction but not radically even though radical change is required.
He's getting big dollars from the nuclear-power industry and from Wall Street brokerages. As we've written, he's for a bigger military, which means bigger spending on military contractors and suppliers (weapons, etc.). Of course, the late frontrunners traditionally now have huge corporate backing either directly or via other means.
The corporations have to do this in their eyes. They have to buy the candidate to steer him or her.
by Greg Sargent and Eric Kleefeld. TPMElection Central. January 17, 2008.
"BARACK OBAMA (D): Top Contributors." Open Secrets. ("2008 Presidential Election: Barack Obama Campaign Money.")
Goldman Sachs $421,763
UBS AG $296,670
Lehman Brothers $250,630
National Amusements Inc $245,843
JP Morgan Chase & Co $240,788
Sidley Austin LLP $226,491
Citigroup Inc $221,578
Exelon Corp $220,267
Skadden, Arps Et Al $196,420
Jones Day $181,996
Contrary to what some may imagine, Barack Obama is no economic egalitarian. He isn't even close to being a New Dealer. See my article, "12 Things U.S. Plutocrats Pay Billions to Suppress" for New Deal ideas and more. David Cutler, Jeffrey Liebman, and Austan Goolsbee are Obama's main economic advisors. They're more neoliberal than not. All of Barack's motivational speaking has little substance behind it. (See: "Subprime Obama," by Max Fraser. The Nation. January 24, 2008.)
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)