...his inspiring biography, lofty and exhilarating rhetoric, welcome rejection of unilateralism and strong opposition to the Iraq war....
"inspiring biography, lofty and exhilarating rhetoric, welcome rejection of unilateralism and strong opposition to the Iraq war," Barack Obama? You have to be kidding. No, you're not kidding. "Interesting biography" perhaps, to some, even many; but how so is it inspiring? Is this in reference simply to the majority of Americans voting in a half-Black man? That says more about those Americans than it does about Barack Obama. Of course, the fact that it was that particular half-Black man says even more because rather than being color blind in a sense and voting in someone who truly fit the description painted above, they chose Barack Obama more because he is half-Black.
"Phony and deliberately vague, even demeaning, rhetoric" is more like it. The next point makes that point. He had a "Strong opposition to the Iraq war" (not so strong, but) because "we" took our eye off the ball: Afghanistan (and Pakistan) and everywhere else where "al Qaeda" was, is, or will be, supposedly. "Rejection of unilateralism" was simply a calculation concerning the difference between fighting for Empire nearly alone or with more more dukedoms on "our" side or even out front, as Obama is pushing concerning Libya.
Look, I almost completely agree with the characterizations in the piece of events and motives of Mikhail Gorbachev. I've written nearly the same thing about him. The absolute worst foreign policy blunder in my lifetime was George H. W. Bush sitting on his hands allowing Russia to go through "austerity" rather than rushing in to help it not go through that, not be punished for the sins of its fathers (mostly Stalin but also Lenin before him). Bush lacked "the vision thing."
I also agree with Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick concerning their description of the George W. Bush Presidency. Stone and Kuznick meant it when they wrote "Fast-forward to 2008." Let's not.
Bush-43 wasn't raised in a complete vacuum. He was and is his father's son in more ways than can be dismissed simply because 43 did what 41 would not have: terminate Saddam Hussein. George W. was calculating just as was his father. In many ways, he was more so. He looked at "balance of power" and containment as obstacles to be overcome by brute force. He became a neocon where his father was never and still is not. George W. Bush figured out how to win — with the fake evangelical, Christian-Zionists that he later discovered he couldn't herd quite as easily as he had mistakenly thought going in. Of course, Karl Rove was Bush's brain (the turd blossom, as Bush so aptly put it).
I believe Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick know all of that. I also believe that Barack Obama knows and knew about much more of it than shallow others might believe. My point is that Obama has been extremely calculating too and all along. He is given way too much benefit of the doubt about just how strong his convictions ever were relative to his desire to rule and to become excessively rich in mammon. That's my way of saying that Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick are too naive.
What seems missing most at the early stages in the character development of Barack Obama in the article is the picture of Barack Obama the community organizer/Wall Streeter. He did both, although you'd never know it from the vast majority of right or left publications. The banksters made him President. They know it. He knows it. They did the deregulation/neoliberal economics (anti-vision thing) thing with Reagan, Bush-41, Clinton, and Bush-43. They crashed the economy, as they always do (knowingly). Then, they needed a straight-man to their comedian. After every crash, someone has to clean up, protect the wealthy, placate the masses, leave the system in place for the next crash concerning which all the big players/insiders will be well positioned to rape the people again, and to take the people's eye off the ball: the Banksters. Obama has been that straight-man to a tee. He said one thing and did another. He said no bankster lobbyists but hired them. He kept Bush-43's team in spades. He did that because they were the ones who could carry on with the plan. Had he cleaned house and brought in anti-banksters with a vengeance, the system would have been altered to the extent that those banksters would have lost power. The banksters have not lost any power yet. In fact, part of the whole plan was the current unfolding of SDR (Special Drawing Rights), the basket of currencies that will ultimately be replaced (the banksters think/want) with a world dollar created by a world bank owned and operated by the heirs of the current private bankster elitists. Obama is their lackey, and he was going in. How Stone and Kuznick think that Obama can be made to change without putting these matters front and center points to their naivety.
Let me say that I appreciate Oliver Stone's "JFK" very much. I was in the dark about it. I actually thought it was a movie that took huge fictional license. I had had no idea that much of it was actually pointing to real impossibilities, such as the "Magic Bullet." It was that movie by Oliver Stone that stimulated me to dig into assassinations, and I didn't do that until well after, years after, the movie was released. That said, it does not mean that Oliver Stone has or does see the depths of the evil that assassinated John F. Kennedy. I believe it takes a Jesus to see Satan. Update (a little "equal time for opposing, new views"): Happy Thanksgiving & 49th Anniversary of John F. Kennedy's Assassination Via the "Magic Bullet"
If Barack Obama had, had any plan to even remotely model himself on Gorbachev's true statesmanship (not perfect but with a number of quality suggesting his possible spiritual redemption), he never would have been elected. The banksters never would have funded him. If he had tricked them by lying to them and then attempted to make the switch, they would have crucified him. Gorbachev is not bought and paid for by the banksters. He never was. He was a huge threat to them, though he didn't know it enough. Truly getting along is not conducive to banksterism. That's the thing everyone in the world needs to come to understand. Also, banksterism is not limited to top bankers. It is usury banking, per se. All banking with usury is banksterism, by definition. Look, usury is evil. It's not a shade of evil. It's all evil. It is the darkside. Now, look at banking in that light. Look at Barack Obama in that light.
What I see in the New Statesman article and the New Statesman in general, is naivety. The anti-crony-capitalist libertarian "conspiracy thinkers" are closer to the truth on these bankster matters. The New Statesman is more correct that giving and sharing are right over those libertarian-capitalists' selfish-centeredness (deliberate coining), but it takes a darker heart, a more self-centered heart, to recognize the master. Jesus sees Satan, but Satan's closest minions do too although not as well as does Christ.
I also see that Stone and Kuznick do not understand the neocon mind. The neocons, contrary to George H. W. Bush's reported schooling of his son that neocons are Zionists, American neocons are limited-democracy militarists first and foremost. Zionism is ultimately a side issue. The "Jewishness" of the Jewish neocons is ultimately a side issue and can even become completely irrelevant so long as they and theirs survive in DNA and come out on top — or don't disappear when the world is level. They plan an elite above the leveled, which leveled are not privy. It's just refinement of the current trend. You can't teach those who can't grasp. That's the gist of neoconservatism/Straussianism. The beasts must be herded. They feed us (those neocons are fed by the duped, subservient, herded masses). It has to be so, they think, because it is. However, it's a bankrupt philosophy and will never work of course, but you can't teach those who can't grasp. Well, people/souls can't grasp if they aren't taught either, so Jesus spoke and did.
He [Obama] should look to John F Kennedy for precedent. After two nearly disastrous years in office, Kennedy underwent a stunning reversal, repudiating the reckless cold war militarism that defined his early presidency. The Kennedy who was tragically assassinated in November 1963 was looking to end not only the US invasion of Vietnam, but the cold war.
Of course that's true, but he was assassinated. Obama knows that. He knows it wasn't Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone. He knows the "Magic Bullet" is magical only in the sense that it screams out governmental conspiracy to remove the duly elected President to replace him with a compliant President: Lyndon Baines Johnson. LBJ did the Zionist thing for the sake of Empire leading to supranational Empire of, by, and for the Banksters — the sons of evil (usury and mammon — including gold as money).
I don't want an end to Empire. I want an end to evil Empire. Can there be reformation or must there be revolution? If there must be revolution, must it be violent? The answer is that those who are left will have been non-violent revolutionaries. That leaves all the Marxists out. Think about it. It does not leave socialists out, per se. It leaves coercive socialists out. It leaves coercive democrats out. It leaves only non-coercive socialists and democrats and no elitists. It does leave people who lead, but those leaders never lie. Is this naive? Hardly. It is the only way of evolution. Jesus was and remains an evolutionist.
Right now, more than at any time in the history of humanity, the issue of hypocrisy is front and center. We have the issue of the world cop enforcing the "Responsibility to Protect" (RtoP; R2P). There is no sane person who doesn't like law and order. Saner people debate where the lines should be drawn, but they don't want to be molested as the one who was robbed and beaten half to death and left by the side of the road only to be ignored by the wise and prudent but saved by the unselfish Good Samaritan. Had the Roman soldiers been there, that one wouldn't have been robbed and beaten. Jesus wants those who rob and beat to quit. Jesus knows that the Roman soldiers are not necessary in the final, highest state that survives the evolutionary process.
If you want to fix things, you must do away with usury for one. The Federal Reserve, where the US borrows itself into debt to private interests to create money, is from the darkside. End it.
The money itself is evil. All mediums of exchange are inherently evil. Trading to be even or to profit is inherently evil. Giving is not. Sharing is not. That's Christian doctrine, and it's right. It does come from God whether the unGodly know that or not.
The US could instantly nationalize the Federal Reserve. The US could instantly declare all Federal Reserve Notes to be interest-free United States Notes (USN). The US could instantly pay off the National Debt using United States Notes as full legal-tender. As to how far the American people would want to go in prosecuting and punishing the fraudsters/banksters, I suggest truth and reconciliation rather than punishment. As for whether those banksters would be paid in USN for their racked-up Treasuries created in the banksters' fraudulent scheme, I should say not. That would not leave them homeless or starving though in a non-coercive socialists, bottom-up and top-across world.
Austerity and scarcity are wholly artificial contrivances, and the top banksters know it full well.
Poverty could be eliminated. It will be eliminated.
As I've been writing, as original with me for years now, the US national and world economy is a household where that household can create all the wealth it wants. The grassroots people can decide to build anything they want. There is no such thing as a monetary constraint. There are only the failures to envision, desire, communicate, receive, and cooperate to bring forth.
USN should be a mere stepping stone in this evolutionary process. USN will not be needed in the New Earth.
This is not naivety. This is inevitability. Righteousness prevails and survives where its opposite goes the opposite way into destruction and death.
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)