OpEdNews - Page 4 of Article: Why Truthers Need to Vote for Obama

This is quite possibly what Joe Biden was speaking about on a recent visit to Seattle, when he said that it will not even be six months into his administration before our enemies will "test Obama" by some manufactured crisis. That sounds scary. And of course we all want Biden to tell us just what the heck he knows about this. After all, as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, we know he has access to secret intelligence, and his position as a CFR member probably doesn't hurt either.

Much has been made of Biden having met with the 9-11 paymaster, Pakistani ISI General Mahmoud Ahmad, only two days after the 9-11 attacks. Ahmad had been in D.C. before and during the attacks, and had met with officials at the Pentagon, White House, National Security Council, and CIA, including George Tenet and Marc Grossman, then U.S. Under Secretary of State, and Rep. Porter Goss, who followed Tenet as the Director of the CIA.

When asked on videotape why he had met with Ahmad, Biden responded, "I told them not to do it, I told them not to wire the money - I told them to stop supporting the Taliban." Simply having met with the man who wired Mohammed Atta $100,000 already seems suspicious, but the response he gave only makes the story more interesting. Does this imply that Biden had foreknowledge of the 9-11 operation? Or might the meeting have been an ordinary affair for a Foreign Relations chairman, and that after it was revealed that Ahmad was the paymaster, Biden may have felt compromised and clumsily tried to talk his way out of a videotape ambush? Who knows, but various other CFR members were aware that something big was being planned. On September 6, 2001, former Democratic presidential candidate and CFR member Sen. Gary Hart flew to D.C. to warn his friend Condoleezza Rice about a massive impending attack by al-Qaeda.

The very idea that Hart would have felt the need to warn Rice, the president's National Security Advisor implies that he did not believe that she was already aware of the approaching attack. (Of course, she likely did know, because after Hart's visit, in a speech about threats facing the U.S., Rice did not once mention al-Qaeda. Why would she purposefully avoid mentioning al-Qaeda unless she needed to appear completely taken by surprise when the attack actually occurred?)

The fact that the Hart's Hart-Rudman Commission concluded, "America will be attacked by terrorists using weapons of mass destruction and Americans will lose their lives on American soil, possibly in large numbers," suggests that Hart was trying to get the word out, if not a warning.

But if senators like Hart and Biden knew something dastardly was headed our way, why did they not speak out? First, while they may have known the general plan, they may not have known the specifics. Even a generic warning about an al-Qaeda attack on American soil would have given us something to work with. But how would this warning have gotten to the public. The CFR-controlled media wouldn't have helped, and likely would make whoever leveled such claims look like a raving lunatic, a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist.

And even if a general timeframe or specific date was provided, the plot wouldn't be cancelled, it would just be postponed or altered. So it wouldn't happen as planned and Biden or Hart would look like a nutcase, but people would still die, just not as predicted. Then too, there is the possibility that threats had been issued about anyone breaking the secrecy. Perhaps the noble thing to do would be to try to expose the plot and sacrifice yourself and your family in the process, if in fact it ends there. But would such a 'terrorist' attack likely be averted by trying to go public about the plans? After being tipped off by CFR's Nicholaus Rockefeller, Aaron Russo and Alex Jones went public about the 9-11 attack before it happened and were ignored --even afterwards.

Then too, there's the charge that Biden authored the Patriot Act when he was head of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Why did he author the Patriot Act? He likely authored it in the event that the 1993 World Trade Center attack or some other "catalyzing event" had happened under Clinton's watch. As it turned out, for some reason the bombs in the basement of the WTC did not all go off as planned, so we were spared a calamity with much greater loss of life than what occurred on 9-11. Again, it was simply a postponement of a plan that was already in the pipeline.

But if we look back some years into Biden's past, we see that as a student, he was a civil-rights activist. Once in Congress in the 1970s he opposed the Vietnam War as "stupid" and argued for massive cuts in defense spending. In the 1980s he railed against the Reagan administration's support of the 'contra' terrorists that took the lives of 30,000 Nicaraguan civilians. And he spoke out against Reagan's support for paramilitary death squads in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras where the U.S.-backed strife caused another 200,000 civilian deaths. Interestingly, the CFR folks in charge of 'managing' those conflicts under Reagan, are now in the Middle East helping to 'manage' that region, and would likely continue to offer their assistance in a McCain administration. In sharp contrast with his work on the Patriot Act, in the past Biden has shown leadership in defending human and democratic rights.

Biden's warning in Seattle was not just about some ensuing crisis, but the response. He said Obama's response would be "unpopular." How would he know that, unless he has an idea of what the response might be? As these things tend to go, the response was worked out in advance of the actual crisis or event. It is the response they want, and it is likely they've already worked it out, they just need Obama to implement it. And because we know how they work, and Biden has said it will be unpopular, it is likely that the response is designed to get plenty of blood on Obama's hands so that he will become a fully pledged, paid up member of the New World Order.

More importantly, the fact that the response will be unpopular is likely designed to wipe out Obama's mandate before he can put it to good use. By turning Obama allies into Obama's enemies, such a move will force Obama further into the darkside and wedged more tightly under their boot.

And this is the key, because in electing Obama, we are not only electing a decent guy, we are electing and empowering an entire movement, and a new, idealistic generation with a can-do attitude towards the world and it problems. But I can see many among us are still shaking their heads, thinking that I have come under Obama's spell. What makes me believe that Obama has a white hat under the black hat he's wearing now? And with his head so tightly wedged under the globalist boot, what good is he? And what's the deal with him picking Biden?

A QUESTION OF CHARACTER

Obama has been taken apart by many respectable authors who have looked into his record, his affiliations, and have even trolled through the popular books he authored to find clues to support their assertion that Obama is one of 'them', not one of us. They base their claim, upon his record, his affiliations, and what he says and does not say in his books and speeches. I contend that, again, such examinations are too simplistic and see only the obvious. As I explained previously, Obama has carefully and meticulously crafted a persona that has appeal to the masses, and to the globalists. But it is ultimately the globalists that determine whether one gets to be president, so one needs to signal to them consistently that you're not a threat to them, but actually an asset. Basically, Obama's many detractors are not seeing beyond the mask, but we need to look under the mask to see the real person.

To know who Obama is, one needs to start looking in the right place. First, he was born to an idealistic mother who told him that he could accomplish anything he wanted. He was also raised in a loving environment by his grandparents. He watched as his mother died from cancer while battling for treatment. He was regarded by classmates as exceptionally nice, who did not belong to any one clique, but was friendly to everyone, including those that might have been somewhat outcasts in school.

Being exceptionally bright, he studied law where he became exposed to the legal system and institutionalized injustices. Rather than go into lucrative corporate law, he moved into a working class community in Chicago and worked as a community organizer for years, helping those less fortunate to improve their lives. He regularly attended meetings of other social activists representing a wide array of causes. Perhaps realizing that bad government was responsible for so many of society's problems, he ran for office and was elected to the state legislature. There he rubbed shoulders with people who let him in on how the world really works, and why so many progressive changes needed in government were not possible given the existing power structure. He was a 'rising star' among his colleagues, and was taken note of by the global elite. He was 'groomed' for Washington, the seat of American power where he could more finely tune his understanding of this dysfunctional system. He ultimately decided that he could influence things the most as president, and undertook the measures necessary to ultimately succeed. He succeeded in winning the backing of the globalists, and the nomination.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6