I realize that the anti-globalist and truther communities do not tend to be apathetic or cynical. In fact, we tend to be highly motivated, energized and idealistic. Many of us just don't see any reason to believe that voting for Obama will bring about anything except more of the same; and that's not what we need.
BEING IN OBAMA'S SHOES (AND HEAD)
If one wanted to do right by the American people, the American presidency provides perhaps the best possible position for doing so. But, as we have seen, that would involve gaining the endorsement and the blessing of the global elite, and filling one's advisory slots with the most influential NWO elite.
But since you can fill your advisory slots with anyone you want, why not choose advisors that reflect your true values? Clearly, to appoint honest, decent people to such positions would imply that you are not intending to take your orders from the CFR/Trilateral/global elite planners. Consequently, the best, if not only way to be elected president is to surround yourself with loyal globalist insiders. After all, just about every U.S. president has done this for the past 100 years. Once you are elected president, you are then expected to appoint as many CFR and Trilateral alum to your cabinet as you can. This is simply the way it is done.
So, we cannot really fault Obama for his choices of advisors. If he wants to get elected, he made the necessary picks. Besides, if Obama really is in league with the New World Order, why did Caroline Kennedy and Ted Kennedy give Obama their ringing endorsement? Do we really think they would both endorse someone whom they believed would be doing the bidding for the same dark forces that murdered her father and his brother? Or might they have a different sense about Obama?
What about his voting record? Like his vote to extend FISA and giving immunity to the telcoms who illegally allowed the U.S. government to snoop on Americans even before 9-11? How can we trust a person who casts such irresponsible votes. After all, potential lawsuits against the telcoms provided one of the best inroads into discovering what the Bush administration was listening for prior to 9-11. If there could be courtroom testimony that they were listening in on al-Qaeda to make certain that everything was going as planned, that could blow the lid off the entire 9-11 cover-up. With the passage of the telcom immunity act, there went possibly the best chance we had for uncovering the truth. So, how could Obama, if he is one of the good guys, cast such damaging votes?
First, the bill already had the votes to pass regardless of his vote. Yes, as the democratic front-runner for the nomination, he could have encouraged other Democratic senators to oppose the bill. But if the bill failed, and even if it passed with Obama having voted against the bill, he would have been setting himself up. All the Bush administration would need to do is to stage some small false flag attack where a handful of Americans are killed, and then place the blame on wiretapping that got bogged down in red tape. Instantly, the Republicans can make the case that if Obama has his way, it will lead to more of the same. It did not seem worth sabotaging his candidacy for a vote on a bill that was essentially a lose-lose situation.
The same case can be made for the $700 billion Wall Street bail-out package that Obama supported and voted for. The ongoing financial meltdown is again, not an accident, but rather a meticulously calculated exercise almost certainly designed by many of the very CFR individuals who benefited most from the rescue package. It facilitated their further consolidation of infrastructural power while simultaneously beginning the process of economically bringing the American economy, and people, to their knees. Had Obama and the Democrats not passed the measure, another stage of the plan would have been executed leading to further collapse, and Obama and the Democrats would have been blamed and sabotaged just in time for the election. Again, it was another setup, and to continue his bid for election, and to prevent a McCain presidency, Obama had only one choice.
Okay, but what about his spotty voting record in the Senate before he announced his run for the presidency? Doesn't that suggest that he's really a wolf in sheep's clothing, casting progressive-looking votes just often enough to maintain liberals' support, but otherwise voting too often for corporate-friendly legislation? I realize this might sound trite, but again, it was all part of laying the necessary groundwork for a successful presidential bid. After declaring, he couldn't simply begin casting votes that went counter to the votes he had cast previously. In order to come across as genuine to the globalist elite, he had to play the right cards and not tip his hand. If he cast one vote that seemed out of line with their agenda, it would have aroused their suspicions.
What about all his talk of going after and killing bin-Laden and attacking Iran? Isn't he simply fueling dangerous myths, that bin-Laden was responsible for 9-11 and that Iran poses a nuclear threat to Israel? Isn't such warmongering irresponsible? Again, it's all part and parcel of getting to the White House. Those myths are, at least where the media are concerned, conventional wisdom and irrefutable facts. For Obama to question them would lead to a frontal assault against him by the CFR media and reveal him to not be a team player to his CFR handlers. Again, he was simply doing what he had to in order to get elected.
But if Obama is so tightly controlled by his handlers, why should we expect him to be any different if he gets to the White House? First, it is probably important to say right up front that if he becomes president, Obama will not dare to expose the globalist conspiracy.
Let's be clear about this. If there are people who would assassinate a popular sitting U.S. president, and his brother, and blow up 3,000 Americans (not to mention the untold millions killed in their wars for global hegemony), then they would not hesitate to make threats to assure that their crimes remain hidden and their power remain intact. It is not unlikely that it is well understood, either implicitly or explicitly, that exposing or undermining the cabal will not be tolerated. Having seen how these people operate, it is not even out of the question that they've made horrific contingency plans that might unleash some catastrophe upon the American people if word ever gets out that might threaten their control.
Given the likelihood of such threats, Obama's strategy is likely to attempt to pull support away from extremists like Rockefeller and Kissinger, while likely trying to steer his own handlers, like Brzezinski, in a different, more benign direction. But in order to have the clout to do this he will not only need a mandate from the people (popular support equals political strength), but he will likely have to get his hands bloody, as is the tradition. And they will likely undertake this stunt early in his administration before he can gather the power and prestige to figure a way to forestall or cancel the operation altogether.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
