The Financial Times of London just announced their endorsement of Barrack Obama as the U.S. Democratic Party candidate for President. That's one major mouthpiece typically standing for everything OPPOSITE to what the Democratic Party stands for backing Mr. Obama.
As if this were not enough, in typical lieing fashion the rag for Europe's deranged oligarchy went on to claim there was not much difference, policy-wise, between the two candidates. Obama, the FT claims, reaches a wider demographic than does Clinton, so this is why he has earned their endorsement.
So, the issue, then, at least according to the FT, is electability. Before I take a closer look at this, let's disect the FT's claim about there being little policy difference between the two candidates.
Who is the candidate proposing both a bold freeze on mortgage foreclosures and a five year freeze on mortgage payments? Whose wildcat financial advantage does this upset? Let's be honest here. The most vocal proponents of free markets ... the most obscene bashers of the power of government to regulate ... KNOW there's a difference between Clinton and Obama. In keeping with their faithful backing of insane Texans, the FT just went "all in."
Let's look at this one other way. When you, as a candidated, challenge the financial elite for the sake of the U.S. Constitution's mandate to "promote the general Welfare" — it's right there in the Preamble, among other places — what should you expect?
That's right... an endorsement for your opponent.
But there's more to the FT's backing Obama. Their case rests entirely on appeal and electability. So, let's consider this...
I believe wisdom advises taking a historical perspective. Consider American political history as it has affected women ... and African-Americans.
Friend, this is a no-brainer. African-Americans are, by far, more largely suppressed than are women.
I submit to you Mr. Obama is being set up to fail. And in the process, dishearten millions of voters.
Do you really think the deranged MSM that pushed Congressman Dennis Kucinich aside like he was some bug — a white male with powerful, practical ideas — is actually going to let a black man reach the office of President without putting the fear of God about this in all the fundamentalist places?
I'm sorry, but history simply should not be ignored.
In fact, I have a stock index options advisory, and on my front page I have a list of things I believe. One of these is, "The trend is your friend." Truth is history supports this view. I submit it even has applicability in the evolution of political power, especially among the demographic groups under consideration here.
Understand, too. I am not suggesting the FT's endorsement of Mr. Obama indicates he is more amenable to British Toryism — the very affliction our nation's political institutions, particularly the Republican party, suffer to their core.
I simply am saying he is more easily pushed aside. And that would facilitate the promotion to President, America's leading neo-colonialist: John McCain.