Thread: Obama Nation - Now What?

Obama Nation - Now What?
By Joel Skousen
Editor - World Affairs Brief
11-11-8

If last Wednesday's massive media celebration of Barack Obama's life was any indication, this country is in for a propaganda blitz like nothing we have seen since the death of JFK. This young, ever-smiling and well spoken Marxist Senator, newly elected as the nation's forty-fourth president by a majority of 8 million votes, was presented as the nation's new idol and rock star with nary a flaw to be found. His equally radical wife Michele was presented as the perfect, humble and principled First Lady. There was no mention by the press of their rocky marriage, her early racial badmouthing of America, nor of her husband, his homosexual liaisons, nor his background at the feet of Marxist mentors as he rose through the ranks of emerging socialist parties and Leftist community action organizations. Neither was there any mention of the evidence of his birth in Kenya and the carefully crafted fraud that his mother perpetrated in Hawaii, falsely certifying that her son was born there.

Most importantly, there was no mention of the mystery surrounding who sponsored his way through his expensive university education at Harvard (records sealed) and who made him wealthy through a serious of insider trading deals, who facilitated his purchase of a multi-million dollar home, and which political insiders paved his way to his come-from-nowhere election as a US Senator. One thing is for sure: It wasn't his impoverished Marxist mentors. Clearly, at some point, the establishment decided to use this young black activist for their purposes and he accepted those terms. His swooning followers are destined to be profoundly disappointed in their hopes that Barack Obama is going to bring fundamental change to this nation. Just as the current Democratic Congress has done nothing to stop or overturn the Bush Neocon agenda, neither will Barack Obama. He will, however, give this nation the biggest leap in socialist redistribution and benefits since globalist George Bush masqueraded as a conservative. Hold on to your hat and your wallet. This is going to be a wild ride.

Libertarian icon Lew Rockwell didn't pull any punches about what an Obama nation will mean in the long term: "I predict that, under Obama, taxes and government spending will increase, government regulation and control over our lives will increase, economic disorder will increase, state police powers will increase, and imperialistic wars will continue unimpeded (and likely increase). In short, the political establishment will continue to pursue its agenda - without a break in meter - regardless of who it places on the throne. In the words of Emma Goldman: 'If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.'" True.

Obama's far Left base is going to be equally disappointed if they think Obama will succeed in passing all of their radical causes in socialized health care, education and energy restriction through the mantra of global warming. Yes, we'll get a big dose of universal health care--whether we like it or not--and a mess of global warming restrictions on energy production. But, it will be a mish-mash of compromises. Obama has already shown that he can play the moderate--changing positions at will according to how his globalist advisors steer him. In the final analysis, Obama's socialist agenda will only be a degree or two worse than what a controlled Republican president would have promoted had he been elected.

In foreign policy issues, you will see that the establishment has a wide range of abilities (black ops) to create an uninterrupted flow of conflicts that will keep Obama busy succumbing to yet more intervention around the world. Of course, he will tell his supporters this is intervention is only temporary and they will naively await another withdrawal "just around the corner." But that corner will never be turned though the PTB may allow a token drawdown of forces to further the illusion of change, just as Bush did.

Together, Barack and Michelle Obama are pledging to fulfill every promise made to the American people--as a matter of principle. However, even before starting, Barack is hedging his bets. He told the American people in his victory speech that "The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even in one term [prepping the way to run again]. But, America, I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you, we as a people will get there." Wrong again.

This is a promise doomed to failure --however, he can ride this false promise for a long time as long as the media keeps beating the same drum and presenting new "solutions." Mark my words, Barack will run for a second term on the justification that "I need more time to finish what we started." That will be good for another four years.

The public seems to have an infinite tolerance for new and false hopes that temporarily derail the nagging feeling in conscience that "nothing will change." No one wants to accept the hard times that surely must come. The wholesale acceptance of these bailouts (which are only beginning) is truly symptomatic of this refusal to accept what is real. We will never recover from the profligate spending, debt and fiat money creation that has now become a flood.

Not a few Obama supporters openly told the press they can't wait for his election victory so they can stop working and stop paying their mortgages--all expecting a massive liberation from financial responsibility. This attitude which reaches into the highest levels of Wall Street represents a total loss of principles in monetary matters. No one wants to hear that this will all end up in a sea of red ink and worthless paper money--they just want government to do whatever it takes to stave off the end until some future time--on someone else's watch--hoping it somehow won't ever touch them. But it will touch all of us. Job losses will continue unabated through next year and may even accelerate as the big three automakers and retail chain stores sink further into bankruptcy.

I don't think Americans will ever wake up, however. The truth is too hard to face. Blindness to reality and false optimism rule the day. These two illusions go hand in hand in facilitating the media-driven agenda to fool an unthinking populace into continually trusting the establishment to lead, failure after failure. They are truly experts at manipulating the public mind. The PTB have shown that fear of a financial collapse can drive almost all people everywhere into doing whatever the establishment leaders tell them. And when the people demand change, they give them Team B--new faces, but establishment insiders just the same.

Obama is now putting together his transition team--a huge list of people who will select the cabinet and White House staff. This is the way it's always done, but there is something fundamentally wrong with a new president allowing others to recommend and select his key people--the process always screens out anyone who would rebel about the control system. A truly experienced leader already knows who he can trust. He doesn't turn this job over to his handlers--unless he's a puppet.

What we are going to see in the next 4 years is more war, and more economic decline. Bailout fever will infect a wide swath of the lowest caliber of Americans, each looking for the government to save their particular failing niche. Almost assuredly, we will see the most deadbeat homeowners bailed out of their mortgage problems while those of us who faithfully pay our debts will be tapped to pay for other's financial profligacy.

In reality, they just print more money, but each of these continuing crises will be used to drive forward a change agenda that even Barack Obama isn't anticipating in advance--an agenda that doesn't lead to real solutions, only to more control and less liberty. Democratic voters now will have the same tendency to go along with all the globalist compromises that Obama will make and not realize that if George Bush had done them, they would be railing against him. This is the same point Chris Floyd made this week in warning Obama supporters. He's even got an acronym for it: "WIBDI: What If Bush Did It?"

"This user-friendly analytical tool provides a quick and easy way of determining the value of any given policy while correcting one's perception for partisan bias. Simply take a particular action or proposal and submit it to the WIBDI test: If Bush did this, would you think it was OK? Or would you condemn it as the act of a warmonger, or a tyrant, or a corrupt corporate tool, etc.? The just-concluded campaign has already shown us how our hordes of our quondam dissidents have signally failed this test, excusing, countenancing, defending or even embracing the actions and positions enumerated below by Chris Hedges:

"Sen. Barack Obama's vote to renew the Patriot Act, his votes to continue to fund the Iraq war, his backing of the FISA Reform Act, his craven courting of the Israeli lobby, his support of the death penalty, his refusal to champion universal, single-payer not-for-profit health care for all Americans, his call to increase troop levels and expand the war in Afghanistan, his failure to call for a reduction in the bloated and wasteful defense spending and his lobbying for the huge taxpayer swindle known as the bailout...To which we could add his bellicose saber-rattling at Iran; his promise to roll back 'Russian aggression' and extend war-triggering treaty protection to an aggressive Georgian regime (which cluster-bombed its own people, as we learned this week), his advocacy of destabilizing and civilian-shredding military strikes in Pakistan, his opposition to gay marriage (and campaigning with gay-bashing preachers), and his support for extending the death penalty to cover non-fatal offenses, and so on."

"Any one of these positions would be roundly condemned by 'progressives' [what the Left likes to call themselves] if they were taken or advocated by George W. Bush." All true. Watch it happen. The PTB can get the same result from the unthinking Left as they got from the unthinking Right during the Bush regime.

I predict we will never have peace in this world again. Obama's globalist advisors (CFR team B--pretending to be different and even in opposition to CFR team A that handled Bush) will ensure that. Iran is still on the top of the list for the next intervention. Israel will be embroiled in another war with the Palestinians, Hezbollah and the Syrians. North Korea will still be given a free ride in all its ugly tyranny (to someday serve as a trigger for an even greater world conflict), and Russia and China will continue to rise in military might, unimpeded by administration policy until they are too great a threat to deter. That great final threat of world war probably won't mature until a subsequent administration--when a warmongering globalist Republican returns to office.

HOW THE WORLD VIEWS AN OBAMA PRESIDENCY

The rest of the world, speaking of ordinary people, is just as enamored with Barack Obama as nearly half of the American public. The way the media portrays it you would think it was everyone in America who idolizes him! Of course, after the specter of George W. Bush, and the damage he has caused to American goodwill around the world, it is easy to see why the world would be hopeful of change.

World leaders, each allied more or less with one of three major predator centers vying for control of the New World Order (Russia, China or the Anglo-American establishment) has their own agenda to push on the new administration. Each is trying to send a message to America that they want a change in policy to benefit their own particular crisis. Most have their hand out for money. Some want to be left alone.

Pakistan is pushing for the new administration to stop encroaching on its sovereignty with cross border military attacks. These aerial attacks all kill more innocent civilians than terrorists. The Daily Times of Pakistan quoted PM Gilani as saying, "The next US president must halt missile strikes on suspected Taliban targets in northwest Pakistan or risk failure in efforts against terrorism, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani warned on Tuesday."

Afghanistan is demanding the US stop aerial attacks as well. No air attack weapon is precise enough in residential neighborhoods to properly avoid civilian casualties. The increasing civilian casualty count continues to one of the major factors turning more Afghans, Pakastanis and Iraqis against the Americans.

China reacted to the news of Barack Obama's victory with enthusiasm even though the Chinese media expressed no interest during the campaign. China, like Russia, is well aware of Obama's Marxist background and are guardedly optimistic that they may have an ally in the White House. However, they are also sharp enough in US affairs to know that no one gets into the presidency without being controlled by the establishment--which they don't trust.

The China Daily said in a commentary: "Like American people on the other side of the Pacific, we are elated, too, at the landslide win of Democrat Barack Obama...We wish him all the best in bringing America out of the present financial quagmire as soon as possible, and [to] re-energize the world's largest economy with his brand new ideas and vision." Naturally, the Chinese are interested in some successful outcome to the world financial crisis, since their ability to milk the West for money (to build their burgeoning military strike force) is dependent on a US economic recovery.

Russia's Prime Minister Dmitri A. Medvedev gave a long "State of the Union" speech to the Duma which amounted to a "a wide-ranging attack on the United States." for "threatening" Russia with an anti-ballistic-missile system deployment in the former Soviet states of Poland and the Czech Republic. As I have pointed out before, the only threat an ABM system is to Russia is that it can spoil the pre-emptive nuclear missile attack Russia is planning for the West. These weapons have no warhead so they can't possibly be used for any other purpose.

Einnews said that "The Russian leader warned on Wednesday that Moscow might deploy short-range missiles in the Baltic region to counter a perceived threat from a proposed American missile defense shield in eastern Europe. Mr. Medvedev also proposed to extend the constitutional term of the presidency from four years to six ---- a move that could enable future Russian presidents to serve 12 years in two consecutive terms. His remarks, in his first state of the nation address since assuming the presidency in May, was delivered within hours of the election of Barack Obama and offered a chill glimpse into the potential issues and tensions confronting the new American leader when he takes office in January.

"His comments also seemed at odds with the broader groundswell of support for the American president-elect from many governments across the globe [that's because Russia is beginning to emerge with its new confrontational strategy with the West and is not truly looking for peace]. Mr. Medvedev did not specifically congratulate Mr. Obama on his victory, saying only that he hoped that 'our partners ---- the new U.S. administration ---- will make a choice in favor of full-fledged relationship with Russia.'

"At the same time, however, he spoke of a 'new configuration for the military forces of our country' that would include abandoning plans to dismantle some missile regiments [Russia has long-ago stopped complying with disarmament agreements, except those that provide continued aid to Russia's nuclear and weapons industry] and the stationing of missiles in Russia's Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad."

The West was complicit in hiding Russia's long-term evil strike plan when it failed to demand independence for Kaliningrad during the phony "collapse of the Soviet Union." Western leaders knew full well that this was a deception and Russia's insistence that it would retain control of Kaliningrad was a dead giveaway that it wanted to retain a military launch site for future action inside a potentially expanded NATO. Kaliningrad's position just below Lithuania and above Poland gives it access to an ice-free port and allows it to cut off NATO support for the 3 Baltic states which will someday be forced back into the Soviet fold.

"'We earlier planned to take three missile regiments within the missile division stationed in Kozelsk off combat duty and discontinue the division itself by 2010. I have decided to refrain from these plans,' Mr. Medvedev said. 'The Iskander missile system will be deployed in Kaliningrad region to neutralize, when necessary, the missile shield,' Medvedev said. 'Radioelectronic equipment located in the western region' of Russia in the Kaliningrad region 'will jam objects of the U.S. missile defense system,' Mr. Medvedev said."

These are not words of an ally, but of one that will continue to take advantage of every globalist provocation in order to make further threats against the former Soviet states (planted with millions of Russians to facilitate intervention). Of course, as I have hypothesized, this is the whole intent of the US positioning of the limited ABM system near Russia's border--to provoke Russia into war--not defend against it. The number of missile interceptors is too small to do that. In contrast, Russian Iskander missiles going into Kaliningrad have a range of about 250 miles, have a warhead and do serve a direct offensive purpose. The United States claims the missile shield is needed to intercept missiles from states including Iran. But Russia successfully exposed that as a fib by inviting the US to base the missiles in border states next to Iran where it could intercept them in their boost phase. The US declined, exposing their real purpose.

One prime indication there will be no change in military policy is that there are indications the Obama transition team is considering retaining Sec. of Defense Robert Gates. This lends credibility to the suspicion that an Obama regime is not serious in breaking with the old Bush regime--in the same way that Bush never tried to undo the policies or damage by the former Clinton administration. Of course, all this is done in the name of being "bi-partisan."

Bush critic Robert Dreyfuss isn't enthused about Obama keeping Gates in the cabinet. "Barack Obama will be getting off on the wrong foot, to put it mildly, if he does what seems likely now: allow Robert Gates to stay on as secretary of defense. For reasons that are unclear to me, many in Obama's inner circle seem to believe that it's important to bring so-called 'moderate' Republicans into the president-elect's national security team. That is an awful idea, for two reasons: first, even though many of the names being floated -- such as Gates, Dick Lugar of Indiana, and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska -- come from the traditional wing of the GOP, and they are not neoconservatives, they are almost guaranteed to push for an expansion of the US military budget and a bigger armed forces. And second, by doing so Obama would be conceding many critics' argument that Democrats are somehow not suited to control the national security apparatus. Gates has reportedly already been working on the transition to an Obama administration, and he certainly hasn't done anything to damp down speculation that he is a candidate for the job under Obama."

Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted.

Cite source as Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com

World Affairs Brief, 290 West 580 South, Orem, Ut 84058, USA

http://www.rense.com/general84/world.htm

Screw that the media kisses his butt, and almost 50% of America don't share his views! Its only a matter of time before the other 50% know that he is just the same and can't follow through with his promises. Then maybe a real leader might emerge not a career politician!