Fuck Obama

[Sweejak]

I started reading this book but at the time it was too much of a polemic for me. The following isn't really germane to who Obama's classmates were, but here it is anyway ( the formatting is a little off because it's taken from a pdf):

TRILATERAL COMMISSION POST-CARTER PERSPECTIVE, 1981-1983

During these years, Trilateral leaders Brzezinski and Samuel Huntington were pondering the future transformation of the United States into a bureaucratic-authoritarian or totalitarian state. In his book American Politics, Huntington developed a perspective for the future based on conflict between increasingly authoritarian and ultimately totalitarian state control, on the one hand, and an underlying American value system and world-outlook – which he calls the “American Creed” – on the other. In Huntington’s view, there was no doubt that the regime would become more oppressive:“An increasingly sophisticated economy and active involvement in world affairs seem likely to create stronger needs for hierarchy, bureaucracy, centralization of power, expertise, big government specifically, and big organizations generally.” (p. 228) This is a kind of shorthand for what most experts could identify as the fascist corporate state.

The problem Huntington saw was the American Creed, based on liberty, equality, individualism, and democracy and rooted in “seventeenth-century Protestant moralism and eighteenth-century liberal rationalism.” (p. 229) Huntington predicted in 1981 that the conflict between individualistic values and the centralized regime may explode early in the coming century, specifically between 2010 and 2030, in a period of ferment and dislocation like the late 1960s: “If the periodicity of the past prevails, a major sustained creedal passion period will occur in the second and third decades of the twenty-first century.” At this time, he argued, “the oscillations among the responses could intensify in such a way as to threaten to destroy both ideals and institutions.” (p. 232) Such a process would be acted out as follows:

“Lacking any concept of the state, lacking for most of its history both the centralized authority and the bureaucratic apparatus of the European state, the American polity has historically been a weak polity. It was designed to be so, and the traditional inheritance and social environment combined for years to support the framers’ intentions. In the twentieth century, foreign threats and domestic economic and social needs have generated pressures to develop stronger, more authoritative decision-making and decision-implementing institutions. Yet the continued presence of deeply felt moralistic sentiments among major groups in American society could continue to ensure weak and divided government, devoid of authority and unable to deal
satisfactorily with the economic, social and foreign challenges confronting the nation. Intensification of this conflict between history and progress could give rise to increasing frustration and increasingly violent oscillations between moralism and cynicism. American moralism ensures that government will never be truly efficacious; the realities of power ensure that government will never be truly democratic. This situation could lead to a two-phase dialectic involving intensified efforts to reform government, followed by intensified frustration when those efforts produce not progress in a liberal-democratic direction, but obstacles to meeting perceived functional needs. The weakening of government in an effort to reform it could lead eventually to strong demands for the replacement of the weakened and ineffective institutions by more authoritarian structures more effectively designed to meet historical needs. Given the perversity of reform, moralistic extremism in the pursuit of liberal democracy could generate a strong tide toward authoritarian efficiency.” (p. 232)

Huntington then quotes Plato’s celebrated passage on the way that the “culmination of liberty in democracy is precisely what prepares the way for the cruelest extreme of servitude under a despot.”

The message is clear: sooner or later, all roads lead to Behemoth. (Tarpley, Project Democracy,[Washington: EIR, 1987])

[Sweejak]

One more and I'll quit. I think it's important to note that Tarpley usually calls his work a hypothesis, if nothing else the book has a lot of leads. I have not even scanned his later "Obama the Post-Modern Coup".

DEVAL PATRICK: BRZEZINSKI’S SPARE OBAMA

The interchangeability of Obama and Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick is important because the two of them remind us of the procedures used by the Trilateral managers the last time they installed a puppet president – Jimmy Carter. As Zbigniew Brzezinski tells us with startling brutality in his memoir entitled Power and Principle, the Trilaterals did not put all their eggs in one basket when it came to grooming a puppet for the 1976 election. Their favored choice was that messianic peanut farmer from Plains, Georgia who in fact won the presidency. But they always retained a fallback option as well. As Brzezinski relates, this was another southern Democratic Governor, Reubin Askew of Florida. If Carter had overdosed, suffered a nervous breakdown, or been indicted, Askew would have been rushed into the breach to take his place. Since the spare candidate or fallback option needed had to be a relatively prominent public figure, it is virtually impossible to conceal the fact that an understudy is waiting in the wings. The existence of Patrick as Obama’s virtual twin is therefore of critical importance for the argument that Obama is in fact a Manchurian candidate created and controlled by the Trilateral commission and its allies.

OBAMA DISCREDITED IN MASSACHUSETTS,
NEW HAMPSHIRE, RHODE ISLAND

Patrick spoiled Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island (where the television comes from Boston) for Obama’s future chances by his blatant nepotism and greedy rapacity in office. He spent $11,000 on drapery for the governor’s state house suite, changed the governor’s car from a Crown Victoria to a Cadillac, and hired a chief of staff for his wife at an annual salary of almost $75,000. He commandeered a state helicopter for his private use. Patrick lavished all this on himself while demanding austerity and service cuts for the people, as Obama is also sure to do. Patrick was also remarkably corrupt: he placed a call to Citigroup Executive Committee chair Robert Rubin on behalf of the financially beleaguered mortgage company Ameriquest, a subsidiary of ACC Capital Holdings, of which Patrick is a former board member. Patrick later attempted to lie his way out of this predicament with the absurd claim that he was calling not as governor but as a private citizen. When this ploy failed, the skewered Patrick plaintively confessed: “I appreciate that I should not have made the call. I regret the mistake.”

Patrick, like Jeremiah Wright, was a devotee of the blowback theory of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a hallmark of left CIA sponsorship. On the sixth anniversary of the 9/11 events on September 11, 2007, Patrick declaimed: “It was a mean and nasty and bitter attack on the United States. But it was also about the failure of human beings to understand each other and to learn to love each other. It seems to me that lesson of that morning is something that we must carry with us every day.”

[justdrew]

Snips from Barack Obama, the Unauthorized Biography:

In a September 5, 2008 interview with Matt Welch, the Libertarian Party candidate for vice president Wayne Allyn Root, a member of Obama’s Columbia class of 1983, reports that he never met or heard of anybody called Obama, and has not been able to find anyone who can among his fellow alumni. Root majored in the same department where Obama claims to have majored. Here is an excerpt from this revealing exchange:“Wayne Allyn Root: I think the most dangerous thing you should know about Barack Obama is
I don’t know a single person at Columbia that knows him, and they all know me. I don’t have a classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia. Ever! Matt Welch: So tell us what we should know about Barack....

... Welch: Were you the exact same class?

Root: Class of ‘83 political science, pre-law Columbia University. You don’t get more exact than that. Never met him in my life, don’t know anyone who ever met him. At the class reunion, our 20th reunion five years ago, 20th reunion, who was asked to be the speaker of the class? Me. No one ever heard of Barack! Who was he, and five years ago, nobody even knew who he was.

OK - now THAT seems very weird indeed.

[Col. Quisp]

The faculty included Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national security adviser, and Zalmay Khalilzad, now the American ambassador to the United Nations. Half of the eight students in the seminar were outstanding, and Mr. Obama was among them, Mr. Baron said.

said Sweejak quoting from an unauthorized bio of Obombem.

That's a small seminar. Yet none of his fellow students remembers him? Did he even go to Columbia? This is getting weird!!!!

[Sweejak]

said Sweejak quoting from an unauthorized bio of Obombem.

I could have sworn I just read: "said Sweejak smoking from an unfiltered Obombem"

[Sweejak]

BUSINESS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

Obama’s first job after leaving Columbia was with Business International Corporation (BIC), a private intelligence company which provided information and know-how to US companies seeking to do business overseas. Obama worked as a consultant and financial journalist. So far as is known, Business International Corporation was never identified as a CIA front company, but it had the tell- tale earmarks of one. Its business of journalism and reporting, ferreting out information about conditions in foreign countries was a perfect cover story for spying of all sorts. Business International went out of existence when it was acquired the London Economist Intelligence Unit, an operation that notoriously moved in the orbit of British intelligence.

... Dan Armstrong, who knew Obama when he was working at BIC, has stressed that Obama’s account of the firm and his job there is far from accurate: ‘Mr. Armstrong’s description of the firm, and those of other co-workers, differs at least in emphasis from Mr. Obama’s. It was a small newsletter-publishing and research firm, with about 250 employees worldwide, that helped companies with foreign operations (they could be called multinationals) understand overseas markets, they said. Far from a bastion of corporate conformity, they said, it was informal and staffed by young people making modest wages. Employees called it “high school with ashtrays.” Mr. Obama was a researcher and writer for a reference service called Financing Foreign Operations. He also wrote for a newsletter, Business International Money Report. [...] “It was not working for General Foods or Chase Manhattan, that’s for sure,” said Louis Celi, a vice president at the company, which was later taken over by the Economist Intelligence Unit. “And it was not a consulting firm by any stretch of the imagination. I remember the first time I interviewed someone from Morgan Stanley and I got cheese on my tie because I thought my tie was a napkin.”’ (Janny Scott, “Obama’s Account of New York Years Often Differs From What Others Say,” New York Times, October 30, 2007) Armstrong’s view is that Obama has distorted what went on at BIC to make himself look good, specifically by concocting a moment in which he turns away from the corrupt fleshpots of whitey’s world.

Obama writes the following about his career at BIC in Dreams: “Eventually a consulting house to multinational corporations agreed to hire me as a research assistant. Like a spy behind enemy lines, I arrived every day at my mid-Manhattan office and sat at my computer terminal, checking
the Reuters machine that blinked bright emerald messages from across the globe. As far as I could tell I was the only black man in the company, a source of shame for me but a source of considerable pride for the company’s secretarial pool.” Armstrong refutes most of these points, noting that there were other black people working there at the time, and noting:

... after reading his autobiography, I have to say that Barack engages in some serious exaggeration when he describes a job that he held in the mid-1980s. I know because I sat down the hall from him, in the same department, and worked closely with his boss. I can’t say I was particularly close to Barack – he was reserved and distant towards all of his co-workers – but I was probably as close to him as anyone. I certainly know what he did there, and it bears only a loose resemblance to what he wrote in his book. First, it wasn’t a consulting house; it was a small company that published newsletters on international business. Like most newsletter publishers, it was a bit of a sweatshop. I’m sure we all wished that we were high-priced
consultants to multinational corporations. But we also enjoyed coming in at ten, wearing jeans to work, flirting with our co-workers, partying when we stayed late, and bonding over the low salaries and heavy workload. Barack worked on one of the company’s reference publications. Each month customers got a new set of pages on business conditions in a particular country, punched to fit into a three-ring binder. Barack’s job was to get copy from the country correspondents and edit it so that it fit into a standard outline. There was probably some research involved as well, since correspondents usually don’t send exactly what you ask for, and you can’t always decipher their copy. But essentially the job was copyediting. It’s also not true that Barack was the only black man in the company. He was the only black professional man. Fred was an African-American who worked in the mailroom with his son. My boss and I used to join them on Friday afternoons to drink beer behind the stacks of office supplies. That’s
not the kind of thing that Barack would do. Like I said, he was somewhat aloof.

[ninakat]

Video - JOHN PILGER: OBAMA IS A CORPORATE MARKETING CREATION

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfVULT8vdUk

That's a good segment, but here's the entire speech by Pilger on July 4, 2009 at Socialism 2009 in San Francisco:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXL998q7skI

[Sweejak]

OMG Obama's not a Socialist! Filed, for use in spreading confusion!

[Zap]

INDEPENDENTS FOR OBAMA LOGO DESIGN

Logo must:

1) use a red white and blue color scheme

2) include eagle and the letter 'O'


Final logo:



-

-

Runner-up:

[Brentos]

Thanks for Pilger vid, very good. Tempted to throw that hot potato onto some friend's laps
Hate to talk politics, but I'm proud to say I voted for http://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uplo ... -green.jpg

Just couldnt vote for the Big-2. The hip-hop dancing vice president would of been cool.

[Sweejak]

The netroots agenda: War? What war? | Washington Examiner

It's not getting much attention, but the Netroots Nation conference (formerly known as YearlyKos, a spinoff from the left-wing website DailyKos) is going on in Pittsburgh this weekend. Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg has conducted a straw poll of the participants and found that a majority of those surveyed, 53 percent, say they "cannot support a health care reform bill that does not include a public option." Other results include word that most of the attendees are willing to compromise a bit on environmental legislation, even though it gives a lot of benefits to big corporations, and the finding that, amazingly enough, attendees voice near-unanimous approval, 95 percent, of the job Barack Obama is doing as president.

What's truly striking in Greenberg's poll is the degree to which the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have fallen off the progressive radar. I attended the first YearlyKos convention, in 2006, and have kept up with later ones, and it's safe to say that while people who attended those gatherings couldn't stand George W. Bush in general, their feelings were particularly intense when it came to opposing the war in Iraq. It animated their activism; they hated the war, and they hated Bush for starting it. They weren't that fond of the fighting in Afghanistan, either.

Now, with Obama in the White House, all that has changed. Greenberg presented respondents with a list of policy priorities and asked, "Please indicate which two you think progressive activists should be focusing their attention and efforts on the most." The winner was passing comprehensive health care reform, with 60 percent, and number two was passing "green energy policies that address environmental concerns," with 22 percent. Tied for eighth place, named by just eight percent of respondents, was "working to end our military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opini ... 96592.html

[Sweejak]

The President Exhibits Crazy Speech Patterns
Cindy Sheehan

As I listened to clips of Obama's speech to the VFW on August 17th, 2009, I was wondering if his speechwriters were on vacation and they just recycled an old Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice speech.

While the so-called left is focused on the health care debacle and is allowing the so-called right to define the debate when it should be: Medicare for all, and all for Medicare; Obama and his neocon foreign policy team are preparing for a decades long, bloody foray in Af-Pak.

As Yael T. Abouhalkah, an editorial writer for the Kansas City Star, put it:

President Barack Obama did his best imitation of former President George Bush Monday at the VFW national convention in Phoenix.


Obama sounded downright hawkish -- and, yes, presidential -- when he addressed the issue of terrorism in front of the veteran-laden crowd…Dick Cheney could not have said it better.

This is one of the reasons I am leading protests next week on Martha's Vineyard where President Obama will be vacationing. The anti-war movement cannot allow itself to be co-opted by the Democratic Party any longer.
We cannot allow the War Party and other elites to define the terms of the War Debate.

Obama actually had this to say in his speech in front of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW):

We must never forget. This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people.

He also made a lot of other crazy Bushian statements, but this one has to take the cake and lead the charge for peace!
One thing that we must NEVER forget is that the Taliban, and especially the people of Afghanistan (26 members of a WEDDING party, not WAR party, but WEDDING party were bombed and killed yesterday) DID NOT attack us on 9/11. Even if Osama did plan the attacks from someplace in Afghanistan (not likely) this war of choice is not about defending America. Remember: profit is not a consequence of war, it is the reason for war. And how can we as a nation allow the War Party to sacrifice innocent babies for the illusion of safety? Afghanistan is just as much a war of choice as Iraq is, and Obama is choosing to continue it by exploiting the lies.


What is fundamental to the defense of our people is a sane foreign policy, not more war crimes brought to the world by the War Criminals in DC. What is fundamental to our health and prosperity is to bring the troops home from Iraq-Af-Pak and reduce the Pentagon budget so we can afford such basic human rights as health care, housing and education.

Besides Afghans and Pakistanis being killed and displaced at a Bushian clip, these days, our troops are increasingly being killed and wounded so the War Profiteers can squeeze more bucks out of violence. More of our families will be harmed while most of the anti-war movement stands down for Obama.

This is unconscionable.
I don't care if you love Obama, or hate him, or something in between (he has the lowest approval ratings of any President after 7 months in office), we must loathe his wars and his crazy hate speech directed at our brothers and sisters in war torn regions.

Please join us on Martha's Vineyard from August 26th-30th to demonstrate to the world that there are still some people here in America who want peace no matter who's inhabits the Oval Office.

For more information please email, or call:
Laurie Dobson
lauriegdobson@yahoo.com
(207) 604-8988

or
Bruce Marshall
brmas@yahoo.com
(802) 767-6079
Or donate to help with the expenses:


Go to: www.CindySheehansSoapbox.com


And click the DONATE link.

[ninakat]

Thanks for Pilger vid, very good. Tempted to throw that hot potato onto some friend's laps
Hate to talk politics, but I'm proud to say I voted for http://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uplo ... -green.jpg

Just couldnt vote for the Big-2. The hip-hop dancing vice president would of been cool.

Yeah, I haven't dropped that hot potato onto several of my friends' laps either.... but I probably will. It won't be the first time, and certainly not the last. I never get a response from them (too much egg on face I suppose, since they never attempt a rebuttal).

I voted for McKinney too! We're exceptional Americans, Brentos.

[ninakat]

Sweejak, thanks for that Sheehan piece. She really gets it, and is to be saluted for her seemingly tireless efforts, especially now with the "anti-war" left completely Obliterated by Obama.

[Sweejak]

I'm preparing my Pilger e bomb and it goes perfect with the story of the infamous poster's origin.

I threatened to vote for Mckinney, whom I have a lot of respect for. It was a most effective way to get my lib friends to shut up when intimating that not voting Obama=racism.

I voted Paul. I don't like most socialist solutions as I've seen them implemented, but I could find common cause with just about anybody these days.