Now you've gone and posted SPAM on my thread with the mention of David Icke.
Nobody is expected to agree with everything anyone says; but if you limit yourself by not listening to what a particular individual has to say based on what are merely your perceptions of the person, you leave yourself in the dust as civilization consequently rusts. It does not have to be this way; Cease the Ad hominem attacks, & we will be able to fight back... You've 'spamed' your own forum by posting such a ridiculous statement that is also similar to how the general population won't even look at evidence if the have some assumption about the messenger. Give me a break! GEES! Are you for real
David has surely been much more PRODUCTIVE than you, that's for sure... So this is the way it has to done these days I guess: (take it as spam if you want, when in reality it is merely sharing information). Good luck...
Barack Obama: The Naked Emperor
By David Icke
PLEASE CIRCULATE AS WIDELY AS POSSIBLE. THE LINK TO SEND PEOPLE IS:
I am writing this in the last days of 2008 as I watch with dismay as vast numbers of people across the world, including many who should know better, have been duped by the mind-game called Operation Obama.
Even people with some understanding of the conspiracy have said things like: 'Well, at least he's not Bush' and 'Well, at least it's great to see such a new spirit of hope'. No, he's not Bush - he's potentially far more dangerous; and what is the use of a spirit of 'hope' if it's based on a lie? In fact, what use is 'hope' at all?
Obama's wife, Michelle, who I wouldn't trust to tell me the date in a calendar factory, said that 'everything begins and ends with hope'. Utter nonsense. Hope is a meaningless emotion because its fruits are always in the future and, by definition, never in the NOW.
Hope is like riding a carousel horse; no matter how fast you go you never get closer to the one in front. The idea, however, is to persuade you to stay on the horse, despite the evitable disappointment, in the 'hope' that things will change. But they don't because the very system is designed to prevent it.
That's the way 'hope' is employed by the dastardly and devious - take the crap we are giving you now in the 'hope' that things will get better (but we know they won't). Barack Obama is a purveyor of 'hope' because his masters want the people to accept what they are given now in the hope that good times will come.
Just do what we demand, oops, sorry, Barack demands, and in return he'll inspire you to hope that it is all leading to the Promised Land. It isn't, but, by the time you realise that, it's too late.
What terrifies the manipulators is that people will abandon hope, as a future, sometime-never projection, and start to demand fairness, justice and freedom now. To avoid this nightmare they need to keep those desires as something to aspire to, not to actually have.
Thus, their man, Obama, sells 'hope' as a diversion technique, a holding position, to keep the masses from truly rebelling. We have no job, no food on the table and our home has been foreclosed, but at least we have 'hope'. Phew, thank goodness for that. 'I'm hungry, mum, can I have some hope, please?' 'I'm so sorry, darling, you can't have hope today, only tomorrow - hope is always tomorrow.' 'So will I eat tomorrow, mum?' 'We can hope so now, dear, but when we get to tomorrow, we can only hope it's the next day.'
On and on it goes. That's how 'hope' works. Or rather doesn't.
Obama's predominant mantra has been 'change'. Indeed, his massively-funded, record-breaking campaign was based on that one word - change. This is a technique used by Bill Clinton and many others and it is highly effective because, at any point, the system ensures that most people are not happy with the way life is. So, when you don't like the status quo, 'change' can be a potent message, even if, like Obama, you don't say what it means.
It has been vital to his success, and that of his controllers, that he has never specified what his 'hope', 'change', and that other mind-control trigger-word, 'believe', were referring to in terms of policy and the way society in general will be affected. Hope for what? Change what? Believe in what? To answer those questions with specifics would have been fatal to Obama's appeal.
I studied the military/government mind-control programmes and techniques in great detail for many years during the late-1990s and across 2000, and the Obama 'phenomenon' is the most blatant mass-mind control operation you could wish to see.
At its core the plan has been to make Obama the focus of everything you hope for, believe in and want to change. This is why it has been crucial for him not to specify and detail what is meant by his 'hope, 'change' and 'believe'.
However, I can tell you what those words mean in the context of the Obama mind-game. They mean whatever you decide they mean or want them to mean. The idea is for you to project all that you stand for onto him and so he becomes the symbol of you and how you see the world. Specifics would destroy that 'I am whatever you want me to be' scenario and so you don't get any detail, just 'hope', 'change', and 'believe'.
They don't want him to be seen only as 'the Messiah'; they also want him to be Abraham Lincoln, JFK, or Buddha - anyone you choose to project on him, for he is a blank page, blank screen and empty suit. Obama is a make-your-own, do-it-yourself leader, a projection of your own mind. (If you are still asleep, that is. If you are in any way awake, he's an open book.)
See the video How Obama Got Elected to see how easy it is to manipulate the masses. It's child's play.
'I am whatever you want me to be, for I am just a projection of you. And I got a big smile, see.'
There is no more powerful way of manipulating people than to tell them what they want to hear and to keep shtum about anything they wouldn't like. Double-glazing salesmen are trained to pick up in general conversation what their target likes and dislikes and to respond accordingly in the way the product is sold. The technique is simply to tell the potential buyer what you have gleaned they want to be told.
Obama comes from the same stable, but on a massively bigger scale and with a whole network of advisors and controllers steeped in the art of manipulating minds, opinions and actions.
Obama's written-for-him speeches are not from the heart, but from the autocue. The 'heart' bit comes from extensive training and his Bill Clintonesque ability to 'mean it when he says it', a state of delivery that goes beyond mere acting. Tony Blair was trained in the same way.
But if you take a step back and look at these people dispassionately you can clearly see the techniques they consciously employ. Blair is the most blatant fraud in the way he delivers a line, stops in mid-sentence for emphasis and looks down for fake emotional effect. Obama is a little more slick, but, from where I have been looking this past year, not much. And how have people not seen those cold eyes just above the painted smile?
You can watch his mind working, turning between autocue screens to his left and right, then straight down the camera for his key messages. From-the-heart orators don't do that; they are too immersed in what they are feeling and saying to give even a passing thought to where they are looking or how the line is delivered.
I worked in television for more than a decade, often reading autocue while a director spoke in my ear telling me what cameras to look at. I have, since the early 1990s, spoken my truth on public stages across the world. I know, therefore, the difference between artificial autocue delivery and body language and talking from the heart without a script. Obama, I repeat, is coming from the autocue, not the heart.
Obama's speeches are a mass of mind-control techniques and Neuro-Linguistic-Programming, or NLP, and they are carefully constructed to implant beliefs and perceptions into the mind of the viewer. Click here for a description of his psycho-babble, headed An Examination of Obama's Use of Hidden Hypnosis Techniques in His Speeches.
As I keep emphasising, the whole Obama circus is an exercise in mass mind control and it has been so successful because so many people live their lives in a permanent state of trance. All of which brings me to the parallels with Nazi Germany, fascist Italy and similar regimes throughout history.
Obama may not look like Hitler, nor sound like Hitler, but the themes are just the same. Germany was in a terrible state economically and militarily in the 1930s in the aftermath of the First World War and the reparations inflicted on the country by the Rothschild/Illuminati-controlled Versailles 'Peace' Conference in 1919.
From amid the chaos came the man that Germans saw then in much the same way that so many see Obama today. His name was Adolf Hitler and his oratory and rhetoric, again supported by a ritualistic presentation founded on mind-control techniques, made him appear to be the German 'messiah', the German Obama.
Hitler promised 'change', 'hope' and something to 'believe in' amidst the consequences of war and financial collapse. He spoke to vast rallies of adoring followers and a mass movement emerged in support of Hitler's vision of a new tomorrow.
As the writer Webster Tarpley points out, fascism in its true sense is not just a Police State imposed by a tiny hierarchy. It might end up like that, but first it is brought to power by a mass movement from within the people who have no understanding of what the 'change', hope' and 'believe' they are being offered really means. They just know that they want some because, as with Obama, they make it mean what they want it to mean. Only later do they see, to their horror, what they have signed up for.
Obama's America ...
... Hitler's Germany.
There may seem to be a world of difference, but the techniques are just the same.
Obama is far more dangerous than Bush because he can sell a line to those who are in the trance while Boy Bush could not do that on anything like the same scale. Bush was a transparent idiot with no communication skills who needed massive fraud at the polls to get him officially 'elected'. He could never be the figurehead to inspire a mass movement of the people to support some vacuous 'hope', 'change' and 'believe' when they don't even know what those words are supposed to mean.
But Obama clearly can, because he has.
One of 'his' (his controllers') prime targets are the young, just as they were with the Nazis and the Hitler Youth Movement. If you think this parallel is far-fetched then have a look at this video to see how extreme Obama worship has already become for some young people. Hitler Youth was just the same. Click here to watch ...
In line with this theme, the WorldNetDaily website reported: 'The official website of President-Elect Barack Obama, Change.gov, originally announced that Obama would "require" all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs; but after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama's proposed youth corps, the website's wording was softened. Originally, under the tab "America Serves", Change.gov read, "President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. "Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year," the site announced.'
For the full story, click here ...
Obama said in a speech in July 2008 in Colorado Springs that he wanted to see a 'civilian national security force' that would be as powerful and well-funded as the Marines, Navy and Air Force. As Joseph Farah, founder of WorldNetDaily, wrote: 'If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal? I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together? Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?'
Obama meant, amid the flowery words, that he's not in favour of either peace or freedom. He is a front-man demagogue for the same force that controlled Boy Bush, Clinton, Father Bush, Reagan, Carter, ad infinitum; but the difference is that he has been hyped to such hysterical proportions that he will be allowed to get away with far more than they were, at least until reality dawns on the mass ranks of his hypnotised supporters. And, clearly, that could take some time.
The cabal will be anxious to squeeze every minute from Obama's honeymoon period and we can expect to see events move quickly after his inauguration in January.
When I was a journalist 30 years ago, I came across a technique that some tabloid newspaper reporters would use to get someone to speak with them. They would work in pairs with the first one knocking on the door of some distressed family who didn't want to talk with the media. He would tell them he was from a newspaper he didn't really work for and treat them with aggression and contempt to make them even more upset.
He would then leave and his colleague would knock on the door, tell them the real newspaper he was from, and act like Mr. Nice Guy. He would say that he understood completely how upsetting the other man must have been, but 'if you will only speak to me exclusively I will make sure that the other man, nor anyone like him, won't bother you again'. They usually agreed and the scam was complete.
Much the same thing is happening with regard to Bush and Obama. The Neoconservative 'Republican' wing of the Illuminati controlled Bush for eight years and led the country into foreign wars and financial chaos (bad guy/problem); now the 'Democratic' wing, led by the infamous Zbigniew Brzezinski, has brought forth the 'saviour', Barack Obama, to lead us into the sunshine with 'hope' and 'change' (good guy/solution).
Hence even some more aware people say: 'At least he's not Bush'.
Apart from the unspecified 'hope, 'change' and 'believe', few have any idea what Obama's policies will be. Public perception comes from having an 'image' of him, or a self-projection, not the fine print because Obama doesn't do fine print until the votes are cast and even then he will hide it in his windbag words.
There is an 'image' that Obama is against war, but no he's not. He says he's against the invasion of Iraq, though we'll see what he does about that in office. How can a man calling for more troops, including European troops, to be sent to Afghanistan be against war? He has also said he is prepared to bomb Pakistan and use military force to stop Iran building nuclear weapons and he has appointed Hillary 'Let's bomb 'em' Clinton (Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations) as Secretary of State and re-appointed Bush's 'Let's bomb 'em' Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates (Bilderberg Group, Council on Foreign Relations). So that's the 'change we can believe in', then.
Obama isn't against war at all and, if his controllers have their way, he will engage the US in even more foreign conflicts with the troops sent to their deaths, and the deaths of their targets, on a wave of oratory from the dark suit with the black face who would never go where he's sending them.
He claims to be a 'uniter', which is exactly what Bush said about himself before he came to office, but unity in and of itself is not the issue. Nazi Germany had unity in the early years of the war, but was that a good thing? What matters is what the unity is designed to achieve and Obama's much-vaunted 'unity' is to 'inspire' a mass movement to support the Orwellian plans of the Illuminati.
His constant rhetoric about 'bringing people together' can be used to justify the 'coming together' of the United States, Canada and Mexico in the North American Union; it can be used to concede America's sovereignty to the 'coming together' of the 'world community' (world dictatorship); it can be used to unite the believers in their opposition and condemnation of non-believers, which is precisely what happened in Nazi Germany with the book-burning and violent suppression of those who challenged the Hitler regime.
The potential of Obama Mania is endless when it comes to selling fascism as 'hope, change', 'freedom' and a 'New America', or 'New World' [Order].
Bush and Cheney were transparent warmongers and would always have struggled to bring in the draft, the compulsory enlistment of people into the military against their will. But it would not be as difficult for Obama in the current climate. For goodness sake, he's already talking about compulsory community service for middle school, high school and college students and creating a peoples' army in America.
That's why I say Obama is far more dangerous to freedom than Bush. In the last eight years Bush could only get part of the way to fascism - Obama has the potential to finish the job, for all the reasons I have mentioned and more.
You only have to look at the cabal behind Obama, and those he has already appointed to his administration team, to see what his 'change' is truly planned to be. His mentor, svengali and main controller is Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor, and the co-founder, with David Rockefeller, of the Illuminati's Trilateral Commission.
Brzezinski has admitted publicly that he began to fund and train what he would call today 'terrorists' in Afghanistan to oppose the Soviet-controlled government in the capital, Kabul, in the late 1970s. The idea, he said, was to entice the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan to protect the Kabul regime and thus give the rival superpower 'their Vietnam'. The plan worked at the cost of a million Afghan lives during the Soviet occupation from 1979 to 1989, a consequence that troubles Brzezinski not at all.
Brzezinski's 'freedom fighters' would become known as the 'Mujahideen' and later the Taliban and what is claimed to be 'Al-Qaeda'. This is the man behind 'anti-war', Barack Obama. It was common knowledge that President Carter would do nothing involving foreign policy without the okay from Brzezinski, the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission which chose Carter for president.
It is one of many great ironies of the Obama presidency that he is demanding massive troop reinforcements to be sent to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban terrorists who were initially armed, trained and organised by Brzezinski, the man behind Obama. As Morpheus says in The Matrix: 'Fate, it seems, is not without its sense of irony'.
But then, in Brzezinski's case, it is not 'fate', but cold calculation that has brought it all about. The Poland-born Brzezinski has a fierce hatred of Russia and that is still one of his key targets, together with China.
And if they are Brzezinski's targets, they are Obama's targets.
The Trilateral Commission and the wider Brzezinski network, including Illuminati fronts like the Ford Foundation, have now chosen Obama and the situation will be the same. Brzezinski will call the shots; Obama's job is simply to sell them to the people. This is rather alarming when you think that Brzezinski wants to trigger a war involving Russia and China. 'Obama's' policies come straight from Brzezinski's books. Here is one Brzezinski quote you might recognise and it was made before Obama ran for president: 'Needed social reassessment ... can be encouraged by deliberate civic education that stresses the notion of service to a higher cause than oneself. As some have occasionally urged, a major step in that direction would be the adoption of an obligatory period of national service for every young adult, perhaps involving a variety of congressionally approved domestic or foreign good works.'
Now where have I heard that before?
As an Illuminati operative, Brzezinski's aim is to create a world government, central bank, currency and army - a global dictatorship - underpinned by a microchipped population connected to a global computer/satellite system. He wrote a book in 1970, Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era, in which he described the global society that he and the Illuminati seek to impose: 'The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.'
He also said in the same book nearly 40 years ago: 'Today we are again witnessing the emergence of transnational elites ... [Whose] ties cut across national boundaries ... It is likely that before long the social elites of most of the more advanced countries will be highly internationalist or globalist in spirit and outlook ... The nation-state is gradually yielding its sovereignty ... Further progress will require greater American sacrifices. More intensive efforts to shape a new world monetary structure will have to be undertaken, with some consequent risk to the present relatively favorable American position.'
And what does his puppet, Obama, now say that Americans have to do to bring about 'change'? 'Make sacrifices'. As Mrs. Demagogue, Michelle, said: 'We need a different leadership because our souls are broken. We need to be inspired ... to make the sacrifices that are needed to push us to a different place.'
You can bet that this will include sacrificing more sovereignty and freedom on the road to the global dictatorship described by Brzezinski for decades.
Brzezinski's son, Mark, was an 'advisor' to the Obama campaign (doing what his father told him) and, in line with the American one-party-state, his other son, Ian, was foreign policy advisor to the McCain campaign (doing what his father told him). His daughter, the Obama-supporting Mika Brzezinski, reported the campaign for MSNBC television.
Obama has been the chosen one for a long time, a fact known only to a few in the deep inner circle, and his relationship with Brzezinski almost certainly goes back to the start of the 1980s when he attended the Ivy League, and big-time Illuminati, Columbia University where Brzezinski was head of the Institute for Communist Affairs. Obama simply will not talk in any detail about this period. He has been covertly funded and supported ever since by the Trilateral Commission and its network of foundations connecting into the Ford Foundation, for whom Obama's mother worked.
And a question: Does anyone really believe that someone, a 'man of the people', would simply appear from apparently nowhere to run the slickest and best-funded presidential campaign in American history? He was chosen long ago by those who wish to enslave the very people that Obama says he wants to 'set free'.
The sources of Obama funding read like a Wall Street Who's Who - Goldman Sachs, UBS, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, J.P. Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and so on. No wonder he went back on his pledge to accept the limitations of public funding for his campaign and instead took the no-limit option of 'private' funding.
And those people are going to support a candidate who does not represent their best interests?? Oh please.
Obama and his seasoned network of professional manipulators, sorry his 'campaign team', sold the lie that he had refused to take funding from 'lobbyists', those who are paid to ensure that politicians frame legislation, or block it, in the interests of their clients.
But like everything that surrounds Obama, past and present, it's a sleight of hand and mouth. They funnelled vast sums of money into the Obama accounts through law firms that represent lobbyists and lobby groups. It provided 'plausible denial' about funding from lobbyists while the money poured in from lobby interests via third parties.
Then there is the Jewish financier, George Soros, the multi-billionaire associate of Brzezinski and closely involved with the funding and marketing of Obama. Soros is a former board member of the Illuminati's Council on Foreign Relations and funds the European Council on Foreign Relations. In short, he is a major insider.
You can certainly see the Soros/Brzezinski techniques in the Obama 'revolution' in the United States. It was the complex and secretive network of Soros foundations and organisations, connected to the intelligence agencies of the US and Israel, that trained and funded students in the Ukraine, Georgia and elsewhere in the art of mass protest and overthrowing governments.
These manufactured protests were sold to the world as 'peoples' revolutions', but it just so happened that when they were over and the old regime was removed the new leaders were those waiting in the wings all along - the puppets of Soros, Brzezinski and their associated networks.
Obama is just more of the same, a big smile with strings attached, and controlled completely by the Illuminati networks that chose him, trained him, sold him and provided his record funding. It was they who kept his many skeletons under wraps, like the gay sex and crack cocaine allegations of Larry Sinclair, and they will continue to do so as long as he jumps to their bidding.
Obama is just another Banksters' moll prostituting himself for fame and power, and that's why he supported the grotesque bail-out of the banking system and why he will always put their interests before the people. His financial advisors are straight from the Wall Street 'A' list, including Paul Adolph Volker (Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg Group), the head of the Federal Reserve from 1979 to 1987 and Illuminati to his fingertips.
Obama has made him head of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board, which is dominated by insiders, including its staff director and chief economist, Austan Goolsbee, a close Obama associate from the University of Chicago. Goolsbee is an initiate of the infamous Illuminati Skull and Bones Society at Yale University, which also includes Boy and Father Bush. It was Goolsbee who told the Canadian government not to worry about Obama's attacks on the economic effects of 'free trade' agreements because his words were just to win votes in the election campaign.
Another Wall Street insider, the Zionist Timothy Geithner (Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations), was appointed by Obama to be his Treasury Secretary. Geithner was the President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, the most powerful in the private 'Federal' Reserve cartel that masquerades as America's 'central bank', and he is a former employee of both the Council on Foreign Relations and the appalling Kissinger Associates.
Obama's Treasury team locks into the inner circle around the Zionist Robert Rubin, the Director and Senior Counselor of Citigroup, co-chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, and economic advisor to Obama. Rubin, a member of the Illuminati Bilderberg Group, was the man behind Citigroup's strategy of expanding its risk in debt markets which forced it to be rescued by taxpayers' money.
The very people who caused the financial crisis are being appointed by Obama to decide how to respond to it (more taxpayers' money for them and their friends).
Rubin was Treasury Secretary to Bill Clinton and was followed in that post by Larry Summers (Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations) - another insider appointed to Obama's team of 'change'. Summers is a fanatical supporter of 'free trade' (freedom to exploit) and 'globalisation' (global dictatorship) and he wrote a memo in 1991, while chief economist to the World Bank, saying that the bank should dump toxic waste in poor countries because the costs of the ensuing ill-health and death would be lower. When the memo was made public, Brazil's then-Secretary of the Environment, Jose Lutzenburger, told Summers: 'Your reasoning is perfectly logical but totally insane ... Your thoughts [provide] a concrete example of the unbelievable alienation, reductionist thinking, social ruthlessness and the arrogant ignorance of many conventional 'economists' concerning the nature of the world we live in ... If the World Bank keeps you as vice president it will lose all credibility. To me it would confirm what I often said ...the best thing that could happen would be for the Bank to disappear.'
Lutzenburger was dismissed shortly after writing this letter while the horrific Summers was made US Treasury Secretary by Bill Clinton and now he has been appointed to head the National Economic Council by Mr. 'change', hope' and 'believe' Obama. It's all a fairy story.
Bloomberg.com reported that the Center for American Progress (CAP), housed just three blocks from the White House, has become a major source for policy initiatives for the Obama Democratic Party. Who funds the Center for American Progress? George Soros.
It is simply the Neocon Project for the New American Century and the American Enterprise Institute under another name. Those two organisations developed and dictated the Bush policy of war and suppression of freedom and the 'CAP' and others like it will do the same for Obama. The CAP will fit and Obama will wear it.
In fact, except in name and rhetoric, there is no difference in theme between the regimes of Bush and Obama. Bush policy was dictated through Illuminati 'think tanks' and so is Obama's.
Bush was surrounded by slavish pursuers of Israeli interests and so is Obama. Mr. 'Change' has pledged his unquestioning support for Israel to the point of 'pass the sick bag' and his vice-president, Joe Biden (Bilderberg Group, Council on Foreign Relations), is a vehement Zionist who makes a virtue of saying he will support Israel in all circumstances.
Obama has appointed the arch Zionist Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff and another super Zionist Jew, Dennis Ross, to be his Middle East Policy advisor. God help the Palestinians. Ross also served in the Bill Clinton and Father George Bush administrations. Oh, plenty of 'change' there, then.
Rahm Emanuel, a Chicago-born Congressman, is the son of Benjamin M. Emanuel, who was a member of the murderous Jewish terrorist organisation, Irgun, which helped to bomb and terrorise Israel into existence. The Open Secrets website reports that Emanuel was the top House recipient in 2008 for election contributions from 'hedge funds, private equity firms and the larger securities/investment industry'.
Emanuel was also appointed by Bill Clinton to the board of the mortgage giant Freddie Mac in 2000 and his tenure coincided with a stream of scandals and financial irregularities. It famously had to be bailed out by the taxpayer amid the sub-prime mortgage debacle.
Emanuel, like Obama himself, is an asset of the 'Illinois Combine', a cross-party network of politicians and business interests that conspires to manipulate Chicago politics for their own benefit. Even before taking over at the White House Emanuel faced calls for his resignation for alleged connections with the Rod Blagojevich scandal.
In December 2008 Blagojevich, the Illinois governor and associate of Obama, was arrested over a conspiracy involving massive corruption and moves to sell Obama's Senate seat in Chicago made vacant by his election to the presidency. It is yet another example of the staggering web on ongoing and infamous corruption in Chicago by the very networks that spawned Obama.
A close friend of Rahm Emanuel is another clone of the Illinois Combine, the Zionist, David Axelrod, who ran Obama's election campaign and will no doubt be highly influential in the Obama administration. Axelrod is a veteran of Chicago politics, one of the most corrupt political systems in the world and he worked for many Chicago mayors in the 1990s and on Obama's senate campaign in 2004.
Bill Clinton took his Arkansas cabal to Washington when he became president in 1993 and Obama is uploading his Chicago mob and handing them key positions of national power and influence. And these guys don't take prisoners.
All of this may be many things, none of them pleasant, but 'change' it isn't.
Obama is a monumental fraud who talks a good story, but lives a very different one. He won his first political office as a state senator in Chicago in 1996, not through the power of his policies, but by coldly abusing the electoral process.
Instead of running against his opponents and letting the people decide, he had his cronies challenge hundreds of names on the nomination papers of his Democratic primary rivals until they were all forced off the ballot by technicalities. He then ran unopposed. One of them, Gha-is Askia, says that Obama's behaviour belied his image as a champion of the little guy and crusader for voter rights: 'Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates? He talks about honour and democracy, but what honour is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?'
Why? Because he would probably have lost and Obama isn't interested in losing by playing fair. He wants to win by any means necessary. The only voter-right he's interested in is the right to vote for him. He has also used his hatchet-men like Axelrod to employ scandal to discredit opponents to ensure his election when the real scandal is the truth about Obama himself.
He is a classically corrupt main-chancer spawned from the Chicago political cesspit. His close connections, therefore, to seriously dodgy 'businessmen' and fraudsters like the now-jailed slum landlord Tony Rezko are exactly what you would expect.
Rezko, yet another snout in the trough of the Illinois Combine, has heavily funded Obama's political career and that of the now-arrested Rod Blagojevich, and in return they have supported massive sums being paid to Rezko by Chicago taxpayers to run 'public housing'.
These properties were then allowed to fall into such a state of danger and disrepair, including sewage running into kitchen sinks, that they were deemed unfit for habitation by the often black poor that Obama was supposed to be representing as a Senator. Some buildings were so bad they had to be demolished.
Rezko also secured appointments for his business associates to state boards and was eventually indicted for using these connections to demand kickbacks from businesses that wanted to do business with the state.
Rezko and Obama toured the $1.6 million mansion in Hyde Park, Chicago, which the Obamas bought at $300,000 below the asking price in 2005 while the Rezkos purchased the adjoining land at the full asking price. Some of this land was later bought by the Obamas. Rezko contributed a quarter of a million dollars to Obama's political career and served on Obama's Senate campaign finance committee, which raised more than $14 million.
Then there is Obama's close association with the terrorists, William Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn. In the late sixties Ayers co-founded the terror organisation called the Weather Underground (also known as the Weathermen and similar derivatives) and launched a campaign of bombing public places like the Pentagon and the Capitol Building. Three members were killed making bombs in Greenwich Village.
In 1970 Ayers was said to have described their philosophy as: 'Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at ...' Mr. Ayers himself comes from the home of 'rich people'.
Bernardine Dohrn said this about the Charles Manson murders: 'Dig it! Manson killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they shoved a fork into a victim's stomach.''
William Ayers in 1968.
On the day of 9/11 he told the New York Times that he didn't regret the Weather Underground bombing campaign and believed they didn't do enough.
The case against Ayers and Dohrn was thrown out because of then illegal wire-taps andAyers is now a professor in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, holding the titles of Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar.
Ayers recruited Obama to serve as chairman on the $100 million Chicago Annenberg Challenge and they worked together for seven years handing out grants to the 'educational' projects of people like ... William Ayers. They also worked together on another tax-exempt foundation, the Woods Fund in Chicago, which awarded grants to Obama's own Trinity United Church, home to his controversial pastor, Jeremiah Wright.
Obama's political career was effectively launched in 1995, just after he was made chairman of the Annenberg Challenge, at a meeting at the Chicago home of ... William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. They have been connected to his circle ever since if the truth be told.
The Chicago Annenberg Challenge, run by Obama and Ayers, didn't fund schools directly, but instead insisted that they affiliate with 'external partners' who were granted the money. These turned out to be far-left 'community organisers' so beloved of Bill Ayers and these groups included the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).
Obama also conducted 'leadership training' seminars with Acorn and its members began to become heavily involved in his political campaigns. It has also been behind efforts to 'register voters' (voters most likely to vote for Obama) and Nevada state officials raided Acorn's Las Vegas office after election authorities accused the group of submitting multiple voter registrations with fake and duplicate names.
Among the major funders of Acorn ... George Soros.
Obama even refuses to prove that he was born in the United States and thus qualifies to be President. He claims to have been born in Hawaii, but his grandmother, half-brother and half-sister in Kenya all insist he was born there.
'Mr. Clean' Obama has a deeply dirty background, but for now no scale of evidence will stop the swooning Obama zombies from believing the hype or burst their reality bubble. That is going to take hard experience and it could take some time and a lot of disappointment before they are released from the clutches of cognitive dissonance and have to admit to themselves they have been had.
It is the same for all the black people who voted for what they thought was the first black president when, in truth, he is a man in a black mask representing the interests of the white-faced Illuminati cabal, the very families and networks that ran the slave trade.
I don't want to be the bringer of bad news or the thwarter of dreams, but honesty demands it. The man is a trickster controlled by supertricksters. A sock puppet controlled by bigger sock puppets who serve an even greater and darker evil. To his masters, Obama is just a means to an end and if it suits them to assassinate him to trigger civil war and upheaval in the United States then that is what they will do.
Oh dear Oprah, how will you cope when reality dawns? But, then, will it ever??
'What? You mean you're not the Lord?'
I can understand the appeal of Obama because people want him to be what he claims to be, but isn't. They are sick of the conflict, the corruption, the struggle we call 'life' and they want it all to change. But Obama's change is illusory and represents only the continued transformation of society in the image envisaged by Orwell.
We will see some apparently good things announced, like the closing of Guantanamo, to give the impression that Obama means what he says. But keep your eye on the ball and you'll see how the agenda of the global tyranny is introduced under the guise of Obama's 'hope', 'change', 'believe', 'sacrifice' and 'coming together'.
It could take two years, maybe much more, before cognitive dissonance (lying to yourself) loses it current grip on the minds of the Obama faithful. Until then they will make endless excuses for him (lie to themselves) to keep the 'dream' alive.
But one day they will have to admit, by the power of the evidence before them, that they bought a dream and got a nightmare. What a pity they can't see the obvious now and save them themselves such painful disappointment.
*** To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ***
Obama revives terror tribunals, dismaying liberals
AP – By LARA JAKES, Associated Press Writer
Lara Jakes, Associated Press Writer – Fri May 15, 8:23 pm ET
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama said Friday he would reform and restart the military tribunals he once reviled for Guantanamo Bay detainees, jeopardizing his timetable for closing the prison by January and dismaying many supporters who suggested he was going back on campaign promises.
Now, after the detainees are given stronger legal protections — a ban on evidence obtained under cruel duress, for example — the trials of 13 defendants in nine cases will be restarted no sooner than September. Five of the 13 are charged with helping orchestrate the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The rest of the 241 Guantanamo detainees will either be released, transferred to other countries, tried in civilian U.S. federal courts or, potentially, held indefinitely as prisoners of war with full Geneva Conventions rights.
"This is the best way to protect our country, while upholding our deeply held values," Obama said, announcing his decision to renew the tribunals in a three-paragraph White House statement. The administration said he was not embracing the Bush-era system because it would be so significantly changed.
However, his action was almost instantly denounced by a host of liberal-leaning groups that championed his presidential campaign last year.
"In one swift move, Obama both backtracks on a major campaign promise to change the way the United States fights terrorism and undermines the nation's core respect for the rule of law," said Amnesty International executive director Larry Cox.
"There is no such thing as 'due process light,'" said American Civil Liberties Union executive director Anthony D. Romero.
"As a constitutional lawyer, Obama must know that he can put lipstick on this pig — but it will always be a pig," said Zachary Katznelson, legal director of Reprieve, a London-based legal action charity that represents 33 Guantanamo detainees.
Obama's announcement was greeted more warmly on Capitol Hill, where he will need broad support to quickly push through tribunal changes. The White House hopes to do so before mid-September, when a new 120-day freeze the president put on the cases Friday runs out.
The Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin, D-Mich., called the changes "essential in order to address the serious deficiencies in existing procedures." Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell said the announcement was an "encouraging development."
"By taking this action, President Obama has reinforced that we are at war, and that the laws of war should apply to these prisoners," said Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.
The tribunal system was established after the military began taking detainees from the battlefields of Afghanistan in late 2001. But the process immediately and repeatedly was challenged by human rights and legal organizations for denying defendants rights they would be granted in most other courts.
As a senator, Obama voted for one version of the tribunal law that gave detainees additional rights, but then voted against the more limited 2006 legislation that ultimately became law. Friday's changes restore some of those rights, including:
_Restrictions on hearsay evidence that can be used in court against the detainees.
_A ban on all evidence obtained through cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. This would include statements given from detainees who were subjected to waterboarding, a form of simulated drowning, although a U.S. official said no evidence of that kind had been allowed anyway.
_Giving detainees greater leeway in choosing their own military counsel.
_Protecting detainees who refuse to testify from legal sanctions or other court prejudices.
The latest delay, however, means Obama could face an uncomfortable choice as the clock runs out on his self-imposed January 2010 deadline to close Guantanamo.
His administration will have only four months to finish the nine trials before then, or risk moving the cases to the United States if they are still under way. If that happens, the detainees would be given even greater legal rights than they have at Guantanamo — and more than Obama wants to give.
Asking Congress to change the 2006 commissions law could create longer delays. Lawmakers, leery that the detainees could be brought to the U.S., already have held up funding for closing the prison until the White House outlines details of how it would happen.
Obama could roll back the January 2010 deadline, which he imposed on his second day in office. That could throw in doubt his campaign promise to shut down the prison and, at the least, highlight his struggle to reverse Bush-era national security policies that damaged America's image worldwide and stoked recruitment among insurgents.
Clive Stafford Smith, who represents several current and former detainees, was surprised that the Obama administration plans to restart the trials at Guantanamo instead of elsewhere. "There is zero chance that the military commissions could be over by January, so that cannot possibly be the plan," he said.
Navy Lt. Richard Federico, who represents two Guantanamo detainees charged before the military commissions, including alleged 9/11 plotter Ramzi bin al Shibh, also doubted cases could be completed by January. Litigation over the legality of the new rules "will certainly incur additional delay," Federico told The Associated Press.
Associated Press writer Andrew Selsky in San Juan, Puerto Rico, contributed to this report.
Saturday, Nov 28 2009 Did Barack Obama lie about his birth to become President?
By David Jones Last updated at 10:00 PM on 27th November 2009
As a highly regarded young detective, Neil Sankey was once seconded to elite Scotland Yard units hunting down IRA bombers, dangerous anarchists and organised crime barons.
Today, however, almost 30 years after quitting Hampshire constabulary to become a private investigator in California, he is wrestling with an inquiry that is as controversial as it is complex; one that makes that his former police work seem mundane by comparison.
Now aged 64, and semi-retired, Mr Sankey is attempting to prove that Barack Obama is guilty of the most audacious act of fraud in U.S political history, having become President when he was not even eligible to run for office.
The infant Obama with his mother, Ann Dunham, who met his father at university
He is conducting his inquiries on behalf of a protest group known as the 'Birthers' - so-called because they claim Obama lied about his birth place to satisfy the requirements of the U.S constitution, which stipulates that the President must be a 'natural born' American citizen.
According to his biography, Obama was born 48 years ago in Hawaii, the 50th state of the union. But the Birthers are convinced that he came into the world in Kenya, his father's homeland, and Mr Sankey claims he has already uncovered a great deal of evidence to support this astonishing assertion.
'As an investigator it has become obvious to me that something very strange is going on,' he intoned gravely when we spoke this week.
'His background throws up all kinds of anomalies. It may sound incredible (but) this guy comes from nowhere. No one really knows who he is.'
To most Americans, of course, the very idea that anyone could cheat their way into the world's most powerful post by rewriting their personal history sounds preposterous.
They dismiss the Birthers as a bunch of crackpot conspiracy theorists and closet racists who still cannot accept a black leader, even though Obama won the election by some 10 million votes.
Yet the number of people who believe this apparently outlandish theory is extraordinarily high, particularly in the southern states, where old racial divisions endure.
According to one recent opinion poll, an astonishing 53 per cent of southerners are either convinced their President really is a covert foreigner, or at least feel unsure about the matter. In more integrated parts of the country, the doubters remain a small minority.
However, with the tide of goodwill that greeted Obama's victory now ebbing away, after a series of perceived mistakes and unfulfilled promises, the Birthers are gaining credence in mainstream America.
They claim to have amassed 500,000 signatures on a petition insisting that the President must prove beyond doubt where he was born; and all across the country, giant billboards are sprouting up which make the same shrill demand.
Mounted this week outside a car dealership in Denver, Colorado, the latest such sign depicted Obama wearing a turban.
'Birth certificate - Prove It!' read the accompanying slogan, adding: 'President or Jihad?'
'Everything I've read about Mr Obama points right to the fact that he's a Muslim,' explained the car showroom's owner, Phil Wolf.
'It's about anti-Americanism. It's about anti-Christianity.'
Questions about Obama's birthplace were first raised during the 2008 presidential election campaign.
Then, even hard-line Republicans and Right-wing pundits distanced themselves from this line of attack, fearing they would be accused of bigotry or cheap scaremongering.
Now that is changing, and one of the country's most respected political commentators, Lou Dobbs, not only encourages debate about this once-taboo subject on his TV and radio shows, but appears to have aligned himself with the sceptics.
'I believe Barack Obama is a citizen of the United States, folks, don't you? But I do have a couple of little questions, like you,' Dobbs remarked with ill-disguised mischief during one recent broadcast.
'Why not just provide a copy of the birth certificate? That's entirely within the President's power to do so. One would think the President would want to get rid of this nonsense. But he doesn't - and so, none of us knows what the reality is.'
Fuelled by a constant stream of internet traffic which casts doubts on Obama's authenticity, the whole issue refuses to go away. And working doggedly in a cluttered office at his home in Simi Valley, an hour's drive north of Los Angeles, British-born detective Neil Sankey is determined to keep it that way.
Former detective Neil Sankey is on a quest to find the truth about Obama's birth
A father of five children, three of whom now run the family investigation agency, Mr Sankey's quest began during the presidential primaries in spring, 2008.
After reading about the Birthers, he met the fringe group's self-anointed leader, Orly Taitz, 47, a one-woman phenomenon who emigrated to America from the former Soviet Union (via Israel), speaks five languages, and is a qualified dentist with two practices, as well as being an attorney.
As she reeled off an endless list of apparent discrepancies in the Obama nativity story, Mr Sankey was intrigued, and offered to use his old school British police training to provide the hard proof she needed to back up her theories.
Since then he has contacted all the 538 Electoral College representatives who formally elect the President, in a vain attempt to persuade them Obama is ineligible to serve, and supplied evidence for a series of court actions brought by the Birthers, in their efforts to have him disbarred.
The latest of these was heard last month in Orange County district court, where the Plaintiffs included the leader of a fringe political movement called the American Independence Party and several disaffected servicemen, who contended that, as a bogus U.S. citizen, Obama was not qualified to send them into action as Commander-in-Chief.
Like every other such case, it was summarily dismissed on procedural grounds even before the evidence could be heard. However absurd such cases may be, Mr Sankey, who works for the group voluntarily and estimates having spent £40,000 of his own money following leads, is at pains to present himself as a level-headed former British bobby, motivated only by a determination to find the truth.
He also bristles at the suggestion that his mission is racially motivated.
'The objection is not Obama's colour but his politics,' says Mr Sankey. 'I like him as a person - I just wish he was genuine.'
So what do we know about Obama's earliest years, and why, even among millions of ordinary, decent Americans, do doubts that he was 'natural born' (a term which is broadly accepted to mean anyone born in the United States or its territories, regardless of their parents' nationality) still linger?
After Barack Obama emerged from the obscurity of backwater Illinois state politics to beguile the world with his charisma and rhetoric, it seemed that every detail of his exotic and complicated ancestry had been laid bare.
He had already published two autobiographies, Dreams From My Father and The Audacity Of Hope, and although they contained occasional perplexing episodes, he seemed refreshingly candid about his unconventional beginnings.
His father, we were told, was Barack Obama senior, a brilliant but wayward Kenyan academic who won a scholarship to study economics at the University of Hawaii in 1959, when he was 23 years old.
In 'Dreams', Obama says his father was given the opportunity to study in America by way of the so-called 'Kennedy Airlift', in which JFK opened the nation's universities to scores of promising African students. The Birthers' self-anointed leader, Orly Taitz, who believes Barack Obama has lied about his birth
But it later emerged that the great airlift did not get under way until the year after Barack Sr arrived from Kenya: one of many small factual variants seized upon by the Birthers as 'proof' that his story was fabricated. Obama Sr is said to have met Ann Dunham, then 17, when both attended Russian language classes at the university.
Though he had two children already by his wife in Kenya, tribal law permitted him to marry twice, and they began an affair. Ann was three months pregnant when - against the wishes of both their families - they married on the Hawaiian island of Maui, on February 2, 1961. Obama was officially born five months later in the Kapioalani Hospital, Honolulu; a fact which appears to be verified by a document issued by Hawaii's health department a few months ago.
Posted online by the Obama camp in the hope that it would scotch the corrosive rumours once and for all, it is not his official birth certificate, but rather a medical 'certification of live birth' which states that Barack Hussein Obama II was born in Honolulu at 7.24pm, on August 4, 1961.
It is marked as having been filed by the registrar on August 8, four days after the birth, and notes that his father was 'African'.
To the Birthers, however, this proves nothing. In fact, it only adds to the mystery, for they question why Obama will not sanction the release of his proper birth certificate, which would provide far more detail.
Moreover, the official seal on the document seems, to their eye, suspiciously faint. And in those days, when segregation was still rife in parts of the U.S., they ask, would the race of Obama's father really have been listed in the modern usage, 'African', when the usual word then was 'negro'?
The Birthers also point to a photograph of Ann Dunham, supposedly taken on Waikiki beach during the summer of 1961. Wearing a bikini, she doesn't look remotely pregnant. These are just two of many reasons why they are convinced that Obama is not who he says he is, and that a very different version of his birth story lies hidden.
The Birthers' favourite theory is that he was born in Mombasa, Kenya, while his mother was visiting his father's family, and that his parents only registered the birth in Hawaii when they returned shortly afterwards, presumably to give him U.S. citizenship.
To support this they have produced various dubious pieces of evidence, most notably a tape recorded phone-call in which Obama's paternal grandmother, Sarah, seems to admit she was in the delivery room at his birth, along with other relatives.
This taped conversation is hardly convincing, however, for the 87- year-old woman's remarks were translated from her native Swahili down a crackly phone-line.
And her inquisitor was the so-called 'Birther Bishop', Anabaptist minister Ron McCrae, who is deeply opposed to Obama, and - say critics - cynically set out to trap her. She has since complained that her recollections were doctored, but, of course, this cuts no ice with the Birthers.
Locked away in a Kenyan vault, they would have us believe, is his genuine birth certificate: a piece of paper that could have Obama drummed out of the White House in disgrace.
According to the most zealous Birthers, however, this is only part of the labyrinthine plot which lies behind his rise to high office. It is said to have been concocted many years ago, by subversives whose aim was to change the face of America by placing a Leftwinger with Islamic sympathies in power.
As evidence that this is already beginning to happen, the Birthers point to Obama's 'socialist' healthcare reforms, his appeasement of Iran, and the government's quasi-nationalisation of struggling banks and U.S. car giant General Motors.
Mr Sankey insists he does not share such wacky conspiracy theories. But then, almost in the next breath, the former detective sergeant - who served Hampshire police for 20 years and left with an exemplary record - ventures that Obama's real father might have been the black revolutionary leader, Malcolm X.
He explains, in all seriousness, how this could be possible. Apparently Malcolm X (who, as it happens, was definitely American-born) visited Hawaii around the time Obama was conceived, and he and Ann Dunham might have moved in the same radical circles.
Conspiracy: Neil Sankey even believes Barack Obama's father could be militant black rights leader Malcolm X, right
Warming to his theme, Mr Sankey directs me to a website which juxtaposes photographs of the two men to compare their extraordinary likeness.
He later sends me a 315-page 'timeline' of Obama's supposed background, compiled by a Brazil-based Birther, which reads like the conspiracy theorists' ultimate wish-list, and draws in everyone from Islamic extremists to Arab princes and the Chicago Mafia.
It all sounds utterly crazy, of course, and involves a plot so complicated that it makes the Da Vinci Code look plausible. Are we really supposed to believe that everyone from Obama's friends and relatives to the security services (who surely must have investigated his background with great care when his victory became likely) would help orchestrate such a conspiracy?
Can we really imagine that Obama's family were so devious - and prescient - that they placed his birth notice in Honolulu's two main newspapers just days after he was born?
As the President's spokesman Robert Gibbs says, no evidence will ever be enough to 'assuage those that don't believe he was born here'.
Neil Sankey insists he is open minded, however, and says he would gladly abandon his investigation, if only the President would provide the incontrovertible evidence he seeks.
Now a U.S. citizen, he claims he is only helping the Birthers because he wants to uphold the constitution.
'It's a beautifully written document and it's served us very well for 200 years,' he says. 'If Obama is who he says he is, why doesn't he just show us that full birth certificate?'
This week, the White House refused to answer his question, saying they had no further comment on the matter.
It is a sad irony, though, that so many Americans feel sufficiently dissatisfied by their first black President that they would rather put their trust in a British detective and his curious conspiracy theories.