Kyle2 said (November 2, 2010):

You stated,” Don’t quite see how Barry changed anything in regard to terror and war. That was an opportunity he missed."

What I was implying is that the PTB were presenting a candidate that would "appear" to be change in regards to War and Terror but not
actual change. For example most Americans believed in Hope and Change. Barry O' promised that he would bring home the troops in
short order. I firmly believe that He had NO INTENTION of changing the situation but was rather a "straw man" created to placate the
publics distaste for the war. In essence in “the beginning” He was told what to say to quell the dissent in regards to the war.

Once they were placated by his smooth words and looks (nothing "actually" changed in regards to terror) the PTB next helped exacerbate the financial meltdown of which again the "straw man/fall guy" would be blamed.

It was all smoke and mirrors from the beginning just like the tea party has the sheeple running back to the other side believing that the Republicans are going to change things. They too are a created entity by the PTB.

Basically President Obama never had any intentions of doing anything except what his masters told him. I would even argue that He knew
that his presidency was only going to be one term. He is a complete creation.

All the hatred and disdain for the neocons has now disappeared in the minds of the public "when compared" to the (purposefully) failed
Presidency of Barry O'. Now the PTB can continue with their neocon march on Iran with a Republican controlled Presidency, House, and Senate in 2012.

In simple terms think of it as a girlfriend you dated for 8 years of which you grew tired of. Next along comes this new girl who "appears"
to be the perfect girl for you only to COMPLETELY let you down in short order. So now you begin to think about your old girlfriend again and think to yourself she wasn't all that bad after all. So you wind up going back to your ex again even with all her short comings.

That's basically what happened but unlike the simple illustration above regarding girlfriends this was all planned and contrived.

Kyle

David B said (November 2, 2010):

You have written: "Thus corporations and government become one, i.e. Communism."

The term "communism" is a bit slippery. In practice, "communism" ostensibly results in what appears to be a two-tiered structure, with a slave class at the bottom and a ruling class at the top. It has no room for a middle class. It fears the middle class. The middle class can amass enough wealth and power to overthrow the ruling class. Also the immediate leaders for a revolution arise from the middle class. The lower class never, by itself, overthrows a ruling class. Thus, in practice because he who rules owns, the ruling class at the top "own" everything and not the slaves below. In Russia, the apparent ruling class was called the "nomenkultura" and comprised 10 percent of the population. They had become an hereditary class.

However, the apparent ruling class was kept in power by another class above them, who might just be called the "international elite." They run the banking system and the top international corporations. They engineered the Russian revolution in the first place and kept it in power by sending food and technology, such as the Karma River Plant to Russia. Thus the "nomenkultura," as apparently the ruling class, was, in reality, nothing more than "barn-bosses" within the prison. They were not the "real" upper class; they were only the top level in the lower-class prison system.

Now, there is another system, which is quite similar but has a few important twist to it. It might be called "fascism" or "corporatism." Its structure consists of a few "international corporations" existing in tandem with a government structure, which they control. The elite own the corporations and control the government, which must be totally oppressive so that it can eliminate the middle class and keep the lower class in control so they will not revolt and overthrow the elite.

Notice the similarities between these two systems and their differences. In "fascism" the elite exist visibly present through their ownership of the corporations but secretly present (as a "shadow government") in tandem with the government which they control. In "communism" the elite exist hidden and placed above the government which they control.

Those who want the communist model are said to be "liberal;" and those who want the fascist model are said to be "conservative." The conservative model is also totted as being "the capitalist system." It is not. True capitalism exists through a "free market." True capitalism gave rise to the middle class. And it is for that reason that neither the communist nor the fascist models allow for free markets. As Rockefeller once said: "Competition is sin."

The elite do not care which model, communism or fascism, is in effect. In either case they are on top, there is no middle class, and everyone else is a slave on the bottom.

All the wars and mass murders of the twentieth century (and we are talking about around 100 million brutally murdered) were the result of the elite imposing these two systems upon the world. They used "communism" for the less developed countries (like Russia) and "fascism" for the more developed countries (like Germany and Italy) which already had a multitude of corporations in existence that could be pyramided and conglomerated into the arms of the international corporations.

America was an interesting place for their efforts because,while the fascism model was being set up from the beginning of the twentieth century (with the introduction of the privately owned Federal Reserve), the American people imagined that they were still living under true "capitalism" and thus were totally oblivious to what was happening to America. Today the people are waking up. But they are still having problems conceptualizing this reality as it exists since they do not totally understand the real nature of "communism," "fascism," and "capitalism." The interpretive model the elite has given them to confuse them has "fascism" on the right and "communism" on the left. A true model would have both "communism" and "fascism" on one side and "true capitalism (as supported by the American Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution) on the other side.

Once one understand the nature of the true model, he realizes that both the Democratic and Republican Parties are basically the same party, on the same side, and that the present political process does not allow for a party that espouses "true capitalism" and adherence to the "Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution."

Charles said (November 2, 2010):

I think it time to rectify labels. Obama is an extreme far rightist-a communist-this is true. His voting record demonstrates his fidelity to the
basic Neo-Liberal DLC Democrat line. His mentor was Joe Leiberman. The Black
Commentator explained this quite well up to the Election and after. His loyalty
to a vision of the corporate state was never under question.

The irony of the situation is that these tiny labels evidently mean so much to
so many and the actual actions mean so little.

One mountain, many views, depending on the light of the day and month of the
year but one mountain still.

Perhaps it is time to move beyond "code" words filled with sound and fury. They
are not really useful.

Perhaps the phrase to replace "Illuminati" ought to be totalitarian with a
further descriptor of Christian totalitarian, Satanic totalitarian, Jewish
totalitarian, Corporate totalitarian. You may then add a further descriptor of
sexual pervert totalitarian, regular heterosexual totalitarian, chain smoking
totalitarian, junkie totalitarian etc.

Wayne Madsen is the man without a map as i recall.

Christine said (November 2, 2010):

As an American, I appreciate your comments that Obama is an impostor. Over the past several weeks, I have attended Tea Party and other political meetings. No one has raised the issue of Obama's legitimacy as President. It is increasingly apparent that they never will, either.

Kyle said (November 2, 2010):

I think I got it! No really! After eight years of Bush the US was tired of WAR, WAR, WAR, all the time. Therefore the Powers That Be
long before anyone knew of Barry Sotero purposely propelled this man to the White House for one reason and one reason ONLY.

They needed a “straw man” if you will that would ease the minds of the American public. Essentially the NWO needed a “president” if you will that would relieve the minds of the American people of War and Terrorism.

Once in office the Illuminati would knock down there “straw man” by way of exposing his incompetence. Once this was achieved the American
sheeple like lemmings would vote for RIGHT WING, PRO ZIONIST, REPUBLICANS and essentially institute Bush Presidency 3. Enter the
Tea Party.

In essence the Illuminati understood that the people of the US were getting tired and apathetic towards War and Terrorism. So they
purposely dragged out Barry O’ as a way to appease the masses only to knock him down and bring in the Neocons again so they can extend the
Zionist wars into Iran.

Now understand me Henry. We all know “both” parties are illuminati puppets but even the illuminati understand that the American sheeple
have their limits. So they propped up the straw man to purposely knock Him down and sway the American sheeple into voting for “so-called” patriots aka Tea Party candidates.

Now the P.T.B with the newly invigorated American Sheeple can extend their conquest into Iran.

However there is ONE MORE thing that needs to be done to put the icing on the cake. The P.T.B need a false flag attack in which Barry O’
botches horribly. Once this happens the sheeple will elect a “so-called” patriot (LOL) Republican President.

You see Henry the American Sheeple were getting too tired and lazy for the Illuminati so they had to have a 4 year hiatus to reinvigorate the
US citizens. Just think Henry. Very soon we will have American flags being waved again while we watch innocent Iranians get bombed to hell
on FOX News.

Isn’t the Illuminati great! (Sarcasm)
--

Thanks Kyle

Don't quite see how Barry changed anything in regard to terror and war. That was an opportunity he missed.

henry

John said (November 2, 2010):

Texe Marrs says Obama is breaking ties with Jews who want to control him, which supposedly accounts for recent big resignations. Could powerful Jews make it hard on Obama? Could this partly explain his recent skittish behavior?

---

John,

Texe might be right but I don't see where he has alienated the Zionists. I think the majority still support him.

-H

Sandy said (November 1, 2010):

I'm glad you increased public attention to the Ulsterman papers. I personally believe they are truthful. It is apparent that Obama is a complete fraud, a slick talker who can't handle anything and is absolutely incompetent when it comes to being President. The Ulsterman papers point out that Obama is not a very smart person, and after the papers mentioned that Obama liked to campaign, but not to govern, I think this supports it. ''Everything was handed to him''... he can't go beyond and think for himself because he is a lazy, spoiled rat. He never had to do anything, and now where the point comes where he has to he is becoming mentally sick and everything is exploding around him, including his relationship to his ''wife''.

The kindergarden show is finally breaking apart from the inside, the prove is the goons that had gathered around him dumping him like a hot potato. I think it will be interesting to see what will happen to Obama in the coming weeks. As WMR and you have said, there is something boiling and about to explode. I wouldn't doubt that the details of his criminal activity will come mainstream (Chicago mob, birth certificate, gay relationships). In the end, the higher the star rises the harder it is going to fall... as always.

Andrew said (November 1, 2010):

First we get Bush, a verbally-challenged buffoon and now we have Obama, a smooth talking Mr Zero.

Under Bush and Obama, America has not changed course significantly.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? NO CHANGE.

The Federal government's run-away spending? NO CHANGE.

The simple message of both presidencies? DEMOCRACY DOESN'T WORK.

There was an interesting WSJ article last week about all the (seven) senior members of the Obama administration who have departed or announced plans to depart ahead of the November midterm election.

Obviously, the people on the inside know something is up.

Your Obama article may explain why the rats are abandoning ship.

Very good article!

And I like your new short and sweet style.

Dick said (October 31, 2010):

Did you notice the Tea Party now has an Israeli franchise:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/8090498/
Israels-right-wing-starts-its-own-Tea-Party.html

Obama is not dangerous because of what he's going to do to America – he clearly has no power to act. Even modest anti-establishment
propositions like nominating Charles Freeman as a mideast envoy are blocked by people who should have no real power (in that case, by
AIPAC's #1 puppet and Illinois US Senate candidate Mark Kirk).

He's dangerous for what he's not willing to do – as you suggest, to take on Wall Street. Those reports make clear what people like
Lyndon LaRouche have been saying for a couple years. Obama is a clinical narcissist. He's elevated to power during a time of deep
crisis, and his only concern is feeding his own delusional self- image. Reading those reports makes me feel pretty sorry for him has
a person.

This won't be a popular sentiment in the conspiracy world, but if Hillary Clinton runs, I'll work and vote for her. I didn't think
much of her in 2008 and voted for Ralph Nader, but have reassessed the Clintons over the last couple years. Are they perfect? Heck no.
But Hillary has real political power, is highly intelligent and aware, and is a genuine enough populist to do some good things for
a change, if we even make it to 2012.

What's the alternative? Genocidal austerity by America's own Likudniks, posing as "patriots."