“The high office of the president has been used to foment a plot to destroy America’s freedom, and before I leave office I must inform the citizens of this plight.”
President John F. Kennedy, November 12, 1963.
In countless BBC interviews with the American electorate over the weeks preceding the 2004 election, the deep spiritual and ideological divisions within the U.S. were illuminated by the answers to the following questions: Why vote for John Kerry? Why vote for George W. Bush?
The answer to the former question was almost always related to changing the negative perception of the nation in the rest of the world, while the answer to the latter question was almost always related to reinforcing that perception. The sinister irony being that both men were members of Skull and Bones, the Yale university secret society that has groomed presidents, corporate-friendly politicians, academics, scientists, opium traders and secret intelligence service operatives for generations.
If the U.S. electorate were asked to choose between two senior military officers, with slightly different opinions on which enemy should be attacked first, no self-respecting political commentator could claim that there was any tangible difference between the candidates. Nevertheless, the somewhat unlikely notion that Barrack Obama will deliver the changes he promised during his Presidential election campaign is an entirely contrived media-illusion; only a modicum of research will unearth the multitude of connections between the corporate financiers of John Macain’s failed campaign and the inevitably victorious Vote OBAMA media circus.
We should also remember that the type of ‘change’ promised by George W. Bush when he ran for office in 2000 was the antithesis of what his tyrannical administration delivered. Following stage-managed elections dominated by multi-million dollar advertising campaigns and shamelessly hollow political rhetoric, vote-winning promises tend to be quickly forgotten once in office, when the banksters who invested in the career of the winning candidate remind the giddy incumbent of the private promises that must be kept at any cost, whether economic, environmental or human.
The Bush Administration and its money masters were responsible for the deaths an estimated one million innocent people in Afghanistan and Iraq, all in the name of freedom, democracy and keeping us all safe from the ‘evils of terrorism’. An seasoned observer of the last hundred years of geopolitical events might conclude tha George W. Bush’s policies were a pre-planedd, staged response to the terrorist activities of his administration, its financiers and puppetmatsers, rather than any genuine concern for the well-being of the people.
The same man who promised a much more proactive role in the world for the U.S. in his 2000 election campaign, went on to declare perpetual war against every nation that dares not embrace the multi-culturalism of imperial monopoly, privatisation and deregulation of trade.
The same man who presided over the largest tax cuts for the rich in U.S. history, while unemployment rose dramatically, along with the multi-trillion dollar National Deficit. Millions of people have faced losing their homes as a direct result of the sub-prime mortage meltdown, while millions of jobs have already been lost to the new boom industry of outsourcing labour to Mexico.
The same man who made sure that Haliburton, the company formerly owned and run by his Vice President, Dick Cheney, was granted an oil contract worth $716 billion for the so-called ‘re-building of Iraq’; a country that will have Free Market Democracy imposed upon it, regardless of the will of it’s relentlessly oppressed peoples. The same man who looked completely unconcerned when an adviser whispered the news of the 9/11 attacks into his ear, before casually dispensing with the constitutional rights of the American people and enabling the Police State by signing the Patirot Act on 26 October 2001.
Assuming that Osama bin Laden was not reading a script written for him by the Republican media hawk behind Bush’s election victories, Karl Rove, his alleged timely contribution to the three ring circus of Dubya’s 2004 election campaign stopped short of telling the American people to vote Democrat, but bin Laden’s threatening sentiments were clearly expressed to the voters: Re-elect George W. Bush at your own peril.
This represents one of the clearest examples of reverse-psychology propaganda in electoral history. Bin Laden’s threat, unlike rumours of his death several years ago, have not yet materialised, while the second Bush administration has now been replaced by Obama’s first.
Although the 2004 election result might well have been staged, as it was in 2000, it was still no surprise that Bush won the popular vote, given the passionate hatred of bin Laden from Texas to Manhattan. But for Democrats and their political sympathisers alike, it seemed such a shame that bin Laden did not proclaim to the world: “Osama would vote for Dubya!”
With the notable exception of Republican congressman, Dr. Ron Paul, all the candidates who took part in the 2008 U.S. Election Primaries, including Michael Bloomberg, who decided not to run for the Whitehouse despite intense media speculation that he would, have interlocking connections with the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group. This is a stark reflection of the corporatist stranglehold on U.S. politics that has enabled the banksters to hand-pick almost every presidential candidate since 1933, and perhaps even most of the men who preceded them.
Even though the U.S. elected its first dark-skinned President, like Jimmy Carter before him, Obama’s team of advisors includes the Trilateral Commission’s founder, Zbignew Brzezinski. The Obamas also have close ties to the Council on Foreign Relations, where Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice cut their imperial fangs. Therefore, it seems fair to assume that Obama’s election promise of ‘change you can believe in’ was nothing other than precisely claculated electioneering. His alleged 32nd degree status in the Freemasons suggests that he is well aware of his role on the grand chessboard.
Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that Obama or any of his controllers could have anticipated that twleve months into his first term in the Whitehouse, the President is already deflecting the kind of savage criticism, within and without his own party, which could easily lead to a dissolution of his government, his Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, has already faced a congressional mauling over allegations that he lied about his role in the AIG bailout and the Federal Reserve Bank seems destined to be audited. One month into 2010, we are on the brink of the kind of change that no politician would ever be permitted to promise, even if it would win a free and fair election.
