“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 was even capable of delivering the changes he promised during his Presidential election campaign was an utterly contrived media-illusion; only a modicum of research will unearth the multitude of connections between the corporate financiers of John McCain’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 are 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 so-called Coalition of the Willing 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 that George W. Bush’s policies were a pre-meditated response to the terrorist activities of his administration, its financiers and its puppeteers, rather than any genuine concern for the well-being of “all freedom-loving peoples”, as Dubya fraudulently claimed so often from the corporatist pulpit commonly known as the White House.
The 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 dared not embrace the “multiculturalism” of imperial monopoly, privatisation, deregulation of trade and the slaughter of innocent men, women and children for profit.
The same man who presided over the largest tax cuts for the rich in U.S. history, while unemployment and fraudulent housing foreclosure rose dramatically, along with the multi-trillion dollar National Deficit. Millions of people have lost their homes as a direct result of the sub-prime mortgage meltdown, while millions of jobs have been lost to the new boom industry of outsourcing labour to Mexico.
The same man who made sure that Halliburton, 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 a Police State by signing the Patriot 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 of further carnage, unlike prima facie evidence of his death several years before his alleged assassination on 02 May 2011 in Pakistan, has not yet materialised, while the second Bush administration has long since been replaced by Obama’s first and second administration, despite Obama’s continuation of the imperialistic policies of his predecessor and his proven record of dishonesty and broken promises.
Whoever wins an election, the same corporatist government policies remain in place and the illegal wars being waged by NATO in the middle east continue expand into other nations, despite numerous promises to bring the troops home and to curtail military interventions, resulting in the murders of more innocent people, as well as the hostile occupations of their nations and the theft of their natural resources.
Although the 2004 election result might well have been staged, as it almost certainly 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 White House 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 at least 1933, and perhaps even most of the men who preceded them.
However, judging the man by his actions, Dr Paul appears to be acting more like controlled opposition than a man who genuinely wants to be elected President, which has angered many of the thousands of people who have generously donated their hard-earned cash to his half-cocked campaigns, which always seem to derail themselves for the sake of his so-called loyalty to the Republican Party, the senior members of which often laugh or raise their eyebrows whenever his name is mentioned in television interviews.
Even though the U.S. elected its first dark-skinned President, like Jimmy Carter before him, Obama’s team of advisers includes the Trilateral Commission’s founder, Zbignew Brzezinski. The Obamas also have close ties to the Council on Foreign Relations, where Dick Cheney and Condoleezza 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 calculated electioneering. His alleged 32nd degree status in the Freemasons suggests that he is well aware of his role on the grand chessboard, whilst there appears to be compelling evidence that his presidency is void ab initio for the want of a valid U.S. Birth Certificate.
Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that Obama or any of his controllers could have anticipated that twelve months into his first term in the White House, the President would already deflecting the kind of savage criticism, within and without his own party, which could easily lead to him being impeached, when his Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, faced a congressional mauling over allegations that he lied about his role in the AIG bailout.
Obama would, therefore, never have won a second term in office were it not for the refusal of his apparent political opponent, Mitt Romney, to raise these critical issues, as well as the failure of the mainstream media to pursue them with all necessary and reasonable due diligence.
The peoples of the Earth do not appear to be on the brink of the kind of change that no politician would ever be permitted to promise, even though to do so would all but guarantee a win in every free and fair election. However, nothing, except the truth, is ever what is appears to be.