Actions Count

I concur with you completely, George. In fact I think he was chosen for this reason. However, we can't rule out threats made to him about his wife and kids should he deviate from the party line, where the party is the ruling party that has two factions, Democrats and Republicans. He wants to be re-elected so that he will be the first black man to serve two terms, and if he were to exert the social consciousness he had as a youth, he would be neither funded in his re-elections bid, but also he would be targeted by another pansy 'lone gunman'.

Re: He wants to be re-elected

Of course. All politicians want to be re-elected. It is their number one priority. The President of the US is no exception. His top priorities in respect of his presidential duties, however, are to maintain dollar hegemony and to maintain the military superiority that enforces it. This also implies maintaining control over key resources: no control over resources, no empire.

[However accurate a description, that's a very short-term and ultimately self-defeating view. g.]

Re: However accurate a description, that's a very short-term and ultimately self-defeating view.

Yes, George, it is. I couldn't agree more. That is why we are in the state we are in. It is very difficult to take the breed of politicians and get them to take a view in which long term wisdom prevails. But views are not "self-defeating." They are either accurate or not. Views relate to the faculty of sight, whether intellectual or physical. The attitude in respect of an accurate view is an entirely different matter. This sort of sentimentalist confusion endlessly complicates the public dialogue.

In the context of the topic of Barak Obama’s background and motives, I found that Webster Tarpley’s 2008 book ‘'Obama: The Postmodern Coup - Making of a Manchurian Candidate' (punctuation in the title is added by this reviewer as there is none on the book's title page) describes his view of the selection of Barak Obama. Tarpley argues that Zbigniew Brzezinski chose Obama to be the candidate of the so-called Democratic Party; Zbigniew, the decision maker, is backed by a group of very wealthy and powerful American men ( namely, the Rockefeller led CFR/Trilateral Commission) who control our political system.

The cover of this book suggests that it is about Barak Obama's success in the 2008 Presidential campaign; however, it is actually about the author's analysis of a plethora of factors which may or may not be related to that particular subject. In fact, 3 chapters appear to have been authored by two people who are not even acknowledged on the cover of the book. A key target of Webster Tarpley's focus is Mr Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former Polish nobelman. Mr Z. Brzezinski is a politically very well connected, Russia-hating, foreign policy expert whom Tarpley claims was adopted by the Trilateral Commission/Council of Foreign Relations/David Rockefeller- backed group of 'super-elite' of the U S of A to be a/the major academic leader on strategies to deal with the Cold War threat posed by Russia. Brzezninski's strategies were among those acknowledged as fundamental for American foreign policy decisions during a large portion of the 40+ year contest with Russia after World War II.

On page 101 of Tarpley's book, begins a chapter titled 'Obama campaign linked to Chechen terrorism', subtitled 'Grant of taxpayer-funded U.S. asylum for Chechen terror envoy gave Obama foreign policy guru Zbigniew Brzezinski "one of the happiest days of my life"'. In this section of the book, a description of the activities of Mr Ilyas Khamzatovich Akhmadov. Mr Akhmadov has recently been living in the Woodly Park section of Washington D C with the blessing of the G W Bush administration. In 2004, Mr Akhmadov apparently won court approval which granted permanent asylum; it is not clear who paid $250,000 of legal fees to facilitate his asylum. Under urging of Z Brzezinski, Mr Akhmadov was granted U S taxpayer funded Reagan-Fascell grant by the State Department; the grant provides 'a generous stipend for living expenses, an office at the National Endowment for Democracy complete with private secretary, plus extra money for travel and public relations purposes'.

Since I wrote this comment for the benefit of readers of Sibel Edmonds readership at her website dealing with whistle blower matters, the following comments are included for the benefit of your readers who may be sort of turned off by/unfamiliar with Webster Tarpleys writings. As background, Shamil Basayev (reputed Chechyan rebel leader and CIA agent) was killed by Russian troops following the 2004 Chechyn rebel attack on a school in Beslan, North Ossetia which resulted in deaths of more than 300 children. Mr Basayev had been the 'direct superior officer, mentor, and friend of Mr Ilyas K Akhmadov, the current protege of Z. Brzezniski'. In the 1990s, Mr Akhmadov had been involved in the government of Chechnya at times when rebel groups committed severe damage/atrocities which were apparently not properly investigated/ pursued by Mr Akhmadov, a prominent operative in the government of Chechnya. Mr Akhmadov has been the object of investigations by the Russian government in regard to the Chechyn rebel activities; in UN deliberations, he has apparently been declared by Russia as a terrorist. These factors had not gone un-noticed in 2003, when 'House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin) and the chairman of the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee, John Hostettler (R-Indiana) jointly demanded that then Attorney General John Ashcroft review the ruling that granted Akhmadov political asylum.' They apparently declared "If the United States had evidence that Mr Akhmadov was involved in terrorist activities, it is unclear why he was not barred from asylum as a terrorist and as a danger to the security of our nation." Following Mr Akhmadov's success in the US court contest, Mr Brzeznisky expressed great satisfaction with the outcome." This scandal was eventually exposed in the pages of 'Johnson's Russia List', a scholarly clearing house for information about Russia. W G Tarpley then explains the efforts of Professor Robert Bruce Ware of Southern Illinois University to challenge the Washington Post writings of Mr Mathew Brzezinski (son of Z B) to defend Mr Akhmadov. I, for one, did not understand all of the issues when I originally read about Mr Akhmadov's involvement in the Chechen rebel activities. Webster Tarpley's explanation, while a bit disjointed, helps put that bit of Bush Administration confusion in perspective, though I still can't figure out how supposedly arch conservative John Ashcroft was able to reconcile harboring a terrorist so that the State Department could then spend unknown quantities of US tax dollars to support Mr Akhmadov's opulent life style here in America! I recall that Mr Ashcroft has some affiliation with Regents University and that affiliation accounted for the influx of ‘Christian missionaries’ into the Justice Department.

I, like many others, have watched as Webster Tarpley has participated in numerous public events focused on the disasters which occurred on 9/11/2001. Without getting too deeply involved with Webster Tarpley's background and obsession with the political goings-on through-out the world, it would appear that the Washington Post has no problem employing Z B's son Mathew to write articles supporting the activities of an 'acknowledged terrorist', namely, I K Akhmadov. Likewise, the US State Department has no problem spending US tax money to support this ‘Chechyn terrorist’ at the same time that the US Justice Department approves torture at facilities around the world by the CIA, DoD, FBI, etc. Meanwhile, the US Justice Department had no problem hushing up the observations by Sibel Edmonds and other whistleblowers regarding perceived criminal/terrorist activities going on at the FBI, CIA, etc. Recently, there have been observations that someone in the DHS, FEMA, DoD, and/or some other government department/agency is continuing the building of prisons/ concentration camp facilities around the USA, ostensibly, for detainment or imprisonment of some, as yet un-named/designated, group or groups. The recent actions of President B Obama seem to be a continual 'work in progress' as regards formulating policy and attempting to expedite the apparent advice upon which he depends. The NY Times, WaPo, and other major newspapers seem only too happy to support the administration; though, they don't always appear to know what's going on.

In view of the recent Supreme Court decision dismissing the case involving Valery Plame, I suspect that an effort like that which S. Edmonds is attempting will continue be an uphill effort. It appears that we are left only with the question of whether one should be concerned with what the MSM presents unless one's primary concern is the weather, current sporting news and/or unending, mind-less gossip concerning either corporate promotions or bad behaviors exhibited by various entertainment figures.

[Thanks, Bill. WT is too over the top for me, but that's interesting. g.]