Chuck Baldin re: Obama
RolandTD20Kdrummer
Posts: 13,066
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin477.htm
"By Chuck Baldwin
December 5, 2008
NewsWithViews.com
"Change you can believe in." This was Barack Obama's campaign slogan. There is no doubt that the American people were fed up with George W. Bush and his fellow Republicans. Who can blame them?
After campaigning for change back in 1999 (What political challenger doesn't campaign for change?), President Bush and his fellow neocons promptly set out to continue business as usual in Washington, D.C. Federal spending and meddling exploded under the leadership of the GOP. In fact, one has to go back to the administrations of Franklin D. Roosevelt to match the increases in Big Government and Big Brother by Bush and Company. Add to the out-of-control spending habits of the GOP an unnecessary war, a near-Depression economy, and a burgeoning police state. It is no surprise that the American people were ready for change. And Obama excelled in delivering the message of change. So, what kind of change will Obama actually deliver?
Will Obama remove U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan? Probably not. Oh, he might reduce troops in Iraq, but if anyone believes that he will not leave a significant U.S. presence in Iraq, they are living in a dream world. Furthermore, many, if not most, of the troops from Iraq will most likely find themselves in Afghanistan. Mark my words; Barack Obama has no plans to remove U.S. troops from the Middle East. Net result: no change.
What about America's economic woes? What changes will Barack Obama bring to the table? Hardly any. America will continue it's trademark deficit spending; we will continue to send manufacturing jobs overseas; so-called "free trade" deals will continue to advance; Big Business will continue to receive government bailouts; the Federal Reserve will continue to call the shots for America's financial decisions (and reap gargantuan profits in the process); Congress will continue to be inept, irresponsible, and clueless; there will be no attempt to return the United States to sound money principles; and there will be no reduction in foreign aid. In a nutshell, it will be business as usual in Washington, D.C., and New York City.
Don't get me wrong: Barack Obama will doubtless throw out some bones to his liberal supporters in much the same way that Republican presidents throw out a bone or two to their conservative constituents. Watch for Obama to overturn the ban on embryonic stem cell research. America's upper income earners can expect some sort of tax increase. No doubt oil companies will end up losing some tax exemptions. Watch for additional environmentalist policies to be enacted. And, yes, there will be some sort of "universal health care" proposal. But the Bush administration has already given America a socialized financial system, so how can Republicans complain about socialized medicine?
Obama might try to resurrect the "Fairness Doctrine." Some suggest that Obama might try to rid the prohibition of homosexuals serving in the armed forces, but I doubt that he will take on this one. The political net gain would not be worth the potential fallout.
Although he might want to, I doubt that Obama will actively promote additional gun control (Democrats always lose when this happens). He may push for a ban on "high capacity" magazines that hold over ten rounds, as Bill Clinton did. If Obama does not go after guns directly, we can expect some sort of attack on ammunition (which is already happening) that will drive up the cost of ammo even more. Of course, some sort of gun confiscation or martial law could materialize in the wake of another "terrorist" attack. But a McCain administration would act no differently, so, again, the net result is zero change. Remember, it was Republican George W. Bush who expunged Posse Comitatus and deployed 20,000 army troops on U.S. soil to be used for domestic law enforcement. If Obama really wanted to bring about change, he would reverse Bush's draconian decisions, would he not? Don't hold your breath.
We can also expect more harassment of gun owners and lawful gun dealers by the BATFE. But this is no change at all. The current leadership at BATFE is already about as hostile to gun owners and gun dealers as it can possibly be. An Obama BATFE will be no worse. But neither will it be any better. Net result: no change.
So, what will be the overall change to the direction of America? Answer: there will be no change to the overall direction of the country. There will be no change to the welfare state. There will be little change to the warfare state. No change to NATO, except to expand it. Very little change, if any, to foreign policy. No change to America's open sieves, otherwise called national borders. And there will be absolutely no change to the burgeoning New World Order that began in earnest under both Bushes and Bill Clinton.
The NAFTA superhighway will have the support of the Obama administration. The North American Community will proceed unimpeded by the Obama White House. In all likelihood, the Amero (a common currency with Canada and Mexico) will materialize during Obama's first term. But this would all have happened had John McCain been elected. No change here.
One reason why it is so easy to predict a business-as-usual Obama Presidency is the people that Obama has surrounded himself with. Former New York Federal Reserve chairman Timothy Geithner* for Secretary of the Treasury; former Secretary of the Treasury Lawrence Summers* for National Economic Council director; Bush's Defense Secretary Robert Gates* will keep his job; Illinois Representative Rahm Emanuel for Obama's Chief of Staff; Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State; Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano* for Secretary of Homeland Security; former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle* to head the Health and Human Services Department; former Assistant Attorney General Eric Holder to be Attorney General; New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson* as Secretary of Commerce; Susan Rice* for U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations; Paul Volcker* for the Economic Recovery Advisory Board; James Steinberg* as Deputy Secretary of State; Mona Sutphen* for Deputy White House Chief of Staff, and Louis Caldera* for Director of the White House Military Office.
Does anyone see "change" with the above names? Every one of them is a longtime political insider. And at least eleven of them (those with an asterisk [*] behind their names, above) are members of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). In fact, six out of the eleven cabinet-level positions in the Obama administration are CFR members.
The CFR has dominated both Democrat and Republican Presidential administrations for decades. Presidents such as Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton have all been members of the CFR. Vice Presidents such as Hubert Humphrey, Nelson Rockefeller, Walter Mondale, and Dick Cheney have been CFR members. And over the last several decades, practically every secretary of defense, secretary of the treasury, and most CIA directors have been CFR members. And let's not forget that this year's Republican Presidential nominee, John McCain, is a CFR member.
Do you now see why--no matter who is elected President of the United States--nothing changes? Republican or Democrat, it does not matter: the CFR and their collaborators remain in power. And as Sonny and Cher used to sing, "The Beat Goes On."
There will be no real change in Washington, D.C., until the CFR and their elitist cronies are thoroughly and universally removed from power. And the only way this will happen is if we elect an Independent President of the United States (someone who truly understands the New World Order and is dedicated to defeating it), because the two major parties will never allow someone opposed to the CFR to become their nominee. The only Republican candidate for President in 2008 who demonstrated those credentials was Dr. Ron Paul. And to a lesser degree, the only Democrat who even seemed to vaguely understand this was Dennis Kucinich. Notice that both men were thoroughly repudiated by their respective parties' leadership and all but totally ignored by the national news media. (The CFR and their surrogates also control the national news media. What a coincidence!)"
"By Chuck Baldwin
December 5, 2008
NewsWithViews.com
"Change you can believe in." This was Barack Obama's campaign slogan. There is no doubt that the American people were fed up with George W. Bush and his fellow Republicans. Who can blame them?
After campaigning for change back in 1999 (What political challenger doesn't campaign for change?), President Bush and his fellow neocons promptly set out to continue business as usual in Washington, D.C. Federal spending and meddling exploded under the leadership of the GOP. In fact, one has to go back to the administrations of Franklin D. Roosevelt to match the increases in Big Government and Big Brother by Bush and Company. Add to the out-of-control spending habits of the GOP an unnecessary war, a near-Depression economy, and a burgeoning police state. It is no surprise that the American people were ready for change. And Obama excelled in delivering the message of change. So, what kind of change will Obama actually deliver?
Will Obama remove U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan? Probably not. Oh, he might reduce troops in Iraq, but if anyone believes that he will not leave a significant U.S. presence in Iraq, they are living in a dream world. Furthermore, many, if not most, of the troops from Iraq will most likely find themselves in Afghanistan. Mark my words; Barack Obama has no plans to remove U.S. troops from the Middle East. Net result: no change.
What about America's economic woes? What changes will Barack Obama bring to the table? Hardly any. America will continue it's trademark deficit spending; we will continue to send manufacturing jobs overseas; so-called "free trade" deals will continue to advance; Big Business will continue to receive government bailouts; the Federal Reserve will continue to call the shots for America's financial decisions (and reap gargantuan profits in the process); Congress will continue to be inept, irresponsible, and clueless; there will be no attempt to return the United States to sound money principles; and there will be no reduction in foreign aid. In a nutshell, it will be business as usual in Washington, D.C., and New York City.
Don't get me wrong: Barack Obama will doubtless throw out some bones to his liberal supporters in much the same way that Republican presidents throw out a bone or two to their conservative constituents. Watch for Obama to overturn the ban on embryonic stem cell research. America's upper income earners can expect some sort of tax increase. No doubt oil companies will end up losing some tax exemptions. Watch for additional environmentalist policies to be enacted. And, yes, there will be some sort of "universal health care" proposal. But the Bush administration has already given America a socialized financial system, so how can Republicans complain about socialized medicine?
Obama might try to resurrect the "Fairness Doctrine." Some suggest that Obama might try to rid the prohibition of homosexuals serving in the armed forces, but I doubt that he will take on this one. The political net gain would not be worth the potential fallout.
Although he might want to, I doubt that Obama will actively promote additional gun control (Democrats always lose when this happens). He may push for a ban on "high capacity" magazines that hold over ten rounds, as Bill Clinton did. If Obama does not go after guns directly, we can expect some sort of attack on ammunition (which is already happening) that will drive up the cost of ammo even more. Of course, some sort of gun confiscation or martial law could materialize in the wake of another "terrorist" attack. But a McCain administration would act no differently, so, again, the net result is zero change. Remember, it was Republican George W. Bush who expunged Posse Comitatus and deployed 20,000 army troops on U.S. soil to be used for domestic law enforcement. If Obama really wanted to bring about change, he would reverse Bush's draconian decisions, would he not? Don't hold your breath.
We can also expect more harassment of gun owners and lawful gun dealers by the BATFE. But this is no change at all. The current leadership at BATFE is already about as hostile to gun owners and gun dealers as it can possibly be. An Obama BATFE will be no worse. But neither will it be any better. Net result: no change.
So, what will be the overall change to the direction of America? Answer: there will be no change to the overall direction of the country. There will be no change to the welfare state. There will be little change to the warfare state. No change to NATO, except to expand it. Very little change, if any, to foreign policy. No change to America's open sieves, otherwise called national borders. And there will be absolutely no change to the burgeoning New World Order that began in earnest under both Bushes and Bill Clinton.
The NAFTA superhighway will have the support of the Obama administration. The North American Community will proceed unimpeded by the Obama White House. In all likelihood, the Amero (a common currency with Canada and Mexico) will materialize during Obama's first term. But this would all have happened had John McCain been elected. No change here.
One reason why it is so easy to predict a business-as-usual Obama Presidency is the people that Obama has surrounded himself with. Former New York Federal Reserve chairman Timothy Geithner* for Secretary of the Treasury; former Secretary of the Treasury Lawrence Summers* for National Economic Council director; Bush's Defense Secretary Robert Gates* will keep his job; Illinois Representative Rahm Emanuel for Obama's Chief of Staff; Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State; Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano* for Secretary of Homeland Security; former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle* to head the Health and Human Services Department; former Assistant Attorney General Eric Holder to be Attorney General; New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson* as Secretary of Commerce; Susan Rice* for U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations; Paul Volcker* for the Economic Recovery Advisory Board; James Steinberg* as Deputy Secretary of State; Mona Sutphen* for Deputy White House Chief of Staff, and Louis Caldera* for Director of the White House Military Office.
Does anyone see "change" with the above names? Every one of them is a longtime political insider. And at least eleven of them (those with an asterisk [*] behind their names, above) are members of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). In fact, six out of the eleven cabinet-level positions in the Obama administration are CFR members.
The CFR has dominated both Democrat and Republican Presidential administrations for decades. Presidents such as Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton have all been members of the CFR. Vice Presidents such as Hubert Humphrey, Nelson Rockefeller, Walter Mondale, and Dick Cheney have been CFR members. And over the last several decades, practically every secretary of defense, secretary of the treasury, and most CIA directors have been CFR members. And let's not forget that this year's Republican Presidential nominee, John McCain, is a CFR member.
Do you now see why--no matter who is elected President of the United States--nothing changes? Republican or Democrat, it does not matter: the CFR and their collaborators remain in power. And as Sonny and Cher used to sing, "The Beat Goes On."
There will be no real change in Washington, D.C., until the CFR and their elitist cronies are thoroughly and universally removed from power. And the only way this will happen is if we elect an Independent President of the United States (someone who truly understands the New World Order and is dedicated to defeating it), because the two major parties will never allow someone opposed to the CFR to become their nominee. The only Republican candidate for President in 2008 who demonstrated those credentials was Dr. Ron Paul. And to a lesser degree, the only Democrat who even seemed to vaguely understand this was Dennis Kucinich. Notice that both men were thoroughly repudiated by their respective parties' leadership and all but totally ignored by the national news media. (The CFR and their surrogates also control the national news media. What a coincidence!)"
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
And again, I don't think anyone expects Obama to bring fundamental change, especially considering that might be impossible without massive public support, dissidence.
Bringing common sense and intelligence to the Whitehouse is change enough. I believed that if voting could change the system it would be illegal...still do...but to have someone in power, with the politcal support to implement his policies, with the common sense to maybe pursue different ideologies than past presidents, that's real change.
edit: END THE FED
My god he hasn't even been sworn in yet.
If you are already forming an opinion about his presidency it will be very hard to have an open mind. Our country is NOT OK, so he has to work with everyone in power to try to get a fix. He will be Bi-Paritson which we really haven't had since Bush 1. With Clinton and Bush we had 16 years of congress fighting each other.
If he ends that then he's already brought change.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
I think it's great that people are already on guard about Obama... Don't you wish that we were the same way with Bush? Clinton? Daddy Bush? It ain't personal, Barack... It's business! This country is OUR business, and it is our responsibility to make sure it runs it the way we want it to run. So far, his selection of a cabinet is not shaping up to be any kind of real "change," being that many of them belong to the globalist CFR, and Federal Reserve System. Many were architects and supporters of past legislation that have led us into the mess we are in right now.
Pardon us if we are a bit mis-trusting of a guy that's whole campaign revolved around the concept of "change" and has barely taken a month to select cabinet members who have been constant guilty of trying to fix a problem by prescribing more of the problem. Believe it or not, I was among the first people to say "Give the guy a chance to prove himself." That process begins when he starts picking his advising team. As he started to choose more and more of his cabinet, it became very clear to me that we have to watch this guy closely. Really, we should watch ALL of our politicians closely, whether we are their biggest supporters or not. Sure, maybe even Obama himself wants "change," but it's not hard to see that people advising him have a proven track record of "changing" things for the worse.
The writer of this article ran against Obama in this past election, as the candidate of the Constitution Party, if you didn't know. He has a great grip on what Obama's stances are on every issue-- I bet he knows Obama's policies inside and out as much, if not more than some of Obama's biggest supporters.
Bottom line, his presidency has begun in many respects. Politicians are to be held responsible, and criticized for questionable decision making. If anything, he's getting the brunt of it because we let Bush run wild for 8 years. W.'s presidency has actually forced a lot of people to wake up and pay attention.
"The higher up the ladder you go, the more your ass shows."
You don't get any higher than the president.
If this were to happen count me in on the revolution. My spending would come to a grinding HALT, and I would refuse to use the currency, PERIOD.