Obama and the Illusion of Democracy
June 2, 2011 (Originally posted April 2009)
Zionist terror chiefs Benjamin Netanyahu and Henry Kissinger in Jerusalem. Note how similar their ties are.
A protester's sign at the 2009 G-20 summit in London...
where peaceful protesters were brutally mistreated.
DEMOCRACY IS AN ILLUSION
During the massive and sometimes violent demonstrations that marked the G-20 summit in London last week, I noticed a sign that aptly described the fundamental problem facing the West. "Democracy is an Illusion," the sign said. That simple slogan underlines the real problem facing Americans and others who find themselves living in nations that claim to be democratic, and may have once been, but which now clearly serve only the interests of powerful special interest groups while ignoring the will of the people.
Having observed many elections and written about the fraudulence of the electronic voting systems in the United States since 2000, I completely agree with the slogan "Democracy is an Illusion." This is, after all, the fundamental deception at the heart of the crisis facing the United States and other western democratic societies. If, on the other hand, we had authentic democratic elections in the United States, with paper ballots openly counted in the polling place, we would not have to suffer such criminal regimes acting against the will of the people.
I have written extensively about this problem since the fall of 2000 when, as a candidate to be an election judge in Cook County, I was introduced to the electronic voting machines that steal our elections. I then wrote an article entitled "The Death of Democracy" that explained how elections in Chicago are rigged through the use of the electronic voting machines used in every voting station and precinct.
Electronic voting machines were invented for one reason - to steal elections. Elections using paper ballots that are openly counted by hand in each polling station cannot be stolen. It's that simple.
With Barack Obama, Americans now have a president and administration from Chicago, the city where I have yet to see a proper election in which the voters are allowed to witness the counting of their votes. Obama was actually elected to the U.S. Senate in one of the most corrupt and rigged elections that I have ever seen. The Republican candidate running against Obama, Jack Ryan, was forced to pull out of the race in June 2004 after the exposure of his involvement in a sex scandal. Ryan's withdrawal left Obama as the only candidate. Two months later, Alan Keyes, who wasn't even from Illinois, stepped in as a visiting candidate from Maryland and ran as a weak fill-in candidate for the former Goldman Sachs employee, Jack Ryan. It came as no surprise that Obama won easily with 70 percent of the uncounted vote, while Keyes received some 27 percent. That is, after all, how it was planned.
"CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN"
As I listened to National Public Radio's coverage of the election results the next day, I was amazed to hear the NPR talking heads go on about Obama as a presidential candidate. What had Obama done, apart from winning a rigged election in which he had been virtually unopposed, that made him presidential? It was very clear from listening to NPR's effusive praise for Obama that he had already been chosen to be a presidential candidate by the people who control NPR, the media, and elections.
As we now know, Obama had been supported and cultivated since 1992 by Bettylu Saltzman, the daughter of Philip Klutznick, Chicago's leading Zionist, to be the first "black" president of the United States. The fact that Obama is no more black than white and has nothing in common with the blacks of the segregated South, was played down during the campaign. Chicago is a segregated city but Obama is not really from Chicago at all. He is the offspring of a mixed-race marriage, a mulatto who was raised by his white grandparents in Hawaii after being abandoned by his Kenyan father. More than anything, however, Obama is a puppet of his Zionist handlers, people like David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel. This sad state of affairs was painfully evident when Obama, who is used to reading from a script, was asked impromptu questions during his trip to Europe.
Obama has been shaped and managed by his Zionist handlers like David Axelrod since the early 1990s. Obama's political career was funded by Philip Morris Klutznick, the former head of B'nai B'rith International - the secretive Masonic power of the Elders of Zion.
Obama was elected on a simple one-word platform: change. The slogan of the Obama campaign was "Change we can believe in." After 8 dismal and disastrous years of war and terror with George W. Bush, "change" was the most obvious choice to define the Obama campaign. After Obama's first trip to Europe, however, it is now quite clear that there will be no significant change in U.S. policy under Obama, unless he follows through on his comment in Strasbourg about the need to improve passenger trains in the United States and starts a serious program with substantial funding to improve the woefully neglected rail infrastructure. Otherwise, everything looks pretty much the same as it did under George W. Bush.
During his first European trip as president, Obama was pushing Bush's disastrous "War on Terror" telling Europeans that they should be afraid of Al Qaida and commit more troops to support the failed mission in Afghanistan. In Prague, Obama promised that the missile defense network, supposedly meant to protect the West from Iran, would go ahead. And throughout the trip he often mentioned Iran, the country to which he had sent a most unusual video broadcast before he left.
In his message to Iran, complete with Farsi subtitles and timed to coincide with the celebration of the Persian New Year, Obama praised the "true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization" and said that the United States wanted to engage Iran and reverse decades of animosity. Ralph R. Reiland wrote about Obama's video appeal and the Iranian reaction in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on March 30, 2009. Reiland wrote:
Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei dismissed the overture the next morning. "They chant the slogan of change but no change is seen in practice," said Khamenei, sounding not unlike some of Obama's disillusioned supporters in the United States.
"If you are right that change has come, where is that change? What is the sign of that change? Make it clear for us what has changed," Khamenei said.
Bush-basher Michael Moore might well say the same words. What's changed since the days of Bush and Cheney when it was charged that too big a piece of the pie was being grabbed by those who already have too much?
Obama told Joe the Plumber (Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher) that he wanted to "spread the wealth around." True to his word, Obama has done the spreading in record time and in unprecedented amounts.
The only problem for guys like Moore is that the trillions have been flowing for the past two months in exactly the opposite direction of the "change" that Obama promised in his big stadium speeches during the campaign.
No one chanting "Yes we can" was pushing for a change that would stick America's middle-class taxpayers with additional trillions of new debt in order to fill up the coffers of some of the biggest and richest swindlers on Wall Street.
Where's the change, in short, between Bush's TARP-1 and Obama's TARP-2?
Khamenei, similarly, pointed to the lack of change in responding to Obama's video: "Have you released Iranian assets? Have you lifted oppressive sanctions? Have you given up mudslinging and making accusations against the great Iranian nation and its officials? Have you given up your unconditional support for the Zionist regime? Even the language remains unchanged."
It was not only Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Ralph R. Reiland who were speaking out about the false promises and massive deception coming from the Obama White House. Joseph E. Stiglitz, the Nobel prize-winning economist, wrote an excellent piece, entitled "Obama's Ersatz Capitalism," which was published in the New York Times on April 2 as President Obama met with the world's leaders at the G-20 summit in London.
The Stiglitz piece is very important because it explains the mechanics of the Obama bail-out plan in a way that the average person can understand. Americans taxpayers have already seen more than $180 billion stolen from the national treasury and given to Maurice Greenberg's extremely corrupt company, A.I.G., without any understanding of why A.I.G. should receive such immense sums of public funding in the first place. Even people like Eliot Spitzer are reluctant to mention Greenberg's name in connection with the obscene A.I.G. bail-out. Greenberg is a man that is at the heart of the false-flag terror of 9-11, the War on Terror, and the Great Zionist Rip-Off. Spitzer has paid for taking a stand against Greenberg.
Rather than focus on this incredibly huge transfer of wealth from the American people to private bankers, members of Congress and the controlled media made a big issue out of the bonuses given to A.I.G. managers, who received some $165 million. That's like complaining about giving a $1 dollar tip to the lowly waiter after paying $1,000 to a restaurant for a make-believe meal you never ate.
BANKS WIN - TAXPAYERS LOSE
Most of the $180 billion paid to A.I.G. was actually paid out to private banks, like Goldman Sachs, and others. This is because A.I.G. had insured the "overly complex instruments like collateralized debt obligations," which were at the heart of the economic meltdown. Giving the money to A.I.G. was a way to give huge amounts of taxpayer money to the bankers without making it too terribly obvious.
The people who protested against the bankers of London were those who had not been deceived by the sleight-of-hand trickery in which $180 billion of hard-earned taxpayer money was given to failed bankers who will simply turn around and lend it out – at interest – to the very people who bailed out the banks. The urgent need for real reform and the creation of a real national bank to control money and credit could not be any more obvious.
As Stiglitz wrote:
The Obama administration’s $500 billion or more proposal to deal with America’s ailing banks has been described by some in the financial markets as a win-win-win proposal. Actually, it is a win-win-lose proposal: the banks win, investors win — and taxpayers lose.
What the Obama administration is doing is far worse than nationalization: it is ersatz capitalism, the privatizing of gains and the socializing of losses. It is a “partnership” in which one partner robs the other. And such partnerships — with the private sector in control — have perverse incentives, worse even than the ones that got us into the mess.
Bollyn, Christopher, "The Israeli Who Will Run the Obama White House," November 6, 2008
Stiglitz, Joseph E., "Obama’s Ersatz Capitalism," March 31, 2009
Originally published as "The Illusion of Democracy & The Great Zionist Rip-Off", 6 April 2009