Infowars
March 11, 2009

In anticipation of the official release of THE OBAMA DECEPTION– now available for high-quality download and streaming at PRISONPLANET.TV– director Alex Jones reaches out to Obama supporters everywhere, to let them where he stands.

The Obama Deception is not about Left or Right politics, but about taking a stand against the offshore bankers who have seized control of the country from the shadows. The film aims to expose that Barack Obama is a puppet– a mere front man– for the globalists’ agenda who will help to loot the Treasury, bankrupt the U.S.A. and seize assets from the American people, all while pretending to represent the people of the nation.

Those who supported Obama’s election need to wake up right now to the fact that the Obama Administration has been a bait-and-switch. Obama will lie to the people, even as he continues and expands the foreign wars, pushes through banker-bailouts, continues torture & renditions, advances the North American Union agenda and much more.

IAN TALLEY
The Wall Street Journal
March 11, 2009

WASHINGTON — Democratic leaders, including U.S. President Barack Obama’s top budget official, are considering a procedural tactic that could give them the power to ram a climate-change and energy bill through Congress.

The administration and Democrats such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid hope to avoid obstruction by the Republicans and centrist Democrats who fear the potential economic impact of legislation to curtail greenhouse-gas emissions.

The tactic is being discussed because of the dramatic impact of the bill: Collection of “climate revenues” from a proposed cap-and-trade system could represent a major source of future revenue for the federal government.

Democratic leaders are considering a process in the Senate known as “budget reconciliation,” meant to fine-tune the government’s expenditures and revenue later in the year, which needs only 51 votes compared with the standard 60 needed for contentious legislation.

Some leaders see the alternative as an option of last resort. Yet even having this option under consideration is raising the ire of many lawmakers and reveals how serious Mr. Obama is about passing a bill that axes greenhouse-gas emissions.

“Reconciliation is not the first place we would go, but we’re at the beginning of the discussion and aren’t going to take anything off the table at this point,” Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag said Tuesday after a budget hearing in the Capitol.

Elkhart Truth
March 11, 2009

ELKHART, Ind. - In this job-starved city where President Barack Obama last month made a public appeal for his economic stimulus plan, hundreds of volunteers — and an agency that specializes in handing out food — worked together Tuesday to feed 5,200 hungry families.

Roughly 300 local volunteers worked with Feed the Children to distribute more than $2.1 million worth of food at Concord Mall as part of the nonprofit relief organization’s “Feeding Americans Emergency Caravan.”

The caravan of semi-trailers is visiting small cities and towns across America hit hard by the economic crisis. No area in Indiana has been hit harder than Elkhart County, where the jobless rate skyrocketed to 18.3 percent in January.

Residents who have been facing tough times eagerly picked up free canned goods, baked goods, candy and even Avon products.

Larry Jones, the founder and president of Feed the Children, was at the event, as were televangelist Joel Osteen, pastor at Lakewood Church in Houston, and his wife, Victoria.

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Congressman Ron Paul has slammed Barack Obama’s foreign policy, saying it is identical to that of his predecessor George W. Bush, proving once again that both parties follow the same agenda on major issues.

Paul compared Obama’s pre-election promises to those of his predecessor George W. Bush, who before his election in 2001 guaranteed that the U.S. would not be the policeman of the world or engage in nation building.

Since the inauguration, Obama has sent 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan and and rapidly expanded the Bush-era bombing raids on Pakistan.

“Even though Obama was the so-called peace candidate and was going to bring our troops home from that war in Iraq, I’m afraid there’s evidence now that shows he’s going to pursue the same foreign policy - which was my argument during the campaign, that no matter what happens, both major parties support the same foreign policy, the same monetary policy, the same welfare policy and there’s never really any change,” said the Congressman.

As we reported last month, Obama’s war chest for 2009 alone, when one includes the budget of the defense department, the vast majority of which is related to spending on new fighter jets and other weapons-related programs, is a whopping $805 billion dollars.

Every single component bar one of the DoD budget is up 5-10% compared to 2008, with the budget for “military construction” increasing by a mammoth 19.1%.

Meanwhile, despite public pronouncements by Obama that a plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq is in progress, the details of the agreement actually establish a permanent presence of a sizable occupying force in perpetuity.

Obama swept to power on the promise that he would “immediately” withdraw troops from Iraq.

In reality, after the “withdrawal” of U.S. troops in 19 months, “Mr. Obama plans to leave behind a “residual force” of tens of thousands of troops to continue training Iraqi security forces, hunt down foreign terrorist cells and guard American institutions,” reported the New York Times.

A senior military officer spelled it out more plainly to the Los Angeles TImes, “‘When President Obama said we were going to get out within 16 months, some people heard, ‘get out,’ and everyone’s gone. But that is not going to happen,’ the officer said.”

Ron Paul also discussed Obama’s monetary policy, noting that every time a new government initiative was announced to supposedly rescue the economy, the stock markets sink.

Paul said that he also did not hesitate to slam Obama’s policies on civil liberties, especially on liberal talk shows that were sympathetic with the new president.

“I don’t think there’s any reason for us to rejoice,” said the Congressman.

Listen to the audio of the interview with Ron Paul below.

Infowars
March 10, 2009

The Obama Deception is a hard-hitting film that completely destroys the myth that Barack Obama is working for the best interests of the American people.

The Obama phenomenon is a hoax carefully crafted by the captains of the New World Order. He is being pushed as savior in an attempt to con the American people into accepting global slavery.

We have reached a critical juncture in the New World Order’s plans. It’s not about Left or Right: it’s about a One World Government. The international banks plan to loot the people of the United States and turn them into slaves on a Global Plantation.

Covered in this film: who Obama works for, what lies he has told, and his real agenda. If you want to know the facts and cut through all the hype, this is the film for you.

Watch The Obama Deception and learn how:

- Obama is continuing the process of transforming America into something that resembles Nazi Germany, with forced National Service, domestic civilian spies, warrantless wiretaps, the destruction of the Second Amendment, FEMA camps and Martial Law.

- Obama’s handlers are openly announcing the creation of a new Bank of the World that will dominate every nation on earth through carbon taxes and military force.

- International bankers purposefully engineered the worldwide financial meltdown to bankrupt the nations of the planet and bring in World Government.

- Obama plans to loot the middle class, destroy pensions and federalize the states so that the population is completely dependent on the Central Government.

- The Elite are using Obama to pacify the public so they can usher in the North American Union by stealth, launch a new Cold War and continue the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The information contained in this film is vital to the future of the Republic and to freedom worldwide. President Barack Obama is only the tool of a larger agenda. Until all are made aware, humanity will remain captive to the masters of the New World Order.

David Gordian
Global Research
March 10, 2009

In recent days we have seen even mainstream Democratic figures as Joe Stiglitz and Paul Krugman sound the alarm on what seems to be uncertainty in the Obama administration. Stiglitz, Krugman et al. are following in their essential critique a path well worn over the past few weeks by a range of commentators to be found as much among the Austrians as those on the liberal-to-left part of the spectrum. The fundamental point is, of course, that it is now clear to all but the militantly unreflective that Obama can – perhaps - save the Real economy or - perhaps – save Finance (i.e. Bank bond- and shareholders), but certainly not both. The increasing, but still relatively gentle, criticism of Stiglitz, Krugman and their ilk is owing to the fact that it is becoming all too clear that Obama is still unwilling to engage Finance in what might turn out to be the greatest intramural fight capitalism has ever seen.

As always with the all-things-to-all-people Obama, it is possible to sift through his recent speeches and find words of comfort (to those who opt for saving the economy rather than Finance) even as the Fed, FDIC and Treasury keep pouring out trillions to Finance. Further, in areas as critical as civil liberties and Empire, Obama has managed to speak out of both sides of the mouth in a manner seldom if ever seen in history and – so far – to avoid the messes that usually come with that. [Examples: the U.S. upping the ante with Africom’s new adventures, with forces moving further afield into S. Lanka, B’Desh and yet simultaneously getting brownie points for half a dozen nice words about speaking to Syria doing all that is needed - including an unsavory folding before Rove - to maintain all of Bush 43’s assertions of unrestricted executive power, while heightening the rhetoric about a new dawn of American Values opening to Iran, but appointing Dennis Ross as the new U.S. legate, etc.]

That the vast majority of citizens of the U.S and of its principal tributary nations are generally unconcerned about the expansion of liberal militarism, unless it is unsuccessful or impacts their standard of living negatively, and have no problems with dictatorial presidential power, unless it hurts them directly, is evidenced by the fact these and related issues were non-starters in the last electoral round. The Battle of the Bailout is different for one brutally simple reason: there is simply too much at stake for the two rival formations of capitalist power to come up with the usual compromise solutions that have seen unity in the face of past challenges.

The devil is in the details and while there is a surfeit of sets of details any one of which makes for fascinating reading, a look at the big picture as regards the politics of the Crisis is in order. If Finance is saved at the cost of further trillions of a publicly funded bailout, it will be in a position of almost unimaginable strength as far as the further consolidation of ownership of the US (and world) Real economy. Therefore, it is hard to see how non-Finance capital can possibly be enthusiastic about allowing these rentier interests to acquire at bargain-basement prices great swaths of their various industries. At the time of writing, market capitalization of several Fortune 500 firms is being pummeled by the very crisis that Finance - as proximate cause, pace Marxist friends - has triggered. On February 20, 2009, GM, admittedly on the verge of bankruptcy, had a market capitalization of less than $1 billion. It doesn’t take much foresight to see what the vulture brigade of Finance would make of this unique conjuncture. Likewise, the sense of outrage that non-Finance capital feels at the prospect of the crisis being exploited so mercilessly by the very forces that caused it is an additional guarantor that acquiescence is just not in the cards. The Rubin Gang around Obama may intone as menacingly as it likes the promise that failure to bail out Finance will lead to the end of capitalism and the American Way of Life, but this time it’s not going to fly.

(Let it be noted in passing that such warnings delivered by one side of the mouth are and will continue to be accompanied by sad songs from the other about, e.g., the transfer of wealth from poor to rich that has occurred in the past few decades [engineered thanks largely to the Rubin Gang itself, of course.])

The contours of the upcoming political battle are not yet clear: each side will use its surrogate experts, agitators and useful idiots, but the very gentleness of the Stiglitz/Krugman warnings are an indication that such as they still hope that mortal combat may be avoided. This is, of course, pure fantasy. These two groupings, acting in concert, are the force that has given us a) the national security state, b) multiple armed interventions, covert and front-door, from Guatemala and Greece, to Iraq, Pakistan and fill in the blank, all the while building an executive power that Augustus would have envied, so neither of them are going to be put off by the prospect of political conflict. More important, they both know the real score: the bailout of Finance will debase the integrity of U.S. economic and political power, and by consequence, that of the entire capitalist world that has come to depend on the U.S. as the last line of defense against chaos. So in that sense the long-mooted euthanasia of the rentiers is the “right” prescription and will be seen as so by both the leaders of the “Real” economy and by the public at large, save those who remain unable to distinguish between Bailout and Stimulus. But the genesis of the crisis itself reveals the stark truth about the actual existing balance of power: the controlled bubble-bust economy of the past two decades is not simply the core engine of growth for world capitalism far, far more importantly it is both the result of and the ongoing reinforcement of the political and intellectual hegemony that Finance has built up before and during that time.

No hegemonic power has ever willingly given up its position of dominance and there is no reason to suppose that the forces that paid for and orchestrated the Washington Consensus through use of the U.S. state - i.e. the power that backed it up - will be the first, though Stiglitz and Krugman are to be commended for suggesting that they do just that.

Infowars
March 10, 2009

Forget white al-Qaeda, sleeper cells of deranged jihadists, and violent Ron Paul supporters of the sort Glenn Beck warned us about — the latest enemy now surfacing in the media was a trust fund millionaire, a Nazi sympathizer, and an Obama hater who supposedly planned to build a dirty bomb.

	Belfast, Maine, Police Chief admits the materials found in James G. Cummings II’s house posed no threat.

Lt. Rusty Noe of the Mendocino County Sheriff’s Office told the Bangor Daily News in Maine that James G. Cummings II “was a white supremacist with a cache of radioactive materials and directions for building a dirty bomb in his Belfast home.” It is not known what the trust fund baby planned to do with this material, not that it matters now — he was killed last December by his wife.

Cummings’ wife “indicated James was very upset with Barack Obama being elected President,” an FBI field intelligence report from the Washington Regional Threat and Analysis Center and posted on the WikiLeaks website reveals. “She indicated James had been in contact with ‘white supremacist group(s),” writes Stephen C. Webster for Raw Story. “Also found was literature on how to build ‘dirty bombs’ and information about cesium-137, strontium-90 and cobalt-60, radioactive materials.” According to Belfast police, the materials posed no threat to the community and were not of sufficient quantity to build an effective “dirty bomb.”

“If low-level radioactive sources were to be used, the primary danger from a dirty bomb would be the blast itself,” explains the National Terror Alert website. “Gauging how much radiation might be present is difficult when the source of the radiation is unknown. However, at the levels created by most probable sources, not enough radiation would be present in a dirty bomb to cause severe illness from exposure to radiation.”

An image of a nuclear bomb detonating accompanies the Raw Story, giving the impression that an alleged Nazi sympathizer and Obama hater had in his possession materials to construct a dangerous device.

Barry Grey

WSWS

March 10, 2009

In an extensive interview conducted last Friday with the New York Times and published on Sunday, President Barack Obama outlined policies on national security and foreign affairs that underscore the essential continuity between his administration and that of his predecessor, George W. Bush.

The interview made clear that the new administration has embraced the basic political and ideological framework of the Bush administration to justify military aggression and illegality internationally and attacks on democratic rights within the United States—the so-called &quotglobal war on terror.”

In its report on the interview, the Times itself took note of the continuity between the policies of the two administrations, writing: &quotThe president spoke at length about the struggle with terrorism in Afghanistan and elsewhere, staking out positions that at times seemed more comparable to those of his predecessor than many of Mr. Obama’s more liberal supporters would like. He did not rule out the option of snatching terrorism suspects out of hostile countries.”

Further on, the newspaper commented, &quotMr. Obama signaled that those on the left seeking a wholesale reversal of Mr. Bush’s detainee policy might be disappointed.”

In the course of the interview, Obama took pains to rebut suggestions that his policies were in some way &quotsocialistic,” going so far as to call back the interviewer later in the day to reaffirm his commitment to &quotfree market principles.” (See “A specter haunts the ruling elite“)

Asked whether the US was presently winning the war in Afghanistan, Obama said &quotNo,” and proceeded to outline his policy of expanding the Afghan war and extending it into Pakistan. He said: &quotAt the heart of a new Afghanistan policy is going to be a smarter Pakistan policy. As long as you’ve got safe havens in these border regions that the Pakistani government can’t control or reach, in effective ways, we’re going to continue to see vulnerability on the Afghan side of the border.”

Last month Obama announced the deployment of an additional 17,000 US troops to Afghanistan, the first installment of a military escalation that is expected to double the US troop presence in the country to 60,000 in the coming months. At the same time, the Obama administration has stepped up missile attacks across the border in Pakistan, and has gone beyond such attacks by the Bush administration by targeting for the first time anti-government Pakistani Islamist forces that are not involved in cross-border raids on US and NATO troops in Afghanistan.

In response to a question from the Times, Obama suggested that US would be open to negotiating with certain anti-US Islamist and Taliban factions in Afghanistan in an attempt to break them away from more hard-line Taliban forces. He justified this option by referring to the &quotsuccess” of a similar tactic employed in Iraq by then-US commander in Iraq and current chief of the US Central Command, Gen. David Petraeus.

Petraeus, as part of the Bush administration’s military &quotsurge” in Iraq, combined the bribing of some Sunni tribal leaders with intensified military violence against so-called &quotincorrigible” elements and devastating attacks on civilian populations in hostile regions. The aim was to isolate and destroy the most implacable opponents of the American occupation and the US puppet regime in Baghdad.

In an effort to deflect a suggestion by the Times interviewer that he was &quotmore liberal than you suggested on the campaign,” Obama cited his own policy in Iraq. &quotI think it would be hard to argue, Jeff,” he said. &quotWe have delivered on every promise that we’ve made so far. We said that we would end the war in Iraq and we’ve put forward a responsible plan.”

&quotResponsible” is a code word for delaying any significant draw-down of US troops until the end of the year, in line with the demands of the military, and abandoning his campaign pledge to withdraw one combat brigade a month and all &quotcombat” forces within 16 months. In the plan for Iraq that Obama announced last month, a residual force of up to 50,000 so-called &quotnon-combat” troops will remain in Iraq at least until the end of 2011.

At another point, to counter any suggestion that he was a &quotsocialist,” Obama touted his commitment to slash spending and impose fiscal austerity, making clear, however, that the military budget would not be targeted. &quotWe’ve essentially said that, number one, we’re going to reduce non-defense discretionary spending to the lowest levels in decades,” he said.

On the illegal and anti-democratic methods employed by the US in pursuit of the &quotwar on terror”—the kidnapping of alleged terrorists and their transfer for interrogation (torture) to third countries (rendition), the indefinite detention without charges or trial of so-called &quotenemy combatants,” warrantless domestic spying—Obama indicated that the substance of the Bush administration’s policies would be continued.

Asked about striking a &quotbalance” between national security and civil liberties, Obama gave his stamp of approval to the role of top Bush intelligence officials who oversaw massive domestic spying, rendition, secret CIA torture centers and illegal detentions, including of legal residents and US citizens. He suggested that while in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 there may have been abuses, by the time he took office these excesses had been corrected.

He said: &quotI think the CIA, for example… took steps to correct certain policies and procedures after those first couple of years. I think that (former CIA director) Admiral Hayden and Mike McConnell at DNI (director of national intelligence) were capable public servants who really had America’s security interests in mind when they acted, and I think they were mindful of American values and ideals…”

The Times interviewer cited public statements by Obama’s CIA director, Leon Panetta, that the Obama administration would continue the practice of rendition. Asked why the new administration would continue the policy, Obama suggested it was justified in relation to &quotdangerous” Al Qaeda operatives who surfaced in countries with which the US had no extradition treaty and which would be loathe to prosecute.

Declaring that his administration was conducting a review of rendition policy to somehow make it compatible with international law, and reiterating his verbal renunciation of torture, he said, “… we ultimately provide anybody that we’re detaining an opportunity through habeas corpus to answer to charges.”

The Times reported that Obama aides subsequently told the newspaper that &quotMr. Obama did not mean to suggest that everybody held by American forces would be granted habeas corpus or the right to challenge their detention. In a court filing last month, the Obama administration agreed with the Bush administration position that 600 prisoners in a cavernous prison on the American air base at Bagram in Afghanistan have no right to seek their release in court.

&quotInstead, aides said Mr. Obama’s comment referred only to a Supreme Court decision last year finding that prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have the right to go to federal court to challenge their continued detention.”

Obama’s interview with the Times is the latest demonstration of the fraudulent character of his campaign rhetoric of &quotchange” and his anti-war posturing, and underscores the impossibility of effecting any real change in government policy under a political system dominated by two parties of American imperialism.

CNN
May 7, 2008

Editor’s Note: Rush tells us he is dumping Clinton in favor of Obama because he doesn’t stand a chance against McCain. Road biscuits. Limbaugh is supporting Obama because that’s what his handlers tell him to do, as they want to retire the neocons and usher in a new era of Dem neolibs. Rush knows what side of the bread gets the butter.

(CNN) – He has publicly urged Republicans to vote for Hillary Clinton to keep the divisive Democratic nomination fight alive, but talk radio host Rush Limbaugh said Wednesday it’s Barack Obama who he really wants to be the party’s nominee.

“I now believe he would be the weakest of the Democrat nominees,” Limbaugh, among the most powerful voices in conservative radio, said on his program. “I now urge the Democrat supereldegates to make your mind up and publicly go for Obama.”

Read entire article

————————–

If limbaugh supports him, I surely would not.

Four Winds 10
May 7, 2008

This is just in from Sen. Coburn’s office. Obama has authored a bill, and it is now in the Senate, to give the UN .7% of our GNP to be used to feed hungry 3rd worlders, AND to use UN force to disarm you and me and all gun owners. No one in the media has brought this to the attention of the general sheeple out here.

Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 12:48 PM
Subject: RE: Obama’s bill S2433 passed the committee and going to the Senate

Senator Coburn is blocking this bill.

Patrick Guinn

Obama’s bill S2433 would require the U.S. to initially direct .7 percent of our GNP into the United Nations coffers for distribution as they see fit, for “food” to third world nations. Under earlier agreements this would evolve into a national tax on the U.S. with the UN attempting to levy this on all first world nations.

The U.N. would have the power to increase this rate of taxation.

The U.S. would be required to surrender some of its sovereignty over foreign aid by putting it under UN control. The bill would force the U.S. to sign onto the U.N.’s Millennium Declaration, which would commit us not only to “banning small arms and light weapons” but also to adhere to the International Criminal Court Treaty and the Kyoto Protocol.

http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_2433.html

Detailed Summary

Global Poverty Act of 2007 - Directs the President, through the Secretary of State, to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the U.S. foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the United Nations Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

Requires the strategy to contain specific and measurable goals and to consist of specified components, including: (1) continued investment or involvement in existing U.S. initiatives related to international poverty reduction and trade preference programs for developing countries (2) improving the effectiveness of development assistance and making available additional overall United States assistance levels as appropriate (3) enhancing and expanding debt relief as appropriate (4) mobilizing and leveraging the participation of businesses and public-private partnerships (5) coordinating the goal of poverty reduction with other internationally recognized Millennium Development Goals and (6) integrating principles of sustainable development and entrepreneurship into policies and programs.

Sets forth specified reporting requirements. Directs the Secretary of State to designate a coordinator who will have primary responsibility for overseeing and drafting the reports, as well as responsibility for helping to implement recommendations contained in the reports.&ltbr&gt

Defines specified terms.

Status of the Legislation

Latest Major Action: 4/24/2008: Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 718.

http://kilosparksitup.blogspot.com/2008/02/more-on-barack-obama-s2433-global.html

More on Barack Obama’s S.2433 : Global Poverty Act

We know for a fact that this bill will cost America $845 billion above and beyond what America already spends on global aid in the next thirteen years. America will be locked in to giving .7 percent of the U.S. gross national product. That in itself is scary enough, but there is way more to Obama’s bill. It also locks us into United Nations Millennium Summit. Cliff Kincaid from Accuracy in Media is all over this bill. He writes-(Underlined by me)

The bill institutes the United Nations Millennium Summit goals as the benchmarks for U.S. spending.

“It is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day,” a statement issued by supporters, including Obama, said.

Specifically, it would “declare” that the official U.S. policy is to eliminate global poverty, that the president is “required” to “develop and implement” a strategy to reach that goal and requires that the U.S. efforts be “specific and measurable.”

Kincaid said that after cutting through all of the honorable-sounding goals in the plan, the bottom line is that the legislation would mandate the 0.7 percent of the U.S. GNP as “official development assistance.”

“In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that (U.N.) declaration commits nations to banning ’small arms and light weapons’ and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention of Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention of the Rights of the Child,” he said.

Those U.N. protocols would make U.S. law on issues ranging from the 2nd Amendment to energy usage and parental rights all subservient to United Nations whims.

Kincaid also reported Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the “Millennium Project,” confirms a U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP would add about $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already donates overseas.

And the only way to raise that funding, Sachs confirms, “is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels,” Kincaid writes.

On the forum run by Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, one writer reported estimates of taxes from 35 cents to $1 dollar a gallon on gasoline would be needed.(LINK)

This ladies and gentleman is the Barack Obama vision for America . WND called Obama’s office and the others who support this bill….No comments.

See Obama’s Global Tax Bill (S.2433)

Change Obama can believe in: Socialism?