Obama! The Next USA President!

[Nur]

Will Israel Assassinate Barack Obama?

 

Criminal State, January 6, 2010

By Jeff Gates

 

To assassinate an American president with impunity requires pre-staging. For Israel to succeed would require an Evil Doer on whom the deed could plausibly be blamed. The emerging fact patterns suggest that such pre-staging is well underway and that a Pakistani could be the perceived culprit. The recent history of Evil Doer branding offers insight into what to expect.

 

Over the course of several years,

, a brutal tyrant, morphed from a loyal and valued U.S. ally to the leader of a state portrayed as a member of the Axis of Evil ready and able to deploy weapons of mass destruction on a moment’s notice. Though that depiction was a lie; a plausible lie sufficed in the creation of a credible Evil Doer to help justify the invasion of Iraq.

 

Similarly, the Taliban in all its many forms have long been religious fundamentalists with an intolerant streak exceeded only by their ferocity in defense of their severe version of Islam. During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, they were celebrated as the fierce Mujahideen and heralded as heroic freedom fighters by President Ronald Reagan.

 

In the run-up to the provocation of 9-11, that positive “branding” abruptly changed when, six months prior to that mass murder, Afghanistan’s ancient Buddhas at Bamiyan were destroyed. When the Taliban took responsibility, they were rebranded worldwide as certifiably evil for what mainstream media portrayed as a “cultural holocaust.” When staging such power-of-association operations, timing is everything. By 9-11, the Taliban were seen as world-class Evil Doers.

 

A similar pre-staging is underway in the U.S as manipulated impressions become the mental building blocks to create a plausible culprit from an Islamic nation. Keep in mind that repeated reports of Iraqi WMD created a generally accepted “consensus” truth—regardless of the facts.

 

In a similar fashion, oft-repeated reports of the threat of Iranian WMD have steadily created the impression of a nuclear weapons capability with no basis in fact. But facts are not the point when pre-staging an Evil Doer. The point is what a targeted population can be induced to believe.

 

Five Muslim students in the U.S. traveled to Pakistan in mid-December, setting off a flurry of reports about the threat of “homegrown terrorism.” Every report mentioned the recent shootings at Fort Hood, Texas by a Muslim psychiatrist. A series of other incidents helped enhance the plausibility of a violent event traceable to the requisite Islamic Evil Doer.

 

The Justice Department announced this month that the trial of a 9-11 suspect will be held in Manhattan, with a second trial in nearby Brooklyn. In explaining the projected $150 million cost, local officials likened the extensive security to what is required for a New Year’s Eve celebration—only lasting for months. These trials are akin to a high profile publicity campaign certain to keep Americans on edge while enhancing the plausibility of “Islamic” violence.

 

Insecurity, Plausibility & Accessibility

 

Yet how could an assassin reach the most closely guarded president of modern times? The plausibility of a security breach has already been pre-staged. At the first state dinner by Obama, two aspiring contestants for a reality television show foiled White House security to come within handshake distance of the president. Though no one has yet conceded how that could have happened, both the president and the First Lady have an Ashkenazi chief of staff.

 

Bodyguards were protecting Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin when in November 1995 a Likud Party member shot him at close range. Assassin Yigal Amir invoked a concept from ultra-orthodox Judaism to justify his murder of Rabin as a threat to Jews living in the settlements. Likud Party leader Benjamin Netanyahu led a series of rallies that Rabin described as provoking violence. Netanyahu was elected Prime Minister in June 1996 and immediately sought to inhibit implementation of the Oslo land-for-peace process agreed to by Rabin.

 

That same year, Richard Perle led a Jewish-American team to prepare for Netanyahu a new policy titled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (i.e., Israel). Then a member of the U.S. Defense Policy Board, Perle became its chairman in 2001. The central theme of A Clean Break: Israel should halt the return of Palestinian land and instead pursue an aggressive strategy that included as a priority the removal of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

 

Should pro-Israeli extremists detect an inclination by Barack Obama to endorse a return of Palestinian land to the Palestinians, the likelihood of his assassination will greatly increase. For his death to appear plausibly due to an Islamic source requires pre-staging akin to what is now ongoing. To displace facts with what the public can be induced to believe requires a period of mental preparation in order to make misdirection believable.

 

In July 2006, for instance, authors Jim Gilchrist and Jerome Corsi published Minutemen claiming that Hezbollah terrorists are sneaking across the Mexican border and plotting another 9-11. Minutemen was launched at Ground Zero, the site of the 9-11 attack, 14 days after Israel invaded Lebanon—in pursuit of Hezbollah. Had the U.S. suffered another attack, Iran-backed Hezbollah would have been the perceived culprit, providing a plausible rationale attack Iran.

 

Corsi remains a prolific source of prepare-the-minds publications, including Atomic Iran released in early 2005 and calling for either the U.S. or Israel to preemptively bomb the “mad mullahs of Iran.” His latest release is The Obama Nation. With a first print run of 475,000, his attack on the presidential contender immediately topped The New York Times nonfiction bestseller list. Should Obama be murdered, Corsi’s book will provide an incremental component of plausibility that the assassin was opposed not to his changed policies on Israel but to his “socialism.”

 

An Agenda in Need of a Crisis

 

Other recent incidents enhance the plausibility that an assassin could enter the U.S. from abroad. Homeland Security conceded this month that a sensitive transportation security screening manual was posted on the Internet. The ordering of more troops to Afghanistan enhances the plausibility that extremists will be driven across the border into Pakistan, only to travel from there to the U.S.

 

Obama’s Nobel Prize associated him with peace laureate Martin Luther King Jr. Were Obama also to die at the hands of an assassin, his “brand” has now been sufficiently enhanced that he would become an iconic figure. If Zionist extremists fail to provoke a crisis in the Middle East or South Asia, the murder of America’s first Black president would suffice as an attention-diverting crisis—particularly if those who produced his candidacy use his death to catalyze hatred between whites and blacks in the same way that they now market hatred for Muslims.

 

So long as Barack Obama continues to serve Israeli interests, he will continue to live a charmed life. Should he hint that justice—say for the Palestinians—is a worthy goal, the pre-staging is in place to eliminate that threat. Likewise should he seek to shut down the ongoing oligarch-ization of America and the steady piling on of disabling debt.

 

Should his death provoke race riots, the Department of Homeland Security is prepared to protect the agent provocateurs—under the guise of defending the perpetrators from anti-Semitism.

 

Would Israel assassinate a U.S. president? What kind of world would we now inhabit if Senator William Fulbright and Attorney General Robert Kennedy had succeeded in 1962 in forcing the Israel Lobby to register as a foreign agent? How would the world be different if John F. Kennedy had succeeded in 1963 in forcing international inspections of Israel’s nuclear facility?

 

When Robert Kennedy announced for the presidency in 1968, Tel Aviv did not know if he would revive JFK’s campaign to prevent Israel from igniting a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Nor did anyone know if he and Fulbright would again seek transparency for Israeli operations disguised as domestic lobbying.

 

When RFK was murdered in June 1968, the gunman was Palestinian. That lesson should not be lost on Pakistan. In dealing with Washington, Islamabad should also recall Senator Fulbright’s candid assessment in 1973: “Israel controls the U.S. Senate.” He was gone by 1974, thirty-five influence-embedding years ago.

 

Source

[Nur]

Nomads

 

As predicted in my dream, two years ago, Obama's resignation is still a possibility due to his voter cheating. Americans have supported Bush and Obama to inherit the current Economy, now they want an economic solution that neither party can deliver.

 

American Voters are not stuuupid

 

Nur

[Nur]

The Obama Postmortem

An Autopsy of a Political Suicide

 

By Ted Rall

 

November 04, 2010 "ICH" --It’s the day after the Republican sweep we all knew was coming. If Obama had any dignity, if he was honest with himself and with us, he would resign. It’s abundantly clear that he isn’t up to the job.

 

But you don’t become president by being honest or dignified. So now it’s wound-licking time. The President and his cronies are comforting each other. “It’s not your fault the economy sucks,” a Yes Man reassures Obama, sinking his heels into the new Oval Office carpet. “It was like that when we got here.”

 

Do they scratch him behind his ears? They should. It feels nice.

 

“It was the poor economy—not the wisdom of the Republicans’ ideas or the brilliance of their tactics—that assured they would retake control of the House,” coos MarketWatch’s Rex Nutting. Which is true. And doesn’t matter.

 

Democrats are taking solace in history. It’s the midterms! The party that holds the White House always loses seats in Congress. Look at Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. They suffered midterm defeats, then roared back to landslide reelection wins two years later. Not to worry! The voters will vote against the other party next time! Which is also true. And also doesn’t matter.

 

In the broken-down shambles of the excuse for a political system we have in the United States, there’s only one stage of grief: denial.

 

Barack Obama may well be reelected in 2012. Considering that the current GOP frontrunners are Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney, the odds favor him. But the Obama experiment is effectively dead. There will be no change, and so there is no hope.

 

Remember what happened to Clinton after the “Republican Revolution” sweep of 1994? He spent 1995 locked in a bizarre “co-presidency” with House Speaker Newt Gingrich before figuring out that his “partner” was more interested in obstructionist sabotage than bipartisanship.

 

Obama is heading down the same bloody path with John Boehner.

 

But Clinton did get that second term. During which he accomplished many things, such as…um…well, he did get impeached. Does that count?

 

I don’t understand why presidents want to get reelected. No president since FDR has gotten much done after his first term. Must be an ego thing. Either that, or it’s cool to have your own chef.

 

If Obama was going to shine, it was going to be during 2009. Elected by a sizable margin with an undeniable, media-backed mandate for change during a severe economic crisis he could exploit to push through his agenda, Obama also enjoyed the rare luxury of a Democratic House of Representatives and a nearly filibuster-proof Democratic Senate.

 

So what does he have to show for that marvelous gift? Three major items:

 

One: a healthcare overhaul that increases premiums and insurance company profits, and doesn’t include the public option he and everyone else said was absolutely essential. The good news is, the Republicans will probably repeal or defund this monster before it takes effect.

 

Two: a financial reform package no one knows about. Which is just as well, since it doesn’t crack down on the banksters.

 

Three: more dead Afghans.

 

They’re not much, but I hope Obama is proud of them. That’s as good as he’s going to get from now on.

 

What killed the Obama presidency? Political suicide. There were several death blows:

 

First and foremost, the economy. 60 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of Republicans told exit pollsters that the lack of jobs was their number-one issue. Obama never proposed a jobs program. He gave trillions of taxdollars to thieving banksters who ought to have been arrested instead, then tried to pass off this outrageous giveaway as economic stimulus. To make things worse, he stuck with an impossibly absurd argument: more people would have lost their jobs without it.

 

Even if the phony stimulus stopped things from getting worse—and it didn’t—people don’t care. They want the 20 percent of Americans who already lost their jobs—their friends, spouses, children and parents—to find new ones. Obama never addressed that.

 

He didn’t even try.

 

Second, he alienated his base. He didn’t even know who his base was.

 

Obama’s campaign was a potent mix of vague pabulum (“hope,” “change”) and, when he deigned to specify, center-right specifics (stop torture but expand the war against Afghanistan, bipartisan cooperation with the Republicans, no gay marriage, etc.). The problem was that the vagueness that helped him cobble together a winning coalition of leftist and independent voters made it impossible for him govern. Leftists got turned off when he doubled down in Afghanistan and refused to close Guantánamo; independents are notoriously fickle anyway.

 

If Obama’s advisors had been smart, they would have recognized two truths, one old and one new. The old truth is that the safest time to deliver to your base is the first year of a presidency; the passage of time allows the anger of the moderates to cool in time for the next election. The new truth for Obama was that his base comprised liberals who actually disagreed with much of what he stood for but had paid more attention to the “hope” and “change” posters than to his platform. He didn’t understand that.

 

Moreover, the world changed between September and November of 2008. Global capitalism collapsed. Millions of Americans lost their jobs and their homes during the next year. Wall Street, bankers, big business, the golden boys of the previous century, were discredited—but unpunished for their countless sins. By mid-2009 America had become a left-wing country, not in the media but among the citizenry, telling polls that their preferred economic system was socialism.

 

Team Obama didn’t understand that. They still don’t.

 

The inarticulate rage of the inchoate Tea Party caught the president by surprise. Neither Obama nor the political clones that form his center-right cabinet can see that in a binary political culture anger gravitates to the opposite pole. If Obama were Republican, the Tea Party would be identified with the left.

 

The takeaway is anger, not ideology. People are pissed. They hate the bailouts, but the bailouts aren’t the main point. More than anything else, the American people are angry that their government doesn’t even pretend to give a damn about them.

 

Ted Rall is the author of “The Anti-American Manifesto.” His website is www.tedrall.com