Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Changing Names, Static Faces

Posted by Calculating Condor
For all those opposing, recently betrothed to and indisposed of by our fair state: we have a new face for freedom. Our new man, new management has an oddly clean history. Barack Obama has had several homes in different nations over his lifetime but he is about to encompass the very helm of Western Civilization, as we know the term. No doubt, this man’s attributes and actions will be the prime focus of the watching world, wondering how he plans to depose our Texan oil baron brand of despotism and employ a formative approach towards governing our yet-to-be sheared bleaters.
Despite the man’s blood relation to two of our former administration’s executives, set back about nine generations, he is seen as the glimmer of hope in modern politics. And by bringing him to this seat, we are yet again instrumental in our own fate. I felt him to be the clear cut choice early on, forecasting Hilary’s deliberate departure from the eye of favor with her oddly ominous comparison of Obama’s then lead to RFK’s commanding lead in 1968 immediately prior to his assassination. These politicians don’t just say these things, their rhetorical intent always seems to be met and their meager promises to us take their lonely back seat.
But we know Hilary’s sordid past. The string of deaths connected to her and her slick and slippery Willie during their decades in politics. (http://www.ssqq.com/ARCHIVE/intern03.htm PLEASE READ AND SPREAD).
But what does our Kenyan joy boy have in his past? Not as ugly of one as virtually every single one of his predecessors, an apt prescription for a power-weary populace that sees fit only an alignment of private and public interests. Here, we demand not a uniform standard of life since we only know the damaging effects of socialization but at least a fair view, an equal shot whether in business or politics, but more importantly, a fresh start.
God knows we need it. At this stage, with our leading economic experts assuring us the worst is yet to hit us, the public has no will to crowd and clamor about our war fueled economy and how its certain progression can only have the exact same effect it has had for centuries, a perfect transfer of wealth from the unwittingly indentured debt classes to the iniquitous intelligentsia of global industry.
It did not take too long but following the past century’s great equalizer- WWII, US might allowed us to form the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. These institutions and their management has single handedly put the developing countries into an apt iron vice grip from which the only relief remains an assurance of servitude to the debtors for all foreseeable future.
But that prospect of progress urges us on, right? This hope that the future could be better has been misplaced into the hands of those who see their resolutions coming to fruition beyond that of their wildest dreams, and this new age’s constituency sees Obama as any sort of a departure? In a time when all of industry is at the mercy of the Federal Reserve, our idea of nationalization, instead of reaping the benefits of our regional fruits, is to further tarnish our collective credit with grab bag style gift packages allotted not to the most faulty businesses, but the most favored and obedient.
Take the case of Goldman Sachs, making the right maneuvers before the subprime mortgage crisis you’d think that they’d have no right to claim any of the 700 billion dollar package awarded by congress. This company had netted a 4 billion dollar profit by expecting a market collapse and then receiving even more from the 85 billion that went to AIG(http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2093881/posts).
Now these sort of actions that warranted no investigation on the part of the SEC, shit, they understand the fiscal prudence of the decision, these actions should certainly be condemned by a leader that has pledged to repair the cracked and crumbling gears of the American machine run ragged by republican ruin.
Unfortunately, Barack Obama has received close to 900 thousand from Goldman Sachs(reported,) his second top contributor. Now a mere million, even less is a marginal figure compared to the four billion gained from the mortgage-backed securities in addition to whatever part of that 37 billion dollar bundle went to Goldman, but it may have been just enough to keep the most credible law man in the eye of the public, the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, the first black president of the United States with his lips firmly sealed, smiling at the public his demagogy so fiercely empowers.
When you judge a candidate, as you must, just consider their motive at every step. From every sight, every standpoint. Now Obama mentions nothing of this unbelievable racket by which Goldman Sachs scours our pockets, can he be trusted with the control panels of our military?
One massive conflict zone that Obama has a root in is Africa. Now one word that has been absent from his speeches is AFRICOM. Its installment came at a timely month before Election day and was the pet project of Donald Rumsfeld, you remember him. Well, Obama fully supports AFRICOM as well as this idea of creating a Shared Security Partnership Program, a means of international and regional alignment on American terms with the common goal of combating our enemies. Not only is this out of touch with the American people, based on both recent and distant military history, this is far out of line with moral decency. He vows to close Guantanamo Bay detention facilities and act where Bush has failed, by focusing on the real targets. In the case of Iran, he contends that their nuclear development has to subside and their counter-position to Israel may decide their fate and in a detailed interview
he outlines how our efforts at diplomacy with only one obvious tyrant must end and be replaced with a stronger pursuit, with the hopes for their people almost at the priority our inexorable quest to root out the fabled danger of the middle east, Al Qaeda. Now with the cases of Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, countless other nations and even Al Qaeda, we always seem to have a strong bond in their upstart and then a sudden backlash against them, citing their crimes as independent when we maintained strong strategic with such terrorist organizations and financial support on record.
Clearly such a massive conflict of interest should be investigated, at least mentioned, something, man! But, no, no such luck. Obama is ever vigilant in reassuring America what side we’re on and why we’re there. And his position on human rights seems an echo of pretty much all of our past presidential candidates before winning and right before every fucking war they start. Strategic revision must be done on a broader scale and claiming that these international standards do not hold us in far heavier contempt than the smaller states we tend to demonize is enough reason for us to question Obama’s credibility and his devotion to substantial peace.
One organization that always seems to have ideological leverage on every presiding seat since its creation in the early 1920s is the Council on Foreign Relations. This think tank wrought from the spoils of the first major world even of warfare, following the biggest flu pandemic since the black plague, gave way to the build-up of wealth known as the roaring twenties. But the purpose of this non-partisan spoiled brats’ club has always been to find a comfortable place to take over the world outside of the glare of the media. The founding member of the CFR was the personal attorney to JP Morgan who, himself with the Warburg and Rockefeller clans, sought to finalize a true economic hierarchy for the world.
Well, this hierarchy is currently in top form, feeding on the defenseless bottom. And it is barely surprising that Barack’s wife is a member of the Chicago chapter of the CFR or that his two head picks for the Treasury department are a man directly from the Federal Reserve and one from the legendary Skull and Bones society, which may have certainly propelled the Bushes, John Kerry and Bill Clinton, among others, well into political prominence.
Two weeks after the election of Obama, I attended a conference, Transition 2008: Advising America’s Next President, held in the Schimmel Auditorium of the NYU Stern School of Business. On the panel were: the executive editor of CFR.org, Michael Moran, international correspondent Lane Greene for The Economist, and an NYU professor of financial institutional history Richard Sylla. Their moderator was a writer for Slate Magazine, Alexandra Starr, who focuses on South America. The entire time, the vision portrayed was grim and heavily reliant on a vamped approach towards those recurrent evils. The threat of an escalating conflict with China or Russia was noted. The most dissenting voice on stage was that of Lane Greene, while he expressed not a single qualm with the impending administration. One audience member asked what else could be done to revitalize the economy along with the recently passed stimulus package. Professor Sylla assured him that similar packages are on the way. I decided to ask about the creation of AFRICOM three weeks prior, and how the American people should expect a different tone from Obama when his support for this early and aggressive military project is hidden from most media outlets and from his own lips yet certainly not from his thoughts. The moderator decided to refer to her experience with SOCOM, the South American military apparatus, claiming they are very effective in handing out aid to people in the countries they feel the right to inhabit.
Michael Moran, the CFR website editor then took the question, stating that this is a chance for America to change its image broadcast around the world by taking charge in a volatile region. He delivered this in a tone of assuming international complicity with America’s new impulses, as if everyone is ready to trust us again.
At least Lane Greene echoed my concern for allowing the management of such a rich and struggling continent to a country with so dirty and dismal of a track record, our footprints fading far from memories as we approach a more local, a national struggle. Well that last part wasn’t said by Greene, considering he knew right away what I was talking about yet doesn’t seem to mention it in his articles.
My question was followed by a young woman asking if due to Obama’s popularity, could we lift the two term limit on the office of president to which the economics professor answered “Well, the country isn’t New York.” This was followed by roaring laughter of a public misunderstanding the grave necessity of such a law. The twenty second amendment is very much in honor of George Washington who refused to run for a third term despite such popular support. Thomas Jefferson followed his example, implying that the most effective governance is the limiting of power, to be able to spread it out amongst a larger part of the country. But in trying times, New York changed the laws in order to allow Bloomberg to reign for another term. It comes as no surprise that a New York representative introduces a bill aiming to repeal the 22nd amendment. (http://ppjg.wordpress.com/2009/01/13/representative-serrano-d-ny-wants-to-end-term-limits-for-presidents/)
Now how many people do you know that would support the passage of this law for Obama? If you still aren’t convinced of Obama’s true approach at navigation of our feeble vessel, take a look at Obama’s pick for deputy secretary of defense William J. Lynn III who was the chief financial officer of the Department of Defense 1997-2001 and the appointment of Robert Hale, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force from 1994-2001 concerning financial management.(http://solari.com/blog/?p=1983) Under these men, 3.3 trillion dollars went missing from the Department of Defense, 2.3 trillion of which secretary of Defense under W., Donald Rumsfeld admitted to in a press conference on September tenth, 2001.(Just type in the words RUMSFELD 9/10/01 into youtube or googlevideo.)
It is hopeful that Barack Obama wouldn’t allow such an act of piracy of the tax payer’s money, but if such actions warrant a promotion in Obama’s cabinet, rather than a deep investigation into government actions surrounding the attacks of 9/11, then there is clearly no distance drawn from the tactics of former administrations.
The beauty of ideology is that it can distance a person far from their actual position, their coordinates of character. But every one of us is a product of a typhoon of trails, myriad in number, genetic projections bringing about the most applicable attributes and we need not deny a single integral member. Who knows what characters comprise our family trees? All their exploits and triumphs, buried beneath, yet being the perfect precursors to our own minutiae. The problem is, our most powerful politicians are in a family, carrying on royal roots through the most dismal future possible, making damn well sure that the right strands survive. Well, the plebeian, the proles, breed of banality, whatever you want to call us are the purest and proudest part of society, never mind our size. There is no reason that the seed of kings still have a central role in politics. While we have the will to change, being led astray in order to impose regulations by the actual arbiters of our own downfall must stop. And the most destructive agencies to our world, our welfare and our wallets must go. We cannot remain placid in the presence of an altered expression on the face of an eternal wretchedness.
blog comments powered by Disqus