9/11 Commission Counsel: Government Agreed to Lie | PrisonPlanet.com

BY Paul Joseph Watson

The senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission – John Farmer – says that the government agreed not to tell the truth about 9/11, echoing the assertions of fellow 9/11 Commission members who concluded that the Pentagon were engaged in deliberate deception about their response to the attack.

Farmer served as Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (officially known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States), and is also a former New Jersey Attorney General.

Farmer’s book about his experiences working for the Commission is entitled The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11, and is set to be released tomorrow.

The book unveils how “the public had been seriously misled about what occurred during the morning of the attacks,” and Farmer himself states that “at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened.”

Only the very naive would dispute that an agreement not to tell the truth is an agreement to lie. Farmer’s contention is that the government agreed to create a phony official version of events to cover-up the real story behind 9/11.

The publisher of the book, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, states that, “Farmer builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version not only is almost entirely untrue but serves to create a false impression of order and security.”

In August 2006, the Washington Post reported, “Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon’s initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.”

The report revealed how the 10-member commission deeply suspected deception to the point where they considered referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation.

“We to this day don’t know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us,” said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. “It was just so far from the truth. . . . It’s one of those loose ends that never got tied.”

Farmer himself is quoted in the Post article, stating, “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.”

As we also reported in August 2006, released portions of NORAD tapes from 9/11, which were featured in a Vanity Fair article, do little to answer skeptic’s questions about the impotence of U.S. air defenses on 9/11 and if anything only increase focus on the incompatibility of the official version of events with what is actually known to have taken place on that day.

Make no mistake, Farmer is not saying that 9/11 was an inside job, however, Farmer’s testimony, along with that of his fellow 9/11 Commission members, conclusively demonstrates that, whatever really happened on 9/11, the official story as told to the public on the day and that which remains the authorities’ version of events today, is a lie – according to the very people who were tasked by the government to investigate it. This is a fact that no debunker or government apologist can ever legitimately deny.

Research related links:

1. Mukasey Denies Request for Special Counsel to Investigate CIA Interrogators
2. In Their Own Words: Admissions from the people who wrote the 9/11 Commission Report that it was compromised
3. Lehman: Commission Purposely Set Up So that 9/11 Staff Had Conflict of Interest
4. Walter Mondale and Mark Dayton Support New 9/11 Investigation
5. Obama: Trilateral Commission Endgame
6. Pentagon Faxes Charges for September 11 Military Commission
7. British Commission Hypes Bioterrorism Threat
8. Commission Recommends U.S. Use ‘Direct Force’–If Needed–to Stop Iran, N. Korea Nuke Programs
9. McCain’s Economic Snake Oil Commission
10. What Do NORAD’s 9/11 Computer Chat Logs Reveal?
11. UN Human Rights Official Wants Investigation Into US Government Role In 9/11

Source: PrisonPlanet.com

CNBC Anchors Mortified That Ron Paul Was Allowed Air Time

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Thursday, Feb 26th, 2009

CNBC anchors were left dumbfounded and acted overtly cantankerous yesterday after Congressman Ron Paul’s opening statement at the House Financial Services Committee was broadcast live to an audience of millions.

CNBC went live to the House, clearly without knowing that the Texas Congressman had the initial Republican statement at the hearing of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke.

After the Congressman spent two and a half minutes lecturing Bernanke on sound money principles, warning that the financial crisis cannot be solved by merely creating credit out of thin air, CNBC cut back to the studio.

Anchors Erin Burnett and Mark Haines were so perturbed by what they had just heard that they immediately cut to a commercial break:

Haines: “This is not going as planned”

Burnett: “No it is not”

Haines: “We were told that there would be a very limited number of opening statements, and it seems to be getting out of control.”

Burnett: “Here’s what we forgot, everybody is taking this live, you know what that means? Why would they miss an opportunity for free air time?”

Haines: “We’re going to take a commercial break and get them out of the way, so that when something really substandard [he must mean substantial?] is happening, we don’t have to interrupt them.”

The Congressman’s speech was powerful and eye opening:

“This is the end of an era,” said Paul, “we can’t reinflate the bubble….if we think that we can reinflate this bubble by artificially creating credit out of thin air and calling it capital, believe me we don’t have a prayer of solving these problems – we have a total misunderstanding of what credit is versus capital.”

Of course, in the eyes of the corporate media shills for the Fed, the Treasury, and Wall Street Paul’s words were “out of control”. How dare he speak such sense and actively question the logic of the almighty ones, our only hope, our saviors (who also happen to be the very same set of criminals that led us down the path to economic ruin in the first instance).

Then again, how could we expect anything else from the likes of CNBC’s Burnett and Haines, who have previously demonstrated a total lack of understanding of the underlying causes of the financial crisis, even commenting that gold has “no inherent value”.

Research related articles:

1. Ron Paul Grills Bernanke: “You Can’t Reinflate The Bubble”
2. CNBC Analyst: Global Bank, Global Currency Within 15 Years
3. Ron Paul: Bernanke Deliberately Destroying Dollar
4. Ron Paul Slams “Born-again Budget Conservatives”
5. Ron Paul Hits Out At “Arrogant” Greenspan
6. Ron Paul: Secretive Elite Control America
7. CNBC Host Recommends Statins be Put in the Water Supply
8. Obama Win Will Not Change Rigged Economy
9. Paul Lectures Bernanke: U.S. Moving Towards Fascism
10. Why The Fed Allowed Derivatives Trading on a Sunday
11. Ron Paul: Greenspan, Bernanke Should Be Criminally Charged
12. Ron Paul: Stimulus Packages Will Turn Recession Into A Depression

Source: InfoWars

Final Version of the Economic Stimulus Plan: How It Impacts Your County (e.g., Jackson County, Oregon)

President Obama has just signed a $790+ billion “stimulus” package for the economy, but do you really believe that will actually help our local economy (or just make government bigger, increase the debt and put more burden than ever on the rest of us)?

If you want to see where the money is being spent (your share of the $2,600 per capita increase in the federal debt) for the “Economic Stimulus Bill” read the following summary:

• Senate Final Stimulus Bill Summary

Articles:
• Oregon Governor Targets Federal Stimulus Dollars
• Senate Stimulus Bill

Your fair share?

The State of Oregon will have to compete for it’s share of the $30 billion slated for the states. At last count Jackson County was slated to receive only $400,000 of that money.

Since the federal debt is increasing at $2,600 per capita for this single expenditure alone (that’s a future obligation for each individual in the country, every man, woman and child), wouldn’t it be a better idea to organize our own local capital and resources to provide for our own needs instead of relying on government to do this for us?

Wouldn’t it make more sense to stop relying on the federal government to bail us out, and start doing this ourselves?

So let’s do the math.

According to the 2006 census Jackson County has a population of 197,071 (updated to 198,615 according to recent statistics on the county website). In effect each of us in Jackson County owes an additional $2,600 to the Federal Reserve Bank (or roughly $520,000,000 given a population of 200,000). That’s a lot of money theoretically leaving Jackson County (if indeed the Fed ever called in the debt).

If each of us in Jackson County had the ability (and the desire) to pool our own local capital of $2,600 per capita and funded our own developments and capital projects (instead of the trickle down effect from Washington DC), we’d have a capital fund in excess of $520,000,000 (that’s right millions of dollars, five times the annual budget of the City of Ashland) instead of a mere trickle down of $400,000 from the Economic Stimulus Plan.

Something is terribly wrong with this economic picture.

• Problem 1 is we cannot create money out of thin air the way the government and banks do.
• Problem 2 is government spending at this magnitude will not only increase the debt per capita, but devalue the currency (meaning you’ll get less bang for the buck, in effect less purchasing power). This will make the economy worse, not better for most of the people.

Yet all those smart people in Washington DC (and a few newly elected) don’t seem to understand the consequences of such spending for the rest of us. You get my drift?

Now, it’s up to us to do something about it.

How can we refocus our efforts to the LOCAL AND REGIONAL community? What positive and hopeful visions and projects would you like to bring to the table and invest your time, effort, energy and resources (including money)?

U.S. Public Debt

The United States total public debt, commonly called the national debt, or U.S. government debt, is the amount of money owed by the federal government of the United States to holders of U.S. debt instruments. Debt held by the public is all federal debt held by states, corporations, individuals, and foreign governments, but does not include intragovernmental debt obligations or debt held in the Social Security Trust Fund. Types of securities held by the public include, but are not limited to, Treasury Bills, Notes, Bonds, TIPS, United States Savings Bonds, and State and Local Government Series securities.[1]

As of February 12, 2009, the total U.S. federal debt was $10.76 trillion [2], or about $37,703 per capita. Of this amount, debt held by the public was roughly $6.45 trillion.[3] In 2007, the public debt was 36.8 percent of GDP [4], with a total debt of 65.5 percent of GDP.[5] The CIA Factbook ranked the total percentage as 23rd in the world.[6]

Public debt is the amount owed by the government to its creditors, whether they are nationals or foreigners. External debt is the debt of all sectors of the economy (public and private), owed to foreigners. In the U.S., foreign ownership of the public debt is a significant part of the nation’s external debt. The Bureau of the Public Debt, a division of the Department of the Treasury, calculates the amount of money owed by the national government on a daily basis.[7][8][9][10] Source: U.S. Public Debt

The estimated population of the United States is 305,670,162 so each citizen’s share of this debt is $35,252.68. Source: U.S. Debt Clock

Twenty Bailout Banks Cut Lending: Nationalization Considered

Although a main purpose of the Troubled Asset Relief Program was to increase bank lending, a new report casts doubt that recipients of TARP funds are following through. The AP reports the “20 largest banks that received government rescue funds slightly reduced their lending to consumers and businesses in the last three months of 2008.”

The report “is the latest sign that the bailout has done little to increase bank lending.” According to the Washington Post, “The banks that got the most government money, Bank of America and Citigroup, led the retreat.” The Wall Street Journal adds that Treasury officials acknowledge that “the expected decline in fourth-quarter lending was a sign that the program wasn’t working as intended.”

Greenspan: Banks Need Billions More The Financial Times reports former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan said yesterday that the Obama administration “will have to go back to Congress for more money to recapitalise the banking system.” Greenspan’s “comments suggest the need for hundreds of billions of dollars over and above the funds remaining” in the TARP.

Graham: GOP Open To Nationalizing Banks The Financial Times reports, “Nationalization is gaining rapid acceptance among Washington opinion-formers,” including Republicans. The Times notes that Sen. Lindsey Graham “says that many of his colleagues, including John McCain…agree with his view that nationalization of some banks should be ‘on the table’.”

US Has Lost $86.5 Billion On Preferred Shares The Hill reports that the federal government “has lost $86.5 billion in the stock market since the end of October courtesy of the Wall Street bailout.”

Source: USNews.com

Inauguration and Empire, and Goodbye, Mr. Bush

See Justin Raimondo’s article about how far we have sunk since the days of Jefferson’s inauguration. “Having long ago morphed into Jefferson’s worst nightmare, the closer we get to the end, the more glamorous our inaugurals become,” writes Raimondo, who sees in this celebration of presidential power the signs of a bipartisan consensus on more war. And here’s Robert Higgs looking back on another imperial inaugural.

Four years ago, Bush’s critics raised objections to the lavishness of his second inaugural, while his supporters tended to defend the ostentatious celebration. I identified the modern presidency, with all its power, as the real problem, and argued that maintaining the inauguration in all its glory would be no controversy if the power of the presidency were scaled back to no more than what’s in the Constitution. The Jeffersonian and anti-Federalists were skeptical even of the power granted to the president back in the late 18th-century; since then it has been expanded and aggrandized so many times (Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Bush) as to render it completely unrecognizeable by constitutional standards.

There is a silver lining this time, which is that tomorrow marks the end of the Bush era. This was the presidency gave us:

• Two undeclared, unwinnable imperial wars, with hundreds of thousands of dead, including thousands of Americans, and many tens of thousands of Americans wounded, with the violence and occupations continuing to this day;

• Detention without trial or habeas corpus;

• A torture scandal and the institutionalization, from the top down, of “enhanced interrogation techniques” that offend basic standards of human decency;

• New precedents on “extraordinary renditioning,” whereby U.S. intelligence and military agencies hand off detainees to foreign countries where they are interrogated in ways that even the U.S. at Guantanamo will not use;

• Warrantless wiretapping of the citizenry conducted by the military wing of the government;

• Spying on peaceful political activists and putting many names on no-fly lists;

• The modification of Posse Comitatus and insurrection law to empower the president to order the military and national guard to impose order on the domestic population;

• More signing statements than any president before;

• Credit expansion that helped bring on the greatest financial crisis in many years;

• The largest expansion of welfare spending since the Great Society, specifically in the area of prescription drugs;

• The biggest bailout ever, so far, with frightening moves toward economic fascism in the financial sector;

• A doubling of the deficit and debt;

• The nationalization of airline security and the introduction of the color-coded terror system;

• The Department of Homeland Security;

• Sarbanes-Oxley and other posturing corporate regulation that hurts small firms while doing nothing to improve the economy;

• Signing McCain-Feingold into law, despite knowing it violating the First Amendment;

• The further nationalization of education;

• The 21st century version of the “unitary executive,” which concentrates ever more power into the presidency;

• Massive protectionism, secrecy, duplicity, socialism, corporatism, and growing reliance on police-state tactics;

• Terrible diplomatic blunders with North Korea, the Midle East and elsewhere;

• The failure to catch Osama bin Laden.

That’s all I’ll mention for now, but I might update this with more gems from the Bush years. It will be hard, in any event, for Obama to beat this record. But we shall see.

Source: Campaign for Liberty

Strengthening or Weakening the Economy?

The economic situation continues to deteriorate this week as past and future bailouts were discussed on Capitol Hill.  The debate was over the accountability of already disbursed TARP money, and on whether or not to release remaining funds.   Banks that had already been bailed out before are looking for more money to fill the black holes that are their balance sheets, warning that they are simply too big to fail.  However, whatever ‘devastating’ consequences these banks are dreaming up and pushing on Capitol Hill regarding their own collapse will be nothing compared to the collapse of our currency if we keep debasing it through these foolish bailouts.  It should be that they are too big to bailout.  The world will not come to an end without this or that bank.  The most troubling thing to me is this rhetoric that only government can save the economy, and must act.  This is so counter-productive.

We must ask ourselves what strengthens this country, and what weakens it.

Government is a monumental drag on this economy.  Government at all levels currently absorbs about 35-40 percent of GDP, which is still not enough for its voracious appetite. While productivity is already overtaxed, the government routinely spends more than it takes in and makes up for the shortfall by constantly borrowing or debasing our dollars through inflation.  It pains me to think of all the opportunities for productive economic growth we have given up simply because our government is super-sized instead of Constitution-sized.  There are just a few constitutionally sanctioned activities for government to engage in, but it is so overstretched with unconstitutional encroachments that what it is legitimately supposed to do, it does very badly.  And yet we are to believe the solution to our problems is to make government bigger.  On the contrary, government makes our problems bigger.  The central bank’s meddling with monetary policy led to overheated lending, and now massive defaults.  The government used manipulative tax policy to distort the housing market which has had many unintended consequences, and here we are.  Government is quick to enact and slow to correct bad policy.  Yet in spite of government’s failures, it flourishes and grows, thanks to the continual bailouts from the unwitting taxpayer.

Big government has been tried and has failed miserably.  What we need now is small government, and freedom.  We need the freedom to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps again, as we traditionally do in this country.  But try to start a business or charity today, and you will understand how little economic freedom we really have left.  Freedom, not government, made this the land of opportunity.  Freedom laid the foundation that catapulted us to becoming the strongest economic power in the world.  The American people are strong and capable.  We can pull ourselves out of this mess.  All we need is for the nanny-state to get out of the way and allow us to do it.  Freedom is our strength, government is our weakness.  Only by recognizing this and unleashing our strengths will we solve the problems we face today.

Source: Dr. Ron Paul’s Straight Talk and Campaign for Liberty

Freedom Force International

By G. Edward Griffin

Freedom Force International is a network of men and women from all parts of the world who are concerned over loss of personal liberty and expansion of government power. They are not mere complainers. They have a plan to do something about it. They also share a common belief in The Creed of Freedom, which is a statement of principles that guide them in their mission to build a better world.

Totalitarianism is on the rise everywhere because advocates of big government have taken leadership control of the power centers within every society. Power centers are organizations and social groupings – such as political parties, labor unions, church groups, media centers, and professional societies – that hold political power based on their claim to represent their members and on their ability to lead public opinion. It has taken many years for them to achieve this dominance over society, but they have succeeded. It does no good to complain or to theorize about what should be done. As long as advocates of big government hold the power, nothing will change.

WE MUST NOT BE LIKE CATS
One of the most profound differences between dogs and cats is that cats focus on effects while dogs focus on causes. If you toss a pebble at a cat, it will look at the pebble. If you toss it at a dog, it will look at you.

In this respect, too many people are like cats. They are preoccupied with the details of their loss of security, freedom, and privacy, and they flutter like wing-clipped pigeons, complaining about this and that without knowing why these things are happening. By contrast, members of Freedom Force focus on the cause and work to eliminate it. The degeneration of civilization is not the result of blind forces of history operating beyond comprehension or control. It is planned and caused by a small but well defined group of people who believe this decline is necessary for what they fondly call The New World Order but which we recognize as high-tech feudalism in which mankind will be condemned to live in perpetual subservience to elitist rulers.

The identities of these elitists are known. They have names. They belong to organizations. They meet together to create strategies and they work jointly to implement them. They dominate the power centers of society. We will not escape their plans by looking only at what they are doing. We must focus on them and remove them from their present positions of power. Any other plan of action is doomed to failure.

That, however, is not enough. If we focus solely on the identities and personalities of those who are promoting the decline of liberty, we will be stumped by the fact that, even if we should succeed in removing them from their positions of influence, there are many more just like them waiting to step into their places. In the final analysis, it’s not the names and identities or political party affiliations of these individuals that matters as much as what they believe, what ideology they hold. Their ideology has a name. It’s called collectivism, a concept that government is master and people must obey. It’s to no avail to remove one collectivist from power only to replace him with another one – which has been the pattern for all too many years. It is time to stop acting like cats, stop being forever fascinated by the personalities and deeds of our leaders. We must be more like dogs and focus on the ideology of our leaders, because that is the cause of their deeds.

The solution is simple. It is to take back control of the power centers of society, one-by-one, just the way they were captured in the first place. Replace the collectivists with people who have no personal agendas except to defend freedom. This will unleash the vast human potential for prosperity and happiness that can be realized only in the absence of government oppression. However, to reach that goal, it will be necessary for those who cherish freedom to do more than complain and far more than just casting a vote every few years. They must reach for power. That is the reason for the motto of Freedom Force: Impotentes defendere libertatem non possunt, which is Latin for “Those without power cannot defend freedom.”

The Freedom Force strategy can be summarized as: Don’t fight city hall when you can BE city hall.

The mission of members of Freedom Force is to shape public policy within their respective countries in favor of personal and global freedom. The method is threefold: (1) dissemination of ideological and issue-related information, (2) instruction in how to become influential within community and national organizations, and (3) instruction in how to lawfully and constitutionally convert that influence into public policy. Members seek to become change agents so they truly can make a difference in the world.

Freedom Force is a global brotherhood of the most enlightened and dedicated people in the world. We are building an international network of leaders who, in spite of differences in nationality and culture, are in solidarity with the principles expressed in The Creed of Freedom. We now have members in sixty countries, and the number continues to grow. (See flags below.) Nothing like this has happened before in history. It is a powerful force that cannot be stopped. Welcome to the Brotherhood of Freedom.

Source: Freedom Force International

The Real News Network

Source: The Real News Network

Dialogue Across Ideological Divides

By DeAnna Martin & Susan Partnow

At the recent National Conference on Dialogue and Deliberation, we attended a panel of speakers who consider themselves “conservatives” to help us understand why dialogues seem to narrowly attract “progressives” and especially of a certain age, white, and middle class.

We want to share some of the things we heard and lessons learned to consider the implications for Conversation Cafes and similar endeavors to dialogue across divides.

First, there are certain fears that tend to turn conservatives off to dialogue. These fears create barriers to showing up if they feel they have to:

1)     Give up the Truth. If dialogue assumes all truths are relative, it is an unwelcome environment for someone who has fundamentalist convictions about right and wrong.
2)     Be coerced towards some hidden agenda. Questions come up about what the ultimate goal of dialogue really is: to convince me of something? To get me involved in some sort of larger social change? Is there really an authentic space for conservative views?
3)     Be changed. Perhaps this is connected to a hidden agenda to convince me that my views are wrong?

One way that individuals in the evangelical community have found their way through these fears is by engaging in what they call, “convicted civility.”  Individuals engage in dialogue, sharing candidly about where they are convicted, from their place of The Truth, while the other seeks to understand “living the friendship, not the argument.’

We learned that conservatives may be turned off by how the dialogue is framed. Particular triggers for conservatives are words like:

• “Sustainability”  Is there some intent to coerce me to become an environmentalist?
• “Global warming” versus a more conservative framing “energy security”
• “Community organizing” ˆ is code for someone telling me what to do, I don’t need to be organized.
• “Consciousness” should only be used in a boxing match to assess is he conscious or not.
• “Progressive” implies you’re more evolved than me, I’m stupid.
• “Grassroots” must mean a Trojan horse end-run around the system
• “Civic engagement” must be some kind of agenda you want everyone to get involved in.

Second, there are certain values that shed light on what conservatives find important. By looking at these we can understand better how to appeal across divides to bring people together.

Some of the values expressed by panelists were:

• “Self-Governance” I am responsible for myself, my family and my community all within a democratic republic.
• “Personal Responsibility” when dialogues emphasize government as the only answer, rather than each of us making up our own minds about how we can take care of ourselves, our families, and our neighbors.
• “Voluntary cooperation” or coercion of any kind, whether that be an expectation to come up with something we all agree to or a hidden agenda to convert, is the antithesis of this.

So let’s consider these insights as they relate to how we go about our Conversation Cafes and other dialogue efforts.

Frame & Identify Issues We Have in Common
Dialogue can be framed as a desire to understand and know each other and must include all aspects of the self, including religious values. We must find nonpartisan issues we all care about, such as transparency, integrity, and accountability. These issues might stem from where there is a felt need to link political will with deliberation, then be careful about how decision makers are involved in the cycles of discussion and be transparent about everyone’s commitment and role in the process.

Be Careful about Liberal Blind Spots
Taking our cue from the trigger words shared previously, we must find language that doesn’t assume we intend to evolve people to a particular end, organize them, or that limits our scope for what and who is ultimately responsible. Cultivate humility. Be willing to let go of our own agendas and accept that we have more to learn and understand.

Define Dialogue as Part of Broader Civic Engagement
Respect that each of us is self-governing and we are self-governing together.  Be open to seeing the free market as civic engagement, i.e. in a free market businesses are figuring out what people want and providing it. Dialogue in our civic engagement is about integrating the values of the republic with the needs of the republic.

Emphasize Non-Coercive Outcomes
Dialogue as an end in itself, not about reaching some pre-determined outcome. Just the talking is valuable without the pressure to generate some kind of agreement or shared outcome. Sell the mapping of the issues, rather than an outcome; deeper understanding, empathy, and connection to what this issue looks like from many perspectives. So the outcome is discovery. Mutual respect and appreciation,  humanization. Self understanding to be more personally responsible. Emphasize that it’s not about seeking change.

Demonstrate Value in Terms of Enhancing Social Capital
Dialogue creates opportunities for connections where none existed before, which builds the health and vitality of a community ˆ essential to safety and security.  Express how  conversations with others gives life to the expression, “Love thy neighbor as thyself.”

Listening to our Conservative speakers and panelists was stimulating, mind opening and humbling. We hope sharing these thoughts with you will serve us all in broadening our conversations to include more diversity of thought, which will ultimately serve us all in moving forward in this complex world.

Source: http://transpartisan.wordpress.com

Obama’s Inner Circle

By Victor Thorn

FOR TWO YEARS, Americans have heard an unrelenting mantra of change emanating from the campaign trail. But now that President-elect Barack Obama has begun forming his cabinet, we’re seeing a cadre of more deeply entrenched insiders than any administration that has preceded it.

In regard to key foreign policy advisors, all three of Obama’s selections either initially supported the Iraq war, or still do. On the economic front, each appointee maintains a close relationship with the triad of Ben Bernanke, Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan—as well as bailout engineer Henry Paulson. Barack Obama himself is a Council on Foreign Relations member, has strong ties to Zbigniew Brzezinski, and participated in a clandestine meeting with Hillary Clinton at Bilderberg member Diane Feinstein’s house at the time when 2008 Bilderberg members were congregating only a few miles away.

Below is an overview of Obama’s top 14 selections to date. When considering their collective histories, a trend becomes clear, proving that the more things change under Obama, the more they stay the same.

1. TIMOTHY GEITHNER – TREASURY SECRETARY

Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, president and CEO of Federal Reserve Bank of New York, director of policy development for IMF, member Group of Thirty (G30), employed at Kissinger & Associates, architect of the recent 2008 financial bailouts, mentored by Lawrence Summers and Robert Rubin.

2. PAUL VOLCKER – ECONOMIC RECOVERY ADVISORY BOARD

Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, North American chairman of Trilateral Commission, Federal Reserve chairman during Carter and Reagan administrations, president of Federal Reserve Bank of New York, G30 member, chairman Rothschild Wolfensohn Company, key figure in the collapse of the gold standard during the Nixon administration, longtime associate of the Rockefeller family.

3. RAHM EMANUEL – CHIEF OF STAFF

Member of Israeli Defense Force, staunch Zionist, senator, Board of Directors for Freddie Mac, member of Bill Clinton’s finance campaign committee, made $16.2 million during 2.5 years as an investment banker for Wasserstein Perella. His father was a member of the Israeli Irgun terrorist group.

4. LAWRENCE SUMMERS – NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL

Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, treasury secretary during Clinton administration, chief economist at World Bank, former president of Harvard University, Brookings Institute board member, huge proponent of globalization while working for the IMF, protg of David Rockefeller, mentored by Robert Rubin.

5. DAVID AXELROD – SENIOR ADVISOR

Political consultant whose past clients include Sens. Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Christopher Dodd; main Obama fixer in the William Ayers and Reverend Wright scandals.

6. HILLARY CLINTON – SECRETARY OF STATE

Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, clandestine CIA asset used to infiltrate the anti-war movement at Yale University and the Watergate hearings, senior partner at the Rose Law Firm, key figure in the Mena drug trafficking affair, architect of the Waco disaster, implicated in the murder/ cover-up of Vince Foster, and many other deaths.

7. JOSEPH BIDEN – VICE PRESIDENT

Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senator since 1972, member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, current chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, strong Zionist sympathizer who recently told Rabbi Mark S. Golub of Shalom TV, “I am a Zionist. You don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist.”

8. BILL RICHARDSON – COMMERCE SECRETARY

Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, former U.S. congressman, chairman of the Democratic National Convention in 2004, employee of Kissinger Associates, UN ambassador, governor of New Mexico, energy secretary, major player in the Monica Lewinsky cover-up with Bilderberg luminary Vernon Jordan.

9. ROBERT GATES – DEFENSE SECRETARY

Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, former CIA Director, defense secretary under President Bush, co-chaired CFR task force with Zbigniew Brzezinski, knee-deep in the Iran-Contra scandal, named in a 1999 class action lawsuit pertaining to the Mena drug trafficking affair.

10. TOM DASCHLE – HEALTH SECRETARY

Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, former Senate majority leader, Citibank lackey, mentored by Robert Rubin.

11. ERIC HOLDER – ATTORNEY GENERAL

Key person in the pardon of racketeer Marc Rich, deputy attorney general under Janet Reno, facilitated the pardon of 16 Puerto Rican FALN terrorists under Bill Clinton.

12. JANET NAPOLITANO – HOMELAND SECURITY DIRECTOR

Council on Foreign Relations, Arizona governor, attorney for Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas hearings, U.S. attorney during the Clinton administration, instrumental in the OKC cover-up, where she declared, “We’ll pursue every bit of evidence and every lead,” described as another Janet Reno, soft on illegal immigration (i.e. pro-amnesty and drivers licenses to illegals).

13. GEN. JAMES L. JONES – NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR

Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission, European supreme allied commander, special envoy for Middle-East Security during Bush administration, board of directors for Chevron and Boeing, NATO commander, member of Brent Scowcroft’s Institute for International Affairs along with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Bobby Ray Inman, Bilderberg luminary Henry Kissinger and former CIA Director John Deutch.

14. SUSAN RICE – U.N. AMBASSADOR

Council on Foreign Relations, Rhodes scholar, campaign foreign policy advisor to presidential candidates John Kerry and Michael Dukakis, member of Bill Clinton’s National Security Council and assistant secretary of state for Africa, member of the Brookings Institute (funded by the Ford Foundation and the Rockefellers), and member of the Aspen Strategy Group (teeming with Bilderberg insiders such as Richard Armitage, Brent Scowcroft, and Madeleine Albright).

Source: Ashland Resource Center