Why 9-11 Truthers Need To Vote For Obama (Todd Putnam)

{mosimage}

  Nov. 1, 2008 (World News Trust) -- Yes. Nine-eleven was an inside job, and we are ruled by a ruthless cabal of global elite. You won't hear Barack Obama or Joe Biden say this, but we in the 'truth' community need to vote for them anyway. Many truthers will cry heresy. My purpose here is to make a case for voting for Obama, whom many consider to be merely in the progressive wing of the establishment.

  Those who have struggled through the eerie labyrinthine terrain of the truth movement know that there are no simple answers. There is ample circumstantial evidence to indict 9-11 as an inside job, but we also realize that the smoking guns and hard material evidence are few at best, and each question answered only leads to another dozen questions. The more we pull back from the details to try to see the larger picture, the more convoluted, twisted and hazy the world becomes. We have learned that things are not always as they seem.

  So please, bear with me when I say that, just because of Obama's and Biden's relationship with the Council on Foreign Relations, and Michelle Obama's position with CFR's chapter in Chicago, and the fact that both Obama and Biden continue to parrot the lies about the war on terror and talk tough about finding and killing bin Laden, and yes, Biden met with the 9-11 paymaster on Sept. 13, 2001, and Obama voted for the Telecommunications Act giving eavesdropping amnesty to the telcoms, and both voted for the Wall Street bailout, but, just because of all that is no reason NOT to vote for the Obama-Biden ticket Nov. 4.

  It is generally accepted within the truth community that 9-11 was much more than a manufactured excuse to take the United States to war. It was an opportunity to reallocate vast sums of wealth, and an excuse to strip away our civil liberties, to intensify surveillance of the population, to militarize our police, and ultimately, it may well culminate in the declaration of martial law. And we're not just talking on the national level, because after 9-11 we saw further highly suspect bombings in Bali, London, and Madrid. The underlying objective cannot therefore be simply to bring fascism to the United States, but by implication the objective must be something larger.

  There is talk in the truther community about a state of permanent war, of WW III in the Middle East over the planet's oil supply, a la elite insider Zbigniew Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard. There is talk of building a global empire dominated by the global military-and-intelligence-industrial-complex. There is talk of a global police state (a police planet?), where the masses will be micro-chipped, and cashless, and essentially enslaved. There is even talk of a massive planetary depopulation program. Sadly there are events and documentation that lend credence to some of this. I won't get into discussing the merits of these dark forecasts, as many truthers believe they distract from exposing 9-11, which many argue that, once revealed, will lead society to embark on a discovery of these and other hidden realities.

  There are those who would argue that anyone willing to join the ranks of the New World Order and promote the ongoing illusion and agenda are thereby accomplices in the tyranny. Obama, they say is at worst a co-conspirator, and at best has sold-out.

  There has been plenty of speculation in the alternative media about Obama's true political stripes, and whether he is simply being pragmatic and clever politically, or whether his politics are more progressive than his voting record, choice of advisors, and rhetoric suggest. And much of that speculation concludes that regardless of who Obama is, really, once in office, the power of the NWO will dominate his worldview and actions.

  And there are those who claim that regardless of who is elected, Barack Obama or John McCain, America is doomed. I believe all such thinking oversimplifies what is likely a much more complicated reality.

  A BRIEF EXAMINATION OF WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH

  What are some of the circumstances we are now in, and how and why did we get here? Professor Peter Dale Scott refers to our condition as the "deep state," with the preeminent governing body existing in the shadows, hidden behind the recognized political system. It may help to think of our political establishment as an outer veneer, covering an understructure that is unseen and not acknowledged, leading most to assume there is nothing beyond the visible veneer. Due to its hidden nature, this substructure is not easily defined. Many say the Free Masons, Illuminati, or some other formal or claimed entity is behind the deep state. I simply refer to the hidden force as the global elite -- avoiding distractions over details and possible occult aspects such as Satan-worship, often associated with ancient secret societies.

  In 1919 the global elite formed the Royal Institute of International Affairs in England, and two years later, the sister organization the Council on Foreign Relations in the U.S., charged with shaping American public opinion toward policies that would ultimately lead to the creation of a world government. Initially, CFR was composed primarily of international bankers, industrialists and politicians advised by leading academics and intellectuals. In 1954, the Bilderbergers held their first annual conference of global elite, with an emphasis on Europe, to discuss and plan global policies. In 1973, CFR Chairman David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski together founded the Trilateral Commission, which sought to include Asian governance among the American and European global planning efforts.

  Every American president since Woodrow Wilson, Republicans and Democrats alike, has surrounded himself with influential members from these elite globalist groups. And over the years the influence has tended to expand, not lessen. CFR member John F. Kennedy had dozens of other CFR members in his administration, but, when the Kennedy brothers decided to pursue policies at odds with the "fifty men" who "run America" as Joseph Kennedy described the elite, they were made examples of -- to illustrate where ultimate power resides.

  Johnson also filled his administration with dozens from the CFR. Nixon appointed over 100 CFR members to serve in his administration; most notable was Henry Kissinger, probably one of the most influential if not one of most powerful members of the global elite. Carter had over 60 CFR and Trilateral Commission members serve under his presidency. There were 75 CFR and Trilateral Commission members under President Reagan, and when George Herbert Walker Bush became president, he appointed nearly 350 CFR and Trilateral Commission members to his administration. The trend continued under Trilateralist Bill Clinton, with Washington Post writer Richard Harwood declaring that the CFR membership in the Clinton administration was "the nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States." In 1992, Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbot declared, "In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all."

  Today there is no way for anyone to get elected president of the United States without the blessings of the global elite, namely, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderbergers. And in order that they trust your loyalty to them and their plans, a candidate must surround himself/herself with advisors tied to these groups, and say what they want. And once you get into office, you need to maintain their trust by filling appointments from among their ranks. Regrettably, at this time, there is no other way to become president.

  The globalist agenda, purportedly seeks to bring about global governance by initially creating regional governing bodies: the European Union, the Asian Union, and the American Union. (I suppose Africa will be dealt with later?) But Henry Kissinger, a long-time member of the global elite has noted that Americans are not disposed to give up their sovereignty: "Today, America would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow, they will be grateful! This would especially be true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by a World Government."

  In his 1970 book, Between Two Ages, Brzezinski also talks of the sacrifices required on the path toward global governance. "The nation-state is gradually yielding its sovereignty... In the economic-technological field, some international cooperation has already been achieved, but further progress will require greater American sacrifices. More intensive efforts to shape a new world monetary structure will have to be undertaken, with some consequent risk to the present relatively favorable American position."

  Historian and CFR member Arthur Schlesinger observed, "We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as words and money." By "words," I assume he means the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

  Even H.G. Wells, a strong proponent of a planned world state at the turn of the 20th century, spoke of the sacrifices its creation would entail: "The establishment of the world community will surely exact a price -- and who can tell what that price may be? -- in toil, suffering, and blood."

  The attack of 9-11 is seen by many anti-globalists as the first volley in a series of manufactured attacks that will lead to the establishment of martial law in the United States and eventual absorption into a One World government. As with 9-11, the collapse of Wall Street was predicted well in advance by anti-globalists, and viewed as only the first in a series of fabricated economic assaults that will culminate in the creation of an American Union (AU) with Canada and Mexico, and a new regional currency, the Amero.

  The next president, they say, will proceed with this march toward the New World Order by continuing to dismantle the Constitution and the country's infrastructure, and will utilize more false flag attacks, economic hardship, and fear to create such a state of panic that the American people will welcome the use of extreme measures to restore security.

  NO, THE NEW WORLD ORDER IS NOT ALL ONE BIG HAPPY FAMILY

  Many within the truth and anti-globalist communities regard a vote for Obama or McCain as simply a vote for a different finger on the same New World Order fist (a fist that is poised to squash freedom). Regardless of who becomes the next president, the globalists' plan will move forward.

  Given the known history of the global elite in general and the CFR in particular, such an analysis is overly simplistic. From the start, not all of the world's elite were on board with the plan for global government as it was being put forward. At some point early in the 20th century, the global elite diverged into two main camps, those referred to as the Fabian Socialists, and the Fascists. While it seems that both camps agreed to work together toward the common desire for global government, the form this government would take was a point of contention.

  Indeed, there was so much contention that in 1933, Sen. Prescott Bush, the grandfather of G.W. Bush, led an elitist plot to overthrow FDR and install a fascist dictatorship in the United States. And during the Vietnam War, the CFR experienced a deep rift between those who supported the war, and those vehemently opposed to it and who felt that Rockefeller's handpicked chairman, William Bundy, was a war criminal. Just because the global elite sit on the boards of the same organizations and bunk together at their Bohemian Grove annual retreats, doesn't mean they are all in agreement over the best direction for the world.

Of course, what is still very disturbing is that the global elite do apparently agree on the creation of a one world government. The idea of one world government initially gained acceptance by being promoted as a means of achieving peace, justice and fairness for the majority of peoples around the world who had been continually overrun and abused by Empires that put into place colonial dictatorships around the world, squelching human freedom and dignity. After the U.S. Civil War and the bloodbath of World War I, it seemed clear to many leading intellectuals of the day that something needed to be done. But what began at the turn of the last century as a convergence between idealistic humanists, intellectuals, global royalty and the economic elite, has predictably deteriorated into something else entirely. The probably well-intentioned intellectuals and academics and their naive idealism have steadily been replaced by ever more and more cynical corporate directors and Machiavellian politicians who pursue policies designed to amass their own economic power, global influence and control.

The division between the elite has likewise taken on a corporatist bent wherein the "socialists" are now the 'neo-liberals', and the fascists are now the 'neo-conservatives.' It is not so much ideals that separate the two camps, as it is efficacy: what approach is likely to be the most effective and hold the greatest prospect for success? It seems clear that there is a large contingent within the global elite who don't really care which approach is taken, so long as it benefits a one world government where corporate interests are paramount.

So, for we Americans, what difference does it make whether we elect the candidate backed by the neo-liberal wing of the CFR (essentially Obama-Brzezinski), or the CFR's neo-con-backed candidate (McCain-Kissinger), since both are carrying out the globalist agenda?

First, let's look at what we know about each of these groups. While both camps are firmly corporatist and "free trade", their military and geopolitical objectives are different. The neo-liberals, still called "socialists" by the neo-cons, favor a world federation where peace and stability is maintained largely by ensuring that social needs of the population are being met.

The neo-cons, that appear to have the majority of the clout of the military industrial/intelligence complex, seek an Empire-type global system with the U.S. as the ruling and sole super-power, and where perpetual conflicts, military strength, and a massive security intelligence apparatus ensure the security of the global state. They view the "socialist" system as a threat to their "freedom" to amass unrestricted power and wealth, and likewise, the neo-liberals are uneasy with the neo-cons. This disharmony between different visions has led the neo-con wing to repeatedly out-maneuver the neo-liberals and steal the past two presidential elections. Whereas the neo-liberals would likely seek an international armed forces (like the U.N.?) for military operations, the neo-cons favor an end to national armies in favor of privatized forces such as Blackwater. When people appear astonished by the Bush administration's treatment of the U.S. armed forces fighting in Iraq (lack of body armor, opposing veterans benefits, the Walter Reed fiasco, etc), one needs to view such policy as part of an overall effort to reduce the role and effectiveness of the U.S. military to the point where mercenary forces will ultimately be needed to replace the present personnel. Likewise, other government "failures, " like Hurricane Katrina, 9-11, the recent economic collapse, Iraq, Afghanistan, --none of these are from incompetence, but are rather failures by design. The idea was never to win in Iraq and get out, but to get mired and stay, all the while placing continual stresses upon the military, and the federal budget by continuing to pay weapons and military contractors.

Recently, the overall globalist goal has not been to strengthen the position of the U.S., but to weaken it: economically, militarily, and socially.

The most simplistic response to this is to say that the presidency doesn't matter, or that voting doesn't matter, because everything is controlled by the elite anyway. But if it doesn't matter who wins, then why have the Republicans seen fit to steal the last two presidential elections, and are trying to steal a third? And just as notably, why haven't the Democrats (or the media) said anything or done anything about these illegal election thefts?

There are those who maintain that American politics is all part of the well-acted veneer, theatrics played out to convince us that this is important stuff, and where decisions and policies are decided. President Clinton's mentor, the late Georgetown professor Carroll Quigley said as much in his tome Tragedy and Hope (about the elite world order), when he wrote: "The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy."

But this cynical attitude toward politics has actually been shown to play into the hands of the elite. Apparently, the Brookings Institute (yes, it is CFR) conducted a study that showed the more cynical a person became, the more likely the person was to vote for conservatives and Republicans, and the less likely the person was to show up to vote at all. This may help explain why the Democrats have not wanted to talk about the past two stolen elections, as it would likely make voters more cynical and play into the hands of the Republicans.

I realize that the anti-globalist and truther communities do not tend to be apathetic or cynical. In fact, we tend to be highly motivated, energized and idealistic. Many of us just don't see any reason to believe that voting for Obama will bring about anything except more of the same; and that's not what we need.

BEING IN OBAMA'S SHOES (AND HEAD)

If one wanted to do right by the American people, the American presidency provides perhaps the best possible position for doing so. But, as we have seen, that would involve gaining the endorsement and the blessing of the global elite, and filling one's advisory slots with the most influential NWO elite.

Let's see: Zbigniew Brzezinski is emerging as Obama's principal advisor on foreign policy. Ex-Fed Chairman Paul Volker has made a once-in-a-lifetime, glowing endorsement of Obama. Well-bloodied Former Secretary of State Madelyn Albright (she has the blood of 567,000 Iraqi children on her hands, who died from hunger and disease as a result of sanctions she placed on Iraq.) is considered an important foreign policy advisor and supporter of Senator Obama. And Jimmy Carter has endorsed Obama. All are top members of the Trilateral Commission. And Robert Rubin, the fifth Chairman of the CFR, who just helped put together the $700,000,000 bailout of Wall Street is presently Obama's chief economic advisor.

But since you can fill your advisory slots with anyone you want, why not choose advisors that reflect your true values? Clearly, to appoint honest, decent people to such positions would imply that you are not intending to take your orders from the CFR/Trilateral/global elite planners. Consequently, the best, if not only way to be elected president is to surround yourself with loyal globalist insiders. After all, just about every U.S. president has done this for the past 100 years. Once you are elected president, you are then expected to appoint as many CFR and Trilateral alum to your cabinet as you can. This is simply the way it is done.

So, we cannot really fault Obama for his choices of advisors. If he wants to get elected, he made the necessary picks. Besides, if Obama really is in league with the New World Order, why did Caroline Kennedy and Ted Kennedy give Obama their ringing endorsement? Do we really think they would both endorse someone whom they believed would be doing the bidding for the same dark forces that murdered her father and his brother? Or might they have a different sense about Obama?

What about his voting record? Like his vote to extend FISA and giving immunity to the telcoms who illegally allowed the U.S. government to snoop on Americans even before 9-11? How can we trust a person who casts such irresponsible votes. After all, potential lawsuits against the telcoms provided one of the best inroads into discovering what the Bush administration was listening for prior to 9-11. If there could be courtroom testimony that they were listening in on al-Qaeda to make certain that everything was going as planned, that could blow the lid off the entire 9-11 cover-up. With the passage of the telcom immunity act, there went possibly the best chance we had for uncovering the truth. So, how could Obama, if he is one of the good guys, cast such damaging votes?

First, the bill already had the votes to pass regardless of his vote. Yes, as the democratic front-runner for the nomination, he could have encouraged other Democratic senators to oppose the bill. But if the bill failed, and even if it passed with Obama having voted against the bill, he would have been setting himself up. All the Bush administration would need to do is to stage some small false flag attack where a handful of Americans are killed, and then place the blame on wiretapping that got bogged down in red tape. Instantly, the Republicans can make the case that if Obama has his way, it will lead to more of the same. It did not seem worth sabotaging his candidacy for a vote on a bill that was essentially a lose-lose situation.

The same case can be made for the $700 billion Wall Street bail-out package that Obama supported and voted for. The ongoing financial meltdown is again, not an accident, but rather a meticulously calculated exercise almost certainly designed by many of the very CFR individuals who benefited most from the rescue package. It facilitated their further consolidation of infrastructural power while simultaneously beginning the process of economically bringing the American economy, and people, to their knees. Had Obama and the Democrats not passed the measure, another stage of the plan would have been executed leading to further collapse, and Obama and the Democrats would have been blamed and sabotaged just in time for the election. Again, it was another setup, and to continue his bid for election, and to prevent a McCain presidency, Obama had only one choice.

Okay, but what about his spotty voting record in the Senate before he announced his run for the presidency? Doesn't that suggest that he's really a wolf in sheep's clothing, casting progressive-looking votes just often enough to maintain liberals' support, but otherwise voting too often for corporate-friendly legislation? I realize this might sound trite, but again, it was all part of laying the necessary groundwork for a successful presidential bid. After declaring, he couldn't simply begin casting votes that went counter to the votes he had cast previously. In order to come across as genuine to the globalist elite, he had to play the right cards and not tip his hand. If he cast one vote that seemed out of line with their agenda, it would have aroused their suspicions.

What about all his talk of going after and killing bin-Laden and attacking Iran? Isn't he simply fueling dangerous myths, that bin-Laden was responsible for 9-11 and that Iran poses a nuclear threat to Israel? Isn't such warmongering irresponsible? Again, it's all part and parcel of getting to the White House. Those myths are, at least where the media are concerned, conventional wisdom and irrefutable facts. For Obama to question them would lead to a frontal assault against him by the CFR media and reveal him to not be a team player to his CFR handlers. Again, he was simply doing what he had to in order to get elected.

But if Obama is so tightly controlled by his handlers, why should we expect him to be any different if he gets to the White House? First, it is probably important to say right up front that if he becomes president, Obama will not dare to expose the globalist conspiracy.

Let's be clear about this. If there are people who would assassinate a popular sitting U.S. president, and his brother, and blow up 3,000 Americans (not to mention the untold millions killed in their wars for global hegemony), then they would not hesitate to make threats to assure that their crimes remain hidden and their power remain intact. It is not unlikely that it is well understood, either implicitly or explicitly, that exposing or undermining the cabal will not be tolerated. Having seen how these people operate, it is not even out of the question that they've made horrific contingency plans that might unleash some catastrophe upon the American people if word ever gets out that might threaten their control.

Given the likelihood of such threats, Obama's strategy is likely to attempt to pull support away from extremists like Rockefeller and Kissinger, while likely trying to steer his own handlers, like Brzezinski, in a different, more benign direction. But in order to have the clout to do this he will not only need a mandate from the people (popular support equals political strength), but he will likely have to get his hands bloody, as is the tradition. And they will likely undertake this stunt early in his administration before he can gather the power and prestige to figure a way to forestall or cancel the operation altogether.

THE BIDEN FACTOR

This is quite possibly what Joe Biden was speaking about on a recent visit to Seattle, when he said that it will not even be six months into his administration before our enemies will "test Obama" by some manufactured crisis. That sounds scary. And of course we all want Biden to tell us just what the heck he knows about this. After all, as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, we know he has access to secret intelligence, and his position as a CFR member probably doesn't hurt either.

Much has been made of Biden having met with the 9-11 paymaster, Pakistani ISI General Mahmoud Ahmad, only two days after the 9-11 attacks. Ahmad had been in D.C. before and during the attacks, and had met with officials at the Pentagon, White House, National Security Council, and CIA, including George Tenet and Marc Grossman, then U.S. Under Secretary of State, and Rep. Porter Goss, who followed Tenet as the Director of the CIA.

When asked on videotape why he had met with Ahmad, Biden responded, "I told them not to do it, I told them not to wire the money - I told them to stop supporting the Taliban." Simply having met with the man who wired Mohammed Atta $100,000 already seems suspicious, but the response he gave only makes the story more interesting. Does this imply that Biden had foreknowledge of the 9-11 operation? Or might the meeting have been routine for a Foreign Relations chairman to meet with foreign intelligence heads, and that after it was revealed Ahmad was Atta's paymaster, Biden may have felt compromised and clumsily tried to talk his way out of a videotape ambush? Who knows, but various other CFR members were aware that something big was being planned. On September 6, 2001, former Democratic presidential candidate and CFR member Sen. Gary Hart flew to D.C. to warn his friend Condoleezza Rice about a massive impending attack by al-Qaeda.

The very idea that Hart would have felt the need to warn Rice, the president's National Security Advisor implies that he did not believe that she was already aware of the approaching attack. (Of course, she likely did know, because after Hart's visit, in a speech about threats facing the U.S., Rice did not once mention al-Qaeda. Why would she purposefully avoid mentioning al-Qaeda unless she needed to appear completely taken by surprise when the attack actually occurred?)

The fact that the Hart's Hart-Rudman Commission concluded, "America will be attacked by terrorists using weapons of mass destruction and Americans will lose their lives on American soil, possibly in large numbers," suggests that Hart was trying to get the word out, if not a warning.

But if senators like Hart and Biden knew something dastardly was headed our way, why did they not speak out? First, while they may have known the general plan, they may not have known the specifics. Even a generic warning about an al-Qaeda attack on American soil would have given us something to work with. But how would this warning have gotten to the public. The CFR-controlled media wouldn't have helped, and likely would make whoever leveled such claims look like a raving lunatic, a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist.

And even if a general timeframe or specific date was provided, the plot wouldn't be cancelled, it would just be postponed or altered. So it wouldn't happen as planned and Biden or Hart would look like a nutcase, but people would still die, just not as predicted. Then too, there is the possibility that threats had been issued about anyone breaking the secrecy. Perhaps the noble thing to do would be to try to expose the plot and sacrifice yourself and your family in the process, if in fact it ends there. But would such a 'terrorist' attack likely be averted by trying to go public about the plans? After being tipped off by CFR’s Nicholaus Rockefeller, Aaron Russo and Alex Jones went public about the 9-11 attack before it happened and were ignored --even afterwards.

Then too, there's the charge that Biden authored the Patriot Act when he was head of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Why did he author the Patriot Act? He likely authored it in the event that the 1993 World Trade Center attack or some other "catalyzing event" had happened under Clinton's watch. As it turned out, for some reason the bombs in the basement of the WTC did not all go off as planned, so we were spared a calamity with much greater loss of life than what occurred on 9-11. Again, it was simply a postponement of a plan that was already in the pipeline.

But if we look back some years into Biden's past, we see that as a student, he was a civil-rights activist. Once in Congress in the 1970s he opposed the Vietnam War as "stupid" and argued for massive cuts in defense spending. In the 1980s he railed against the Reagan administration's support of the 'contra' terrorists that took the lives of 30,000 Nicaraguan civilians. And he spoke out against Reagan's support for paramilitary death squads in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras where the U.S.-backed strife caused another 200,000 civilian deaths. Interestingly, the CFR folks in charge of 'managing' those conflicts under Reagan, are now in the Middle East helping to 'manage' that region, and would likely continue to offer their assistance in a McCain administration. In sharp contrast with his work on the Patriot Act, in the past Biden has shown leadership in defending human and democratic rights.

Biden's warning in Seattle was not just about some ensuing crisis, but the response. He said Obama's response would be "unpopular." How would he know that, unless he has an idea of what the response might be? As these things tend to go, the response was worked out in advance of the actual crisis or event. It is the response they want, and it is likely they've already worked it out, they just need Obama to implement it. And because we know how they work, and Biden has said it will be unpopular, it is likely that the response is designed to get plenty of blood on Obama's hands so that he will become a fully pledged, paid up member of the New World Order.

More importantly, the fact that the response will be unpopular is likely designed to wipe out Obama's mandate before he can put it to good use. By turning Obama allies into Obama's enemies, such a move will force Obama further into the darkside and wedged more tightly under their boot.

And this is the key, because in electing Obama, we are not only electing a decent guy, we are electing and empowering an entire movement, and a new, idealistic generation with a can-do attitude towards the world and it problems. But I can see many among us are still shaking their heads, thinking that I have come under Obama's spell. What makes me believe that Obama has a white hat under the black hat he's wearing now? And with his head so tightly wedged under the globalist boot, what good is he? And what's the deal with him picking Biden?

A QUESTION OF CHARACTER

Obama has been taken apart by many respectable authors who have looked into his record, his affiliations, and have even trolled through the popular books he authored to find clues to support their assertion that Obama is one of 'them', not one of us. They base their claim, upon his record, his affiliations, and what he says and does not say in his books and speeches. I contend that, again, such examinations are too simplistic and see only the obvious. As I explained previously, Obama has carefully and meticulously crafted a persona that has appeal to the masses, and to the globalists. But it is ultimately the globalists that determine whether one gets to be president, so one needs to signal to them consistently that you're not a threat to them, but actually an asset. Basically, Obama's many detractors are not seeing beyond the mask, but we need to look under the mask to see the real person.

To know who Obama is, one needs to start looking in the right place. First, he was born to an idealistic mother who told him that he could accomplish anything he wanted. He was also raised in a loving environment by his grandparents. He watched as his mother died from cancer while battling for treatment. He was regarded by classmates as exceptionally nice, who did not belong to any one clique, but was friendly to everyone, including those that might have been somewhat outcasts in school.

Being exceptionally bright, he studied law where he became exposed to the legal system and institutionalized injustices. Rather than go into lucrative corporate law, he moved into a working class community in Chicago and worked as a community organizer for years, helping those less fortunate to improve their lives. He regularly attended meetings of other social activists representing a wide array of causes. Perhaps realizing that bad government was responsible for so many of society's problems, he ran for office and was elected to the state legislature. There he rubbed shoulders with people who let him in on how the world really works, and why so many progressive changes needed in government were not possible given the existing power structure. He was a 'rising star' among his colleagues, and was taken note of by the global elite. He was 'groomed' for Washington, the seat of American power where he could more finely tune his understanding of this dysfunctional system. He ultimately decided that he could influence things the most as president, and undertook the measures necessary to ultimately succeed. He succeeded in winning the backing of the globalists, and the nomination.

What in that describes a sociopath? Obama is not only "nice", but he has shown throughout his life that he truly likes people and cares about them, and about injustice and improving people's lives. Now contrast that with the likes of McCain, Bush, or Cheney, who have well-established, long-standing reputations as being cold-hearted and bullies. Before he entered the Senate, Obama's wife Michelle told a reporter, "Barack is not a politician first and foremost. He's a community activist exploring the viability of politics to make change."

Obama has chosen to run for president, despite this move having placed him at great personal risk. This is no small consideration, especially given the lingering racism and pattern of (NWO-orchestrated?) assassinations of popular black leaders. Furthermore, he is not out to prove himself to anyone. He's not out to prove that he's not a failure in the family lineage, as seems to be the motivation for both McCain and Bush. His motivation, I believe, is to try to accomplish some positive change within this country. It simply doesn't make sense to undertake such a dangerous endeavor, potentially putting even his family in danger, and realizing he will be "tested" and make "unpopular" decisions, when he could simply continue on a path as a very successful senator. What kind of person would volunteer himself to be essentially used by evil forces to perpetuate what is already a clearly mad agenda for corporate world domination? What would motivate any decent person to be president at such an ugly time in American history, if not to try to change things for the better?

When Michelle Obama let it slip that she had never felt pride in her country until that moment, seeing the country's enormous support for her husband, what sort of Freudian slip was that? Was she implying that she wasn't proud of her country because it wasn't yet part of the New World Order? Or, because Michelle is a member of Chicago's chapter of the CFR, might her comment have been in reference to having had an up-close understanding of the actual, insider's history of this country, and feeling sadness, not pride, about the state this country is in?

And when their preacher, the Reverend Wright, was yelling "God damn America," he was not asking that God damn the American people, but rather the forces that control this country, that wage unjust wars. Yes, perhaps he should have said "God damn the CFR, God damn the Trilaterlists and Bilderbergers," but the American government of late has practically become synonymous with those groups, so his comments weren't really that far off the mark. So how should we interpret Obama's close relationship with a pastor who was so angry and upset about how this country is run? Do we think that Reverend Wright is upset that our corporate masters have too little power in this system, or too much. Do we think that Obama is closer to Reverend Wright or to the Council on Foreign Relations?

In sum, you simply don't find a nice guy --who has a long track record as nothing but a nice guy-- joining the PTB in order to help implement their dark agenda for global war and enslavement. We are used to the John Connor or Jason Bourne example, of waging the good fight against seemingly impossible odds. But even Connor and Bourne eventually received indispensable help from those working on the inside.

But if Obama is such a good guy, what was his rationale for picking Biden for his running mate. As mentioned above, Biden has stood up for peace and justice in the past. Perhaps he has sold some of his principles down the river, but there is also the possibility that he might want to make up for any mistakes and redeem himself. He did, after all oppose warrantless wiretapping and the telcom immunity. But more importantly, he is the consummate political insider; having been in Washington for 35 years, he knows all the players and where the bodies are buried. His understanding of the NWO power structure and how it operates will be of invaluable assistance to Obama. Together they can attempt to fight the good fight from within the belly of the beast.

Had Gorbachev not been able to survive in the Soviet politburo, and convince the others that he was best equipped to lead the Soviet Union against America's cowboy president Ronald Reagan, there might never have been 'perestroika' and 'glasnost' that brought down the iron curtain.

WE'RE ELECTING A MOVEMENT

I confess, there is some small chance that I might be wrong about Obama. But even if I haven't entirely convinced you regarding Obama's character and likely motivation behind his presidential bid, there is an even stronger case that can be made for electing him president: his supporters.

By electing Obama, we also elect, empower and energize a massive, idealistic movement for change. And if we are ever to push back against the NWO, this is the most critical element. If Obama loses, the movement and enthusiasm for the future dissolves, and paralyzing cynicism sets in.

I realize that there are those in the truther community who, whenever they see an Obama bumper sticker or button, they think quietly to themselves, "sheeple." Though they might not be as politically savvy or informed on certain issues considered obscure in the mainstream, most of them want positive change just as we do. They are not the problem, but potential and very important allies. Many of Obama's supporters are appealing to ideals they see Obama as representing, and many tend to be youthful and idealistic, and their vision of the desired future tends to be an anti-Bush future. These ideals and desires are likely held in common between the many in the Obama camp and the truth community, and it is those ideals that can become the foundation for working together for change.

Aidan Monaghan maintains that Obama "has been manufactured to extinguish a genuine revolution." But that assumes that, if Obama disappoints his supporters by not delivering the goods, that they will just sit at home dispirited and sulk. The reason Obama has made it as far as he has is because his message of change resonates with people. They want change. And in the coming years they'll want change even more. The desire for change doesn't go away when it fails to happen. If anything, it makes people more restless and angry. It is only when people feel they no longer have a voice, or hope that they become cynical. It is up to all of us to make sure this revolutionary flame does not go out.

There are high expectations for an Obama presidency, and high energy and involvement in this campaign. It is absolutely critical that this hope for the future not be allowed to dissipate after the election, but it needs to be built upon and organized. And this movement needs us truthers to be among them, to talk them down when they cannot understand why some crisis has unfolded, as they will. We need to count ourselves among the organizers that will emerge and help create the mandate for change. We need to infect his glassy-eyed Obama supporters with a dose of reality while getting infected with their optimism and begin building bridges among them.

Presently, there tends to be a wide chasm between many in the truth community and the Obama camp. (For the record, yes it would be great if Cynthia McKinney could be elected president, but we all know that isn't going to happen.) We all need to pull together. If you're not crazy about Obama, remember that his supporters are not him. It may sound like a tall order, but for us to have the best chances for success, we all need to come together. For truthers, that may require getting off our high horses occasionally and having some tolerance for those who might not want to tolerate some of our ideas. We've all heard the saying, "united we stand, divided we fall."

And we know such alliances between two different worldviews are possible. What is the truth movement if not an alliance between libertarian Ron Paulers and commie pinko Kucinichites. We've figured out what's important, stress what we have in common, and set aside our differences in order to pursue what matters most: truth, rights, justice, the Constitution of the United States, and freedom from fascism.

We can expect that the PTB also recognize the power of alliances, and they will continue their efforts to keep us divided and distracted by our differences. Divide and conquer.

It just may be true when Obama says that "We are the change we've been waiting for." Because without us, the people, with us just sitting on the sidelines, he can accomplish no change of any real significance. If he really is the 'change' candidate, it is going to be up to us to make him truly effective. And the more popular and powerful we make him through our support, the more the PTB will seek to undermine his popularity.

So we have to be ready; we have to be organized and know what we want and what we are doing.

It was only when the people took to the streets of Seattle to say "no" to the World Trade Organization that Mr. Free Trade President Bill Clinton acknowledged that trade laws need to address legitimate human rights, labor, and environmental concerns.

Ultimately, what is needed, as with the WTO, is a broad-based, unified movement with anti-globalization at its core. Every concern has its globalization aspects. But, unlike the WTO protest, once this grand coalition is built, we don't all simply retreat into our own small corners and continue only working upon our own agendas. A movement has the potential to be tremendously larger than the sum of its parts, but only if the parts build something together. After the WTO protest, nothing more was built, and a great coalition was lost.

There are a lot of creative and talented people in the truth movement, and we should not waste our time building bomb shelters after the election, but rather pulling together with others who may want change but who see things differently, and figure out ways to work together toward a common purpose.

So it is not enough to just elect Obama; we need to contact our local Obama headquarters, attend their victory celebration, and kick all this talk of change into high gear. We all know what happens when parties end, people go home and get on with their lives. If Obama is elected, although there will be a level of euphoria, for many the hard work will have been completed: objective accomplished. What this means is that there will be a lot of organizing to be done afterwards trying to keep people involved. And by involving ourselves, we can spread our knowledge and actually begin building the bridges and the movement we know is essential to ultimate success.

Although we may want to see Obama, Kucinich, and Ron Paul make a joint announcement on live TV outlawing the NWO, I'm afraid that an Obama presidency is the best we can realistically hope for. How things go from there will depend as much on us as on him.