obama_deceptionAnyone reading even a handful of posts here probably senses my concern over Barack Obama, the decisions he has made, and what appears to be an inconsistent and even incompatible series of statements, decisions and policies by the “President Obama” that seem to conflict with the ideologies of the “campaigning Obama”.

Most observers attribute this flaw of inconsistency to Obama’s over-arching desire to be a consensus builder, or an “amalgamator” of key ideas from varying camps. This is a different kind of leadership than Americans are used to, and it is disconcerting to most, but I fear there is a looming danger in these inconsistencies that is far more foreboding.

The most egregious betrayal of ideologies has to be Obama’s continuation of the bank bailouts. That is the subject of this blog, it is the most important subject in our lifetime, and it is the central problem in Obama’s “Change we can believe in” campaign, inasmuch as there is essentially NO CHANGE between Obama’s approach to the global economic breakdown, and that of his predecessor.

As Bush followed Paulson, Obama follows Geithner, in what can only be seen as an exact duplicate of the previous administration’s policy.

More disturbing than this is the counterpoint of Obama’s Rosetta Stone, as the Wall St. Journal puts it, well documented in his budget references to Piketty and Saez’ chart of wealth inequality showing that the top 10% of households hold 70% of the wealth in America.

As Obama himself says:

“There’s nothing wrong with making money, but there is something wrong when we allow the playing field to be tilted so far in the favor of so few. . . . It’s a legacy of irresponsibility, and it is our duty to change it.”

How the insanity of the ongoing bank bailouts furthers the cause of equitable wealth distribution is clearly beyond my grasp. 

We cannot accept the excuse that this “had to be done” to prevent an even worse global catastrophe – not when a workable 4 powers alternative has been on the table for years. And we cannot accept that Obama, as articulate and intelligent as he appeared to be on the campaign trail, simply couldn’t understand that alternative, or is being duped by the behavioral economists (Summers, Orszag and Geithner).

I for one, felt that the bailouts would be the first thing subject to the “change” we “believed in” and I suspect many voters out there agree with me, if the various polls showing taxpayer contempt for these bailouts are accurate. The second change was to be in the character (and allegiances) of cabinet appointees, which thus far have proven to be abysmal failures.

Most disturbing however, is how our top government leader can so radically abandon his clearly professed ideology of equitable earnings distribution. Make no mistake, the bank bailouts–paying out fraudulent monetary claims to economic power brokers–are without question the most unprecedented action ever taken to increase wealth disparity ever been committed in the history of civilization. So this action is the very antithesis of Obama’s central campaign promises of change and equality–very disturbing.

My last post speaks to the subject of Obama’s unfolding health care “reform”. Again, any reform other than the dismantling of the predatory HMO’s and their well known practice of “Health Care Prevention for Profit” cannot be considered a reform at all. Taking HMO or Insurer reform “off the table” for political discussion, as Orszag and Emmanuel have, only serves to foster continued health care predation. 

Stabilizing the cost variances of health care delivery and limiting delivery to those deemed “worthy” of the economic impact inures to the financial benefit of  Insurers and HMO’s, and the banks which own them, furthering income inequality, while lowering the quality of universal care to the poor. This second disconnect between stated principles and policy in practice is again, very disturbing.

Though I have not used this blog solely as a vehicle for ”Obama bashing”, sadly, I can say that if I had known in November what I know today, I WOULD NOT HAVE VOTED FOR THE MAN. And that statement is truly damning, beyond anything else I can say here. Many Americans, myself included, feel betrayed. And it is with some surprise, and regret, that I am inclined to side with people who have been much harsher critics than myself.

I leave this post with the following quote from a person I find myself to be more and more in agreement with as time goes by, despite the conspiratorial and somewhat radical nature of what he has written. We nonetheless have both come to the same conclusion–as the logical progression of these successive posts clearly bears out:

There are only two choices of systems. One a system of respectively, perfectly sovereign nation-states. The other, the enemy of the sovereign nation-state, is known as monetarism, or free trade. The imperial power which must be destroyed, if any nation is to become sovereign again, is the elimination of monetarism in any form.

Monetarism means the existence of a system of money-value which is independent of national sovereignty, and  therefore the imperial power to which all nations accepting monetarism are subject as imperialism’s mere colonies.

The case of the present world crisis-swindle has been based entirely, absolutely on the affirmation of the superior authority of monetarist claims over national economies, to which a treasonous gang controlling high-ranking positions in the U.S. government and Federal Reserve System have, in fact, acted as accomplices of an alien, monetarist financier power, a power to loot and ruin many nations which should have been sovereign, including our own United States as the looted victim of treasonous complicity even from among our own influential parties and elements of government.

In that respect, and on that account, the current policies of the United States, under present circumstances, are treasonous in their effect, if not the conscious intention of the damnable fools who have permitted this situation to develop.

I cannot agree more with this statement than if I had made it myself.

I find Obama to be a willing pawn of the aforementioned global monetarist oligarchy (which I have referred to in many prior posts) and as such, to have abandoned the principles of hope, change and in fact national sovereignty which were the basis of his campaign for CHANGE as I, and many others, interpreted it.

We saw this at the G20, where Obama reliquished America’s unique position as a sovereign issuer of credit, handing over our American heritage of sovereignty to the IMF and the tower of Basel.

If it turns out that his presidency was paid for, planned for and executed as a premeditated strategy to put in place America’s first unimpeachable Fascist (for truly, the first black American president is likely to be unimpeachable indeed) for the purpose of enabling a new world order of global monetarist domination, it will be a sad revelation to say the least.

This needs to be reckoned with, and patriotic Americans need to resolve this matter – as long as we are still free to – a freedom that we may not take for granted much longer, at the present rate of decline.

You Should Also Check Out This Post:

More Active Posts: