This was originally written and published to several places online on 5/30/2009.
A MORE CRITICAL VIEW OF OBAMA
I find myself skeptical of any mass-media propagated image in politics. If the media finds any candidate favorable over another, I must question their motives. The propaganda machine has become increasingly transparent. The questions need to be asked; How did Obama so quickly become the democratic nominee? Why did the media find him more favorable than Hillary Clinton? Why would the political system choose Obama over McCain? When I think about politics, I run through several parallel reality programs in my head, using different starting premises to come to each conclusion. The last essay I wrote was based around the premise that Obama is probably a good guy with good intentions and that he is not the kind of politician that we are used to. This is basically what he claims and what his supporters claim he is. I can not possibly know his true character or intentions, so I considered this initial premise to be true and evaluated his policies accordingly. In a more critical evaluation of Obama, I will start with the premise that Obama is part of a larger conspiracy that is working towards a New World Order (NWO). The NWO conspiracy has become an increasingly popular idea as we've moved into the 21st century. It seems obvious to me that there are, in fact, people who are pushing for a one world government with a single international monetary system. What this NWO government will look like is, at this time, speculation.
Of course it is also possible that Obama is a post-modern revolutionary who has managed to work his way up through the system to manipulate it from the inside. We can see from his past that he has associated with so called radicals and publicly held semi-socialist views. His policies, on the surface at least, seem to be counter to the establishment of a NWO. Before running for President he claimed to support a single-payer healthcare system, political transparency and was openly anti-war at certain times in his career. These views quickly changed as he had to adapt to the expectations of the political system in which he wished to rise. If any radical were to work their way into the heart of this system, they would need to make comprises and be constantly adapting to the political climate. If one is to work within the political system, they must be able to work within a strict set of parameters. I also do not know if this is a reality, only a potential one. I tend to lean more towards the New World Order paradigm because, when I consider their agenda, Obama seems like a prime choice for this point in history. It is also becoming increasing apparent that Obama’s policies are incredibly similar to the Bush Administration’s, shrouded in a different rhetoric. When contemplating the place of politics in the implementation of their plan, I put myself in their place and think about what I would do to further the NWO agenda. It is essential to switch back and forth between Republican and Democratic platforms to keep the people believing that the two-party system is not fixed, when in reality it has it’s own set of strictly limited parameters. Obama is the perfect candidate; a comforting, charismatic, neo-liberal, political messiah arch-type.
The secret to this two-party system political manipulation is to be in control of the pendulum‘s swing. One side is aggressive and destructive, while the other side is co-operative and constructive. The Republican’s can transparently do the hard work that is generally unacceptable to the public, take the criticism, commit crimes and then get away without any criminal prosecution. I think at this point we are all aware of this. Unfortunately, the public still hasn't realized how the Democratic party functions. The Democrats can come in to ease the anxiety and anger created by a Republican administration, while at the same time taking care of the soft work that is done under the radar. They too commit criminal acts but essentially they are taking care of the paper work, researching the next steps, gently setting the stage and pacifying the public by giving them a couple of inches, even though the Republican’s have just taken a couple of feet. This process will keep going back and forth until we have nothing of real value left. We know that third parties and independent candidates are forcibly kept out of the political field. They make a lot of noise from the benches, but they are never allowed to play the game. The mainstream media barely even allows their voice to be heard and when they do, it tends to be ridiculed or called “too radical.” The Republicans and Democrats truly are two sides of the same coin.
So where does Obama fit into this plan. I believe more and more people have been continually realizing that there is something terribly wrong with the current political system. In a way they are waking up to the corruption and the incredible waste of money and resources. It moves people to action and we can see how people rally together in favor of their presidential candidate. We have seen an advance in grassroots movements, massive public political donations, non-profit political groups and internet networking. All these people truly believe that the political system can be fixed through their direct effort. That it can be reformed and taken back from the criminals that have been running the show for so long. It can’t be fixed or reformed! It’s just not going to happen. We need a new post-modern system, not a hastily mended and inadequate old system.
Just like Bush before him, Obama is borrowing money and continuing to send us into staggering debt. Did you really think things would be different? A MoveOn.org newsletter wrote:
Dear MoveOn member,
Did you phonebank for the Obama campaign? Knock on your neighbors' doors? Send a little money every month?
If you're like me, the reason was a belief that we could fundamentally change our country—and make government work for all Americans again.
Now the change we voted for in November is in jeopardy. President Obama's budget—a truly revolutionary blueprint for change—is working its way through Congress, but it's facing massive opposition from the big banks, oil companies, and health insurance companies that like the current system just fine.
A “revolutionary blueprint for change,“ really?! You know what would be a revolutionary blueprint for change, a zero-debt budget or better yet, a budget that begins to pay off our debt instead of adding to it. Obama is proposing a $3.55 Trillion dollar budget for 2010. He plans on raises taxes on the wealthiest sectors of America to as much as $1 Trillion over the next decade. The Obama administration proposed raising at least $31.5 billion over 10 years from oil and gas companies, reflecting a repeal of tax breaks for domestic production and new charges on oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico. His budget allocates $634 billion over the next decade for health reform, which will create competition in the health-care and health-insurance markets. The budget projects $645 billion in revenues from the sale of emission allowances. Obama claims he can reduce the deficit to around $500 billion by 2013. If he can get us out of Iraq without diverting all of that military spending to Afghanistan, reducing the deficit by about a third could be possible. Americans tolerate running up the deficit to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which cost $11 billion a month combined. The question is, can we curb our military expenditures to help pay for this huge budget? I don’t think that’s in the plan, so don‘t expect to see the military budget get reduced drastically during Obama‘s term in office. Our current national debt is just over $11 Trillion dollars, which comes out to approximately $36,000 per citizen. There isn't anything inherently wrong with government spending, we do pay taxes and expect certain things in return. It’s okay for tax payer money to be spent on maintaining our roads, schools and fire departments. I would like to see us buy back our utilities and reverse the trend of privatization. I’m all for universal health-care and investing in new infra-structure. The problem is that we tolerate our money being spent on things like military presence in other countries, incarcerating non-violent drug offenders, the war on drugs, huge political media events and bailing out failing corporations and financial institutions.
In my opinion, the bailout of financial institutions is nothing more than criminal theft, fully sanctioned by the Obama Administration. Doesn't anyone else think that it’s unreasonable to be bailing out the very institutions that are supposed to securely and responsibly dealing with our money? The news stories about these financial institutions handing out multi-millions dollar bonuses and buying new jets, even after accepting large amounts of tax payer money, are already popping up in the media. They are using us and getting away with it! They are criminals and should be treated as such.
Obama recently forwarded the White House’s $83.4 billion war supplemental appropriations request to the U.S. House of Representatives. Since Sept. 11, 2001, Congress has passed 17 separate emergency supplemental funding bills totaling $822.1 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama promised that he would fund the war in the normal budget process, and the Democrats made the same promise back in 2007 when they took over Congress. Obama claims this will be the last request for supplemental funding and all future funding will be included in the annual budget. The funding will help us shift our resources and focus out of Iraq and into Afghanistan and Pakistan. The war machine keeps turning.
More recently, Obama had a question and answer session that can be found on YouTube or any major news organizations website. In the video Obama is asked whether or not legalizing Cannabis could help our current economic situation. Of course, he basically says the question is ridiculous and legalization would not help the economy in anyway. Is he just ignorant of what the economic effects of legalization would be or is he lying in support of the war on drugs? Taxes from the sale of medical marijuana would generate large amounts of money but in conjunction with the sale of legalized marijuana for all adults over the age of 18 would increase that number astronomically. Not to mention the huge amount of money that would be saved from releasing all non-violent drug offenders incarcerated for marijuana use or possession. On top of that we would save a massive amount of money in the court systems and enforcement agencies. I would personally go as far as to suggest legalization and taxation of all drugs, however, that seems like an extremist point of view to most. At the vary least, we are all well aware that marijuana is not a societal problem and prohibition needs to end. The economic impact of legalization would be incredibly positive, even without considering the other uses for Hemp and merely focusing on the recreational and medical use of cannabis. Instead of making any progressive change to antiquated prohibition laws, Obama has pledged his support for the War on Drugs in both the United States and Mexico.
So the question I think we need to all ask ourselves is whether or not Obama is this incredible political superman that we seem to think he is? I am skeptical and think that it would be a huge mistake to unquestionably support him as such. I have no doubt that he is not the messiah that he has been hyped to be. Just as we have become increasingly aware of the deception and unfavorably actions of the Clinton administration in retrospect, I am sure when looking back on the Obama administration we will see that just because a president is a Democrat does not mean that he will act in our best interests. I hope that as time goes on, the two-party America, Inc. will become more transparent and we will wake up to the political manipulation we have been subjected to. If we do not see past the facade, the inevitable outcome will be the end of America as we know it and the establishment of the North American Union. This could be argued to be a positive or negative progression, but the value of a NAU is directly related to who is in control, the people or the corporations, military and politicians. There is an inherent disconnection between the people and their government. In that disassociation, the government acts on the people instead of acting with the people. We are controlled, subjected to their law and will continue to loose our freedom as their power over us grows stronger. Obama and his administration are putting us to sleep, complacent in our comfort and hoping for a change that will never come.
No comments:
Post a Comment