Comment: This is the seventh in a series of articles written in 2006 commemorating the 43rd anniversary of the assassination of JFK that we are carrying every weekday as we approach the 45th Anniversary of that tragedy for mankind.

As the G20 meet for a slap-up dinner and pretend that they can prevent what has long been predicted, there is much comment on whether anything can be achieved without the new President in place. We wonder whether anything can be achieved with Obama in place?

Ralph Nader thinks Obama is another pawn in the pathocracy:

Far more than Senator McCain, you [Obama] have received enormous, unprecedented contributions from corporate interests, Wall Street interests and, most interestingly, big corporate law firm attorneys. Never before has a Democratic nominee for President achieved this supremacy over his Republican counterpart. Why, apart from your unconditional vote for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, are these large corporate interests investing so much in Senator Obama? Could it be that in your state Senate record, your U.S. Senate record and your presidential campaign record (favoring nuclear power, coal plants, offshore oil drilling, corporate subsidies including the 1872 Mining Act and avoiding any comprehensive program to crack down on the corporate crime wave and the bloated, wasteful military budget, for example) you have shown that you are their man?

To look objectively at the situation we do have consider all the alternatives:

On the other hand, anybody who had opposed the Bush team over the past 8 years would have had ZERO chance of running for president, much less getting elected.

If we consider that the Dominionists can so covertly plan years ahead to take over the government for evil intentions (which they, of course, do not perceive as evil though they are certainly delusional), why do we not think that a decent person could, under the very trying circumstances we have all endured over those same 8 years, decide to try to do something about it, to behave covertly, so as to get into position to do something?

It's probably not the case, but I think we ought to leave the door open to that possibility.

And if it IS a possibility, then we would have to think that Obama would deliberately create a congressional record that would support him to the presidency.

Let's keep in mind that a smart man learns from his mistakes but a genius learns from the mistakes of others. The big mistake that John Kennedy made was to underestimate his opponents and to think that just being brave and decent and standing up for what was good for people was all it took.

Comment: This is the sixth in a series of articles written in 2006 commemorating the 43rd anniversary of the assassination of JFK that we are carrying every weekday as we approach the 45th Anniversary of that tragedy for mankind.

The current state of the 'American dream' is succinctly illustrated by this image on the left.

American's now have shorter lives than Bosnians, their 'democracy' is only slightly better than the Czech Republic's, they have more people in prison per capita than any other country in the world, and a child born in Slovakia is more likely to survive than in America.

Given these statistics, America's perceived standing at the top of the global village does seem ill-deserved. On the President Elect's website, the lead quotation is:

"Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little better than the one we live in today"

If he is going to fulfill that promise, Obama will be facing the same sinister forces that Kennedy faced. Sadly for JFK and the world, these forces find that such things as 'social equality' are just not profitable enough.

Comment: This is the fourth in a series of articles written in 2006 commemorating the 43rd anniversary of the assassination of JFK that we are carrying every weekday as we approach the 45th Anniversary of that tragedy for mankind.

When he became US president, JFK tried to enter the corrupt political system and change it. Armored with wealth, intelligence and, most importantly, a caring heart, he had a big chance of actually doing it, and that's most probably why they killed him. Obama now is talking of change, but as our economic commentators speculated this week

[...] can a president, even the most gifted, really change things? Not by himself, of course, only the people can, and only if they and their leaders have a clear and accurate understanding of the situation, especially the role of Israel in the world today. They also need a clear and accurate understanding of human nature, both the nature of normal humanity and of the intra-species predators, the psychopaths (more on that later). In that regard, one wishes Obama would read more Andrzej Lobaczewski and less Reinhold Niebuhr.

It is easy, and not a bad thing, to be cynical of all the talk of hope and change. Many in the "foreign policy establishment" (American Imperialists in other words) see Obama as a "rebranding" of the U.S. internationally. Obama's talk about "winning" the war in Afghanistan is particularly repellant. Obama's pick of the rabid Zionist (and rabid generally) Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff, was a stomach punch to many. One hopes that Obama is following the principle of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer. Even if the ideal president was trying to move away from Zionism, how could that president possibly do it given what the United States is now? You would only get one shot and it would have to be right between the eyes. The same goes for abandoning imperialism. If you miss, you're dead. Just have a seance and ask John Kennedy.

So the jury is out. Time will tell if Obama is just an eloquent front man for the same old death machine or if he is another naïve reformer in over his head in shark-infested waters.

According to Zbigniew Brzezinski, Obama won't be able to bring any dramatic change in Washington. The former US national security adviser gives his own "insider" view of American politics in his description:

You have to think of foreign policy as, for example, a boat moving on the sea. A huge ocean liner doesn't change its course in the way that a fast motor boat does. Therefore it is not possible for the United States dramatically to change every one of its policies.

The psychopathic handlers of Sim City will go on with their plans for total control, while the newly elected president's first steps appear to follow theirs, whether willingly or by force.

Comment: This is the third in a series of articles written in 2006 commemorating the 43rd anniversary of the assassination of JFK that we are carrying every weekday as we approach the 45th Anniversary of that tragedy for mankind.

Continuing the emotional manipulation of the masses in the style of JFK and Martin Luther King, Barack Obama has been quick to announce his intention to reverse several of George Bushes more irrelevant abuses of power, such as stem cell research and domestic drilling. What chances of reversing issues of substance, such as the clampdown on civil liberties or ending the illegal wars of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Greg Guma suggests that Obama is much more like Jimmy Carter's unpopular Presidency. He surrendered his ambitions to the Trilateral commission and was voted out of office shortly after asking Americans to conserve energy in harsh economic conditions.

The appeal of Carter to the establishment was a combination of charm, an "interesting" family, traditional values, and his outsider image. But they knew he was essentially a "centrist" eager to be all things to all people. [...] The same can be said of Obama.

Carter had at least 27 high level officials who were members of the Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations, Obama's inner circle also seems awash with North American Trilateral members including Brezinski:

The renewed prominence of Brzezinski - architect of the "secret" war in Afghanistan three decades ago - along with the appointment of James Rodney Schlesinger, CIA director and Secretary of Defense during the 1970s, to lead a senior-level task force on nuclear weapons suggests that the process of moving from a neo-con to a Trilateral approach is already underway. The prospect of a military showdown with Iran would decrease during an Obama presidency, but confrontations with Pakistan, China and Russia become more likely.

Change we can believe in? Or further evidence that the USA will continue its fascist path into imperialistic expansion where the Bushes left off?

Comment: This is the first in a series of articles written in 2006 commemorating the 43rd anniversary of the assassination of JFK that we will carry every weekday as we approach the 45th Anniversary of that tragedy for mankind.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy was a man who apparently used the system to get elected and then, once in office, he let it be known that he really was all about change and helping the masses, and he died for it. It is quite fitting for us to remember JFK and the conspiracy against him at a time when a new US president who also talks about change has just been elected... If Obama really means it, he'll have to be a lot smarter than Kennedy was - a very tall order indeed.

We find it interesting that Joe Biden's predictions for an Obama presidency make an explicit reference to JFK:

"Mark my words. [...] It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy... Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

It looks like Biden, and perhaps even Obama, know the details of the plan.

We are certainly curious to see what Obama is really made of. Unfortunately, the first few signs are not encouraging. His pick for White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Israel Emanuel, indicates that he has paid for his victory with seemingly unconditional submission to the Zionist agenda.

Another bad sign is that in spite of Obama's election, Russian President Medvedev complained yet again about America's missile defense systems on Europe. While the world is celebrating, the Russians are still playing the cold war game. One would think that after an election, they would at least hold the rhetoric until they see what the new guy really is about - but they didn't. That suggests that they don't buy Obama's "change" story; or that they think that much can happen in the last 77 days of the Bush presidency. We would suggest that the Russians are much better informed than the common people...