Read the whole thing.
"[It's] relevant for us to focus on whom and what he has been following. . . his character seem[s] most likely attributable to the network into which he was born . . . [it's a network of] privileges, wealth, and intellectual-social proclivities [with a] connection with the U.S. government. [It] combines upscale social norms with radical disdain for the rest of America. Barack Obama came of age through these . . .
"[He's] so upscale and so leftist that it makes him almost a foreigner to ordinary Americans . . .
"In the 1950s and '60s few cared where, say, the State Department or foundations such as Ford ended and the CIA began. [I'd say that is true.. I was following the news pretty closely by 1950. If Senator McCarthy mentioned these clowns I was not savvy enough to understand.] . . .
"[After describing how government, foundations and the like are involved, CIA and Ford for examples, in bringing about change "over there" the author brings some very interesting things.]
"[1)] The point here is that this network was formed precisely to help the careers of kindred folk, while ruining those of others, and to move the requisite money and influence unaccountably, erasing evidence that it had done so. Exercising influence abroad on America's behalfthe network's founding purposenever got in the way of playing a partisan role in American life and, of course, of taking care of its own. [My emphasis]
"[2)] . . . when Congress first authorized the U.S. government's various influence activities abroad it worried loudly and mostly sincerely that these activities might "blow back" onto American political life: The U.S. government, so went the widely accepted argument, might have to say and do all sorts of things abroad, train and deploy any number of operatives in black arts on the whole country's behalf, knowing that these activities and operatives might well be distasteful to any number of Americans at home. Because the U.S. government must not take a partisan part in U.S. domestic lifeso went the argument of an era more honest than our ownit must somehow isolate its foreign influence network from domestic life. But preventing blowback was destined to be a pious, futile wish, especially since many of those in the influence network were at least as interested in pressing their vision of social democracy on America as they were in doing it to other countries. Foremost among these was Cord Meyer, who ran CIA's covert activities in "international organizations" beginning in 1954. Between 1962 and 1975 he directed or supervised all CIA covert action. Meyer explained what he was about in his book Facing Reality (1980). [My emphasis]
"[3)] Meyer and his upscale CIA colleagues considered themselves family members of the domestic and international Left. They believed that America's competition with Soviet Communism was to be waged by, for, and among the Left. [They gave] every imaginable form of U.S. government support to persons as far to the political and cultural left as possible . . . Paradigmatic was the Congress for Cultural Freedom, which spawned and fed many "voluntary" organizations at home and abroad with U.S. influence and money. Its director, Michael Josselson, was so little distinguishable from the Communists, his leftism so anti-American, that the U.S. chapter of CCF disaffiliated in protest. Alas, CIA's fires eventually went out of control and singed American life."
[enough quoting already! I'll copy the entire rest of the article.]
It seems that I am about to copy and paste the entire rest of the article so stunning are the revelations.. THAT SENATOR MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT! Again more proof.. IMO.
As for BHO, et al. as I am wont to say:
Obama is the biological and ideological issue of 1960s spoiled brat Marxist-Alinsky campus/street revolutionary rabble.
He is an acolyte of Saul Alinsky and a devoted follower of Rules For Spoiled Brats.
I knew all about these brats.. I just didn't know how high up they were and that our tax dollars were funding them.
BTTT!
Wow!
Thrift store?
Self-styled investigative journalist Wayne Madsen reports that Madelyn Dunham, the mother of Barack's mother, Ann Dunham, who became vice president of the Bank of Hawaii soon after her arrival there, was in charge of escrow accounts. Madsen's credibility is certainly checkered. But if he is correct about which department she headed, Madelyn Dunham must have supervised the accounts that the U.S. government used to funnel money to its "gray" and "black" activities throughout Asia.
Because they were the only escrow accounts at the bank? Because most of the bank's escrow accounts wouldn't have involved real estate transactions?
How much of this conclusion comes from known facts about CIA procedures and how much is a conclusion that because she handled escrow accounts and the CIA may have used the bank, that they must have used the escrow accounts she supervised?
Thanks for this. I'll read it, but it looks like he takes a few major leaps here. That doesn't mean his theories are wrong, but they're still only theories.
bttt
bookmark
I DID read the whole thing. Very well done article! Thanks for posting it for us. I would LOVE to see this article on the front page of every major newspaper around the world, but judging from the information in this article about who is running things, a snowflake in hell stands a better chance!
Wow.
bookmark
Bookmarking... fascinating.
I did. And it took a good while. And it was worth every single mindblowing second. The “blowback” candidate. Words fail.
very insightful.
Sloppiness like this disturbs me. Obama was not the editor of the Law Review. He was its president which is decidedly of less importance.
ML/NJ
While comforting, this hardly answers, or even asks, the basic question:
"So what do we do about this man, his administration, and those who would vote for him again?"
And there's another question:
"What will those with whom we might replace him do to repair the massive damage done to our system of government and its constitution?"
While comforting, this hardly answers, or even asks, the basic question:
"So what do we do about this man, his administration, and those who would vote for him again?"
And there's another question:
"What will those with whom we might replace him do to repair the massive damage done to our system of government and its constitution?"
I never knew that. Interesting.
Marked for later read.
Ping to find later.