Barack Obama

Obama may be a "nice" guy, I have no way to know one way or the other, but I've been watching Mr. Hope and Change and see little evidence of him actually changing much of anything.
The same cast of characters from the embedded power struture are simply being recycled.
Obama doesn't seem to be a bit interested in getting to the source of economic problems, preferring to attempt a return to "growth", based on consumption and credit.
The U.S. has a fundamentally dishonest currency, where legalized counterfeiting is now running completely wild.
I tend to think that any government is only as honest as the currency it uses and the statistics it makes public.
That certainly doesn't bode well for the future of the U.S.

Also, no successful politician that holds a high position of power in the U.S. government does so without being approved by AIPAC.
That alone told me all I needed to know about McCain, Palin, Obama, and Clinton.
They all suck up to AIPAC.
In the end, I don't think it makes a speck of difference which party holds power because these are just sock puppets on hands attached to the same body.
All of this "political" hokus pokus and talk about change is simply theater.
 
Bernhard said:
Here's something that reminded of what Gurdjieff said in regards to politicians:

[quote author=ISOTM]"But may there not be honest and decent people among politicians?" someone asked. "Certainly there may be," said G., "but in this case they are not practical people, they are dreamers, and they will be used by other people as screens to cover their own obscure affairs.
Click to expand...
[/quote]

I was listening to the Sott podcast about ISOTM and I thought of Obama with regards to the subject matter in the following passage (from the transcript; bold text is my emphasis):
L: What is interesting about the way that he phrases this, "distant cosmic centers", is the very fact that in our own experimental work, where we have the so-called "Cassiopaean Communication" they describe themselves as "we are you in the future". And they talk about thought centers, and of course it is extremely distant, cosmically speaking, so one can't help but wonder, or to draw a comparison between what G must have been doing using his abilities as a hypnotist and also his telepathic abilities in this mediumistic enterprise which nobody seems to be talking about, if they're aware of it. And then, as I said last week, the result of these thoughts that he was having at that particular period of time was that his aims split into two main goals: he had first of all his primary aim, which was described as, "to investigate from all sides and to understand the exact significance and purpose of the life of man", and he now had the second aim, which was that he "must discover at all costs some manner or means for destroying in people the predilection for suggestibility which caused them to fall easily under the influence of mass hypnosis". The important point of this realization that G had, which so many people failed to really consider and to think about is the fact that he tells us that he came to these ideas, came to these understandings as the result of memories of "the sights of all sorts of terrors flowing from the violent events which I had witnessed, and finally from accumulated impressions arising from conversations with various revolutionaries in the previous several years", and that these memories and conversations have crystallized in him, little by little, as he writes, besides the previous unique aim, that inconquerable [sic] aim to try to help people to learn how to overcome the influence of mass hypnosis.

J: Well, the first thing that occurs to me about that is that it's a long way from G's description of, I suppose, what we understand as Work, is a long way from New Age, navel-gazing, and ascension, and various other kinds of blissful states. He describes his life as a very interesting one, as a very hard one where obviously, as he describes himself, he underwent difficult trials, was shot at least twice, and had various other unpleasant experiences, and it was these experiences that brought him to this point of clarity and understanding, and he also mentions that one of the things that brought him to this point was in talking with revolutionaries, and other people that weren't affected by a standard rule(??), that were very interesting and perhaps very driven people, but then he follows that up by saying that this brought him to this second aim, which was to understand how to prevent people from falling under mass hypnosis or psychosis.

L: Well, one has to think about, you know, the perspective, I mean, to really understand what he must have been thinking, the perspective of the so-called revolutionary. A revolutionary is an individual, generally, who is seeking ways and meanings to revolt against a mass hypnosis. And, obviously he was having conversations with them and their frustrations with achieving the goals of throwing off the yoke of mass hypnosis and mental domination and the power of the global elite, were the concerns with which G was concerned. These are things that concern us today also.

H: Probably he also saw that large numbers of these revolutionaries were perfectly willing to engage in the same sorts of mass suggestibility that the other side was using, and he came to the understanding that this was a cycle that had to be broken out of.

J: And the other thing is that he may have met revolutionaries who themselves were victims of mass hypnosis [L: Exactly], who were being controlled, and in fact this idea, you know we talk a lot on the Signs page about overthrowing the Bush regime, and this idea of changing this world, is essentially, can be a result of the propagation of illusion or a type of hypnosis, where people think if they can just take back the country, take back the government, everybody's going to be, the world's gonna turn out fine, and everything will be rosy. [L: Exactly.] But these two things that he came to, the first are the two unconquerable aims that he spent his life, or eventually tried to achieve, and the first one being understanding the nature of the life of humanity, and the second one, being, how to prevent people from falling under this mass hypnosis, perhaps what he kind of concluded or saw in stark reality was that, if nothing's done, then the purpose of life on Earth, or the purpose of human life on Earth, is to simply be victimized or subjected to this mass hypnosis and used for whatever purposes the powers that be deem.
Click to expand...

Given what I have been witnessing around me Obama did have a hypnotic effect because several people around me now believe that everything is going to change for the good and there is definitely relief with them. Obama seems to be the right man in the right place at the right time to vector the American people after having suffered Bush for 8 years.
Obviously he has the benefit of doubt right now but his appointments do seem more of the same.

D.
 
ayamaya wrote: As for his cabinet choices, I recall a saying: "Keep your enemies close."

But, aren't there many more, even more dangerous, people that could be "enemies" to keep close, that could have been appointed without seeming unbelievable?

Again, if belief is harbored that Obama is a "good guy," I think there must be the attendant belief that he has helpers, that he's part of a "good team" or network that is working undercover. Does anyone here who harbors hope for Obama think that he is somehow working alone, without a network? If so, please explain how this might be possible. If not, then where might be his team members?
 
I received that from someone and i did not find it on SOTT.

The article has been published by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc

here's the link: _http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/0089

Oratory—or hypnotic induction?
October 25th, 2008
Is Barack Obama a brilliant orator, captivating millions through his eloquence? Or is he deliberately using the techniques of neurolinguistic programming (NLP), a covert form of hypnosis developed by Milton Erickson, M.D.?

A fundamental tool of “conversational hypnosis” is pacing and leading—a way for the hypnotist to bypass the listener’s critical faculty by associating repeated statements that are unquestionably accurate with the message he wants to convey.

In his Denver acceptance speech, Obama used the phrases “that’s why I stand here tonight,” “now is the time,” and “this moment” 14 times. Paces are connected to the lead by words such as “and,” “as,” “because,” or “that is why.” For example, “we need change” (who could disagree?)…and…that is why I will be your next President.”

Techniques of trance induction include extra slow speech, rhythm, tonalities, vagueness, visual imagery, metaphor, and raising of emotion. Hypnotists often have patients count. In a speech after the primaries closed, Obama said: “Sixteen months have passed (paused)…Thousands (pause) of miles…(pause)…Millions of voices….”

Hypnotists call this a distraction technique: sending the dominant hemisphere on an assignment involving linguistic processes, thus opening the nondominant hemisphere to suggestion.

Hand gestures can be used as hypnotic anchors, or to aid in hypnotic command implantation. They can be difficult to distinguish from innocent gestures used for emphasis. Obama, however, uses some gestures extraordinarily often and for very specific words such as “believe” and “chose.” His characteristic thumb-and-forefinger gesture looks like a hand holding a pencil—as if you were in a voting booth. The gesture of pointing sends the subconscious message that a person in authority is giving a command.

Obama actually said at one time: “a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, ‘I have to vote for Barack.’”

You will not choose to vote for Barack: you will “have to.” It is not a logical choice, but rather one directed by a mystical (subconscious) force. What purpose would a politician have for making such a statement? Obama used it only once. Perhaps he stopped either because he realized it was too obvious or because Hillary Clinton and John McCain ridiculed him for it.

Obama’s logo is noteworthy. It is always there, a small one in the middle of the podium, providing a point of visual fixation. Unlike other presidential logos, one looks through it, not at it. It might just be the letter “O,” but it also resembles a crystal ball, a favorite of hypnotists.

Obama is clearly having a powerful effect on people, especially young people and highly educated people—both considered to be especially susceptible to hypnosis. It is also interesting that many Jews are supporting a candidate who is endorsed by Hamas, Farakhan, Khalidi, and Iran.

While some believe that hypnosis is not real, others believe that it is very powerful, and very dangerous in the wrong hands. Dr. Erickson, father of modern hypnosis, was adamant that his techniques should only be used by physicians. In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Leyra v. Denno that a confession obtained using hypnosis could not be used against the suspect in court.

A 66-page, extensively footnoted but unsigned article “An Examination of Obama’s Use of Hidden Hypnosis Techniques in His Speeches” is available at: _http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Find-Freedom.htm?At=039963&From=News


The discussion should have broad applicability in analyzing political speech in general. Comments by those with knowledge of hypnotic techniques are especially welcome.
Click to expand...
 
I think this was covered on the forum and it was decided that it was a skewed representation. IN short, yes, Obama uses NLP, so do all politicians and so do most fundamentalist preachers. I'll search for the discussion when I get a chance. In the mean time, I'll merge it with the Obama thread ( in which the discussion may have taken place - not sure and on my way out the door).
 
this seems like a good spot to wonder...because i wonder, if barack obama and this new administration, this new 'era' so many describe, were really a change, would we recognize it? for a while i had been thinking that many on these conspiracy sites are so invested in being conspiracy theorists they wouldn't know real change if it whacked them on the head.

i have read alot of laura's work and am in the wave series, almost done. i get the idea that both sides in out political game are of the same in a sense. but watching barack these couple days, he has put out some interesting statements and orders, like the opening of the records or the declaration of not supporting secrets. i wonder, if a body of humans was really good and for change, would we recognize it? i understand i may be still so hypnotized i am falling back into my programming, and maybe i just do not want to admit the dire straits we are in. i do not consider laura in the same category as the conspiracy theorists above so i wonder is this just another front? am i just being a fool to be thinking obama might actually be doing some real change and he has just been hiding his hand? if he had been as forthright as kennedy he would be either dead or just out of workso maybe he knows the game? maybe aretha's bow induced hypnosis on me to think this but i am just wondering...
 
After watching bits of the inauguration, my level of disgust was elevated.
I still suspect Obama is just another in a long line of head fakes, an AIPAC approved figurehead, loaded to the brim with rhetoric that will not transform the "system" in any meaningful way.
But I'll wait and see what he does with the financial situation.
As I flipped through the TV morning shows such as "Good Morning America" and "Today", I was pelted with inane crap about the new first lady and her dress, the new Obama dog, along with endless chatter about everything but the problems and solutions to the dilemma that the U.S. has gotten inself into through decades of dishonesty and the dumbing down of its own citizens.
I keep hearing about how Obama is surrounding himself with the best minds of the financial world, but I see little except the same entrenched vultures that presided over the gigantic ponzi scheme that U.S. monetary policy has become.
Obama seems willing to do anything to continue the illusion that economic growth, as defined by bankers and corporate elitists, is an altar where sacrifices are to be made.
I have no interest in sacrificing one minute of my time in order to prop up this predatory, self-absorbed, fairy dust system.
 
biggreenpea said:
maybe aretha's bow induced hypnosis on me to think this but i am just wondering...
Click to expand...

Apologies for the aside, but, yep, that's funny. Ole ReRe had a bow on her head that could not be ignored - you go ReRe.


As far as Obama - we'll see, pure and simple. The system is ponerized and that does not go away with a new figurehead - especially with a 'generated crisis' thrown into the mix. Obama didn't close Guantanamo today - he'll close it in a year - a LOT can happen in a year. That's one small example of what appears to be a very strenuous effort to instill trust, faith and hope - for what purpose? We'll see.
 
I found this video of a speech by Obama on June 4, 2008 to AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee). They talk about the great threat of Iran and its "reported" 150kg of uranium, "funding of terrorism" and more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cOJNC2EuJw

its 36min and when I first heard the audio I thought it was audio-edited make a joke/point, its really over the top lies and propaganda.

Transcript said:
It's great to see so many friends from across the country. I want to congratulate Howard Friedman, David Victor and Howard Kohr on a successful conference, and on the completion of a new headquarters just a few blocks away.

Before I begin, I want to say that I know some provocative e-mails have been circulating throughout Jewish communities across the country. A few of you may have gotten them. They're filled with tall tales and dire warnings about a certain candidate for president. And all I want to say is — let me know if you see this guy named Barack Obama, because he sounds pretty frightening.

But if anyone has been confused by these e-mails, I want you to know that today I'll be speaking from my heart, and as a true friend of Israel. And I know that when I visit with AIPAC, I am among friends. Good friends. Friends who share my strong commitment to make sure that the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable today, tomorrow and forever.

One of the many things that I admire about AIPAC is that you fight for this common cause from the bottom up. The lifeblood of AIPAC is here in this room — grass-roots activists of all ages, from all parts of the country, who come to Washington year after year to make your voices heard. Nothing reflects the face of AIPAC more than the 1,200 students who have traveled here to make it clear to the world that the bond between Israel and the United States is rooted in more than our shared national interests — it's rooted in the shared values and shared stories of our people. And as president, I will work with you to ensure that this bond is strengthened.

I first became familiar with the story of Israel when I was 11 years old. I learned of the long journey and steady determination of the Jewish people to preserve their identity through faith, family and culture. Year after year, century after century, Jews carried on their traditions, and their dream of a homeland, in the face of impossible odds.

The story made a powerful impression on me. I had grown up without a sense of roots. My father was black; he was from Kenya, and he left us when I was 2. My mother was white; she was from Kansas, and I'd moved with her to Indonesia and then back to Hawaii. In many ways, I didn't know where I came from. So I was drawn to the belief that you could sustain a spiritual, emotional and cultural identity. And I deeply understood the Zionist idea — that there is always a homeland at the center of our story.

I also learned about the horror of the Holocaust, and the terrible urgency it brought to the journey home to Israel. For much of my childhood, I lived with my grandparents. My grandfather had served in World War II, and so had my great-uncle. He was a Kansas boy who probably never expected to see Europe — let alone the horrors that awaited him there. And for months after he came home from Germany, he remained in a state of shock, alone with the painful memories that wouldn't leave his head.

You see, my great-uncle had been a part of the 89th Infantry Division — the first Americans to reach a Nazi concentration camp. They liberated Ohrdruf, part of Buchenwald, on an April day in 1945. The horrors of that camp go beyond our capacity to imagine. Tens of thousands died of hunger, torture, disease, or plain murder — part of the Nazi killing machine that killed 6 million people.

When the Americans marched in, they discovered huge piles of dead bodies and starving survivors. Gen. Eisenhower ordered Germans from the nearby town to tour the camp, so they could see what was being done in their name. He ordered American troops to tour the camp, so they could see the evil they were fighting against. He invited congressmen and journalists to bear witness. And he ordered that photographs and films be made. Explaining his actions, Eisenhower said that he wanted to produce "firsthand evidence of these things, if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to propaganda."

I saw some of those very images at Yad Vashem, and they never leave you. And those images just hint at the stories that survivors of the Shoah carried with them. Like Eisenhower, each of us bears witness to anyone and everyone who would deny these unspeakable crimes, or ever speak of repeating them. We must mean what we say when we speak the words "never again."

It was just a few years after the liberation of the camps that David Ben-Gurion declared the founding of the Jewish State of Israel. We know that the establishment of Israel was just and necessary, rooted in centuries of struggle and decades of patient work. But 60 years later, we know that we cannot relent, we cannot yield, and as president I will never compromise when it comes to Israel's security.

Not when there are still voices that deny the Holocaust. Not when there are terrorist groups and political leaders committed to Israel's destruction. Not when there are maps across the Middle East that don't even acknowledge Israel's existence, and government-funded textbooks filled with hatred toward Jews. Not when there are rockets raining down on Sderot, and Israeli children have to take a deep breath and summon uncommon courage every time they board a bus or walk to school.

I have long understood Israel's quest for peace and need for security. But never more so than during my travels there two years ago. Flying in an [Israeli Defense Forces] helicopter, I saw a narrow and beautiful strip of land nestled against the Mediterranean. On the ground, I met a family who saw their house destroyed by a Katyusha rocket. I spoke to Israeli troops who faced daily threats as they maintained security near the blue line. I talked to people who wanted nothing more simple, or elusive, than a secure future for their children.

I have been proud to be a part of a strong, bipartisan consensus that has stood by Israel in the face of all threats. That is a commitment that both John McCain and I share, because support for Israel in this country goes beyond party. But part of our commitment must be speaking up when Israel's security is at risk, and I don't think any of us can be satisfied that America's recent foreign policy has made Israel more secure.

Hamas now controls Gaza. Hezbollah has tightened its grip on southern Lebanon, and is flexing its muscles in Beirut. Because of the war in Iraq, Iran — which always posed a greater threat to Israel than Iraq — is emboldened and poses the greatest strategic challenge to the United States and Israel in the Middle East in a generation. Iraq is unstable, and al-Qaida has stepped up its recruitment. Israel's quest for peace with its neighbors has stalled, despite the heavy burdens borne by the Israeli people. And America is more isolated in the region, reducing our strength and jeopardizing Israel's safety.

The question is how to move forward. There are those who would continue and intensify this failed status quo, ignoring eight years of accumulated evidence that our foreign policy is dangerously flawed. And then there are those who would lay all of the problems of the Middle East at the doorstep of Israel and its supporters, as if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the root of all trouble in the region. These voices blame the Middle East's only democracy for the region's extremism. They offer the false promise that abandoning a stalwart ally is somehow the path to strength. It is not, it never has been, and it never will be.

Our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the front lines. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel's security.

That starts with ensuring Israel's qualitative military advantage. I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat — from Gaza to Tehran. Defense cooperation between the United States and Israel is a model of success, and must be deepened. As president, I will implement a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade — investments to Israel's security that will not be tied to any other nation. First, we must approve the foreign aid request for 2009. Going forward, we can enhance our cooperation on missile defense. We should export military equipment to our ally Israel under the same guidelines as NATO. And I will always stand up for Israel's right to defend itself in the United Nations and around the world.

Across the political spectrum, Israelis understand that real security can only come through lasting peace. And that is why we — as friends of Israel — must resolve to do all we can to help Israel and its neighbors to achieve it. Because a secure, lasting peace is in Israel's national interest. It is in America's national interest. And it is in the interest of the Palestinian people and the Arab world. As president, I will work to help Israel achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security. And I won't wait until the waning days of my presidency. I will take an active role, and make a personal commitment to do all I can to advance the cause of peace from the start of my administration.

The long road to peace requires Palestinian partners committed to making the journey. We must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements. There is no room at the negotiating table for terrorist organizations. That is why I opposed holding elections in 2006 with Hamas on the ballot. The Israelis and the Palestinian Authority warned us at the time against holding these elections. But this administration pressed ahead, and the result is a Gaza controlled by Hamas, with rockets raining down on Israel.

The Palestinian people must understand that progress will not come through the false prophets of extremism or the corrupt use of foreign aid. The United States and the international community must stand by Palestinians who are committed to cracking down on terror and carrying the burden of peacemaking. I will strongly urge Arab governments to take steps to normalize relations with Israel, and to fulfill their responsibility to pressure extremists and provide real support for President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad. Egypt must cut off the smuggling of weapons into Gaza. Israel can also advance the cause of peace by taking appropriate steps — consistent with its security — to ease the freedom of movement for Palestinians, improve economic conditions in the West Bank, and to refrain from building new settlements — as it agreed to with the Bush administration at Annapolis.

Let me be clear. Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper — but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.

I have no illusions that this will be easy. It will require difficult decisions on both sides. But Israel is strong enough to achieve peace, if it has partners who are committed to the goal. Most Israelis and Palestinians want peace, and we must strengthen their hand. The United States must be a strong and consistent partner in this process — not to force concessions, but to help committed partners avoid stalemate and the kind of vacuums that are filled by violence. That's what I commit to do as president of the United States.

The threats to Israel start close to home, but they don't end there. Syria continues its support for terror and meddling in Lebanon. And Syria has taken dangerous steps in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, which is why Israeli action was justified to end that threat.

I also believe that the United States has a responsibility to support Israel's efforts to renew peace talks with the Syrians. We must never force Israel to the negotiating table, but neither should we ever block negotiations when Israel's leaders decide that they may serve Israeli interests. As president, I will do whatever I can to help Israel succeed in these negotiations. And success will require the full enforcement of Security Council Resolution 1701 in Lebanon, and a stop to Syria's support for terror. It is time for this reckless behavior to come to an end.

There is no greater threat to Israel — or to the peace and stability of the region — than Iran. Now this audience is made up of both Republicans and Democrats, and the enemies of Israel should have no doubt that, regardless of party, Americans stand shoulder to shoulder in our commitment to Israel's security. So while I don't want to strike too partisan a note here today, I do want to address some willful mischaracterizations of my positions.

The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.

But just as we are cleareyed about the threat, we must be clear about the failure of today's policy. We knew, in 2002, that Iran supported terrorism. We knew Iran had an illicit nuclear program. We knew Iran posed a grave threat to Israel. But instead of pursuing a strategy to address this threat, we ignored it and instead invaded and occupied Iraq. When I opposed the war, I warned that it would fan the flames of extremism in the Middle East. That is precisely what happened in Iran — the hard-liners tightened their grip, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president in 2005. And the United States and Israel are less secure.

I respect Sen. McCain, and look forward to a substantive debate with him these next five months. But on this point, we have differed, and we will differ. Sen. McCain refuses to understand or acknowledge the failure of the policy that he would continue. He criticizes my willingness to use strong diplomacy but offers only an alternate reality — one where the war in Iraq has somehow put Iran on its heels. The truth is the opposite. Iran has strengthened its position. Iran is now enriching uranium and has reportedly stockpiled 150 kilos of low enriched uranium. Its support for terrorism and threats toward Israel have increased. Those are the facts, they cannot be denied, and I refuse to continue a policy that has made the United States and Israel less secure.

Sen. McCain offers a false choice: stay the course in Iraq, or cede the region to Iran. I reject this logic because there is a better way. Keeping all of our troops tied down indefinitely in Iraq is not the way to weaken Iran — it is precisely what has strengthened it. It is a policy for staying, not a plan for victory. I have proposed a responsible, phased redeployment of our troops from Iraq. We will get out as carefully as we were careless getting in. We will finally pressure Iraq's leaders to take meaningful responsibility for their own future.

We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That starts with aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating preconditions, but with a cleareyed understanding of our interests. We have no time to waste. We cannot unconditionally rule out an approach that could prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. We have tried limited, piecemeal talks while we outsource the sustained work to our European allies. It is time for the United States to lead.

There will be careful preparation. We will open up lines of communication, build an agenda, coordinate closely with our allies, and evaluate the potential for progress. Contrary to the claims of some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing — if, and only if, it can advance the interests of the United States.

Only recently have some come to think that diplomacy by definition cannot be tough. They forget the example of Truman, and Kennedy and Reagan. These presidents understood that diplomacy backed by real leverage was a fundamental tool of statecraft. And it is time to once again make American diplomacy a tool to succeed, not just a means of containing failure. We will pursue this diplomacy with no illusions about the Iranian regime. Instead, we will present a clear choice. If you abandon your dangerous nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives — including the lifting of sanctions, and political and economic integration with the international community. If you refuse, we will ratchet up the pressure.

My presidency will strengthen our hand as we restore our standing. Our willingness to pursue diplomacy will make it easier to mobilize others to join our cause. If Iran fails to change course when presented with this choice by the United States, it will be clear — to the people of Iran, and to the world — that the Iranian regime is the author of its own isolation. That will strengthen our hand with Russia and China as we insist on stronger sanctions in the Security Council. And we should work with Europe, Japan and the Gulf states to find every avenue outside the U.N. to isolate the Iranian regime — from cutting off loan guarantees and expanding financial sanctions, to banning the export of refined petroleum to Iran, to boycotting firms associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, whose Quds force has rightly been labeled a terrorist organization.

I was interested to see Sen. McCain propose divestment as a source of leverage — not the bigoted divestment that has sought to punish Israeli scientists and academics, but divestment targeted at the Iranian regime. It's a good concept, but not a new one. I introduced legislation over a year ago that would encourage states and the private sector to divest from companies that do business in Iran. This bill has bipartisan support, but for reasons that I'll let him explain, Sen. McCain never signed on. Meanwhile, an anonymous senator is blocking the bill. It is time to pass this into law so that we can tighten the squeeze on the Iranian regime. We should also pursue other unilateral sanctions that target Iranian banks and assets.

And we must free ourselves from the tyranny of oil. The price of a barrel of oil is one of the most dangerous weapons in the world. Petrodollars pay for weapons that kill American troops and Israeli citizens. And the Bush administration's policies have driven up the price of oil, while its energy policy has made us more dependent on foreign oil and gas. It's time for the United States to take real steps to end our addiction to oil. And we can join with Israel, building on last year's U.S.-Israel Energy Cooperation Act, to deepen our partnership in developing alternative sources of energy by increasing scientific collaboration and joint research and development. The surest way to increase our leverage in the long term is to stop bankrolling the Iranian regime.

Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel. Sometimes there are no alternatives to confrontation. But that only makes diplomacy more important. If we must use military force, we are more likely to succeed, and will have far greater support at home and abroad, if we have exhausted our diplomatic efforts.

That is the change we need in our foreign policy. Change that restores American power and influence. Change accompanied by a pledge that I will make known to allies and adversaries alike: that America maintains an unwavering friendship with Israel, and an unshakeable commitment to its security.

As members of AIPAC, you have helped advance this bipartisan consensus to support and defend our ally Israel. And I am sure that today on Capitol Hill you will be meeting with members of Congress and spreading the word. But we are here because of more than policy. We are here because the values we hold dear are deeply embedded in the story of Israel.

Just look at what Israel has accomplished in 60 years. From decades of struggle and the terrible wake of the Holocaust, a nation was forged to provide a home for Jews from all corners of the world — from Syria to Ethiopia to the Soviet Union. In the face of constant threats, Israel has triumphed. In the face of constant peril, Israel has prospered. In a state of constant insecurity, Israel has maintained a vibrant and open discourse, and a resilient commitment to the rule of law.

As any Israeli will tell you, Israel is not a perfect place, but like the United States it sets an example for all when it seeks a more perfect future. These same qualities can be found among American Jews. It is why so many Jewish Americans have stood by Israel, while advancing the American story. Because there is a commitment embedded in the Jewish faith and tradition: to freedom and fairness; to social justice and equal opportunity. To tikkun olam — the obligation to repair this world.

I will never forget that I would not be standing here today if it weren't for that commitment. In the great social movements in our country's history, Jewish and African Americans have stood shoulder to shoulder. They took buses down south together. They marched together. They bled together. And Jewish Americans like Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner were willing to die alongside a black man — James Chaney — on behalf of freedom and equality.

Their legacy is our inheritance. We must not allow the relationship between Jews and African Americans to suffer. This is a bond that must be strengthened. Together, we can rededicate ourselves to end prejudice and combat hatred in all of its forms. Together, we can renew our commitment to justice. Together, we can join our voices together, and in doing so make even the mightiest of walls fall down.

That work must include our shared commitment to Israel. You and I know that we must do more than stand still. Now is the time to be vigilant in facing down every foe, just as we move forward in seeking a future of peace for the children of Israel, and for all children. Now is the time to stand by Israel as it writes the next chapter in its extraordinary journey. Now is the time to join together in the work of repairing this world.
Click to expand...

*Also, add (APPLAUSE) between every paragraph if you want ambient sounds transcriped.

*_http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/us/politics/04text-obama-aipac.html


edit: found a transcript.
 
Much thanks GRiM for posting that transcript from the Obama AIPAC speech.
No U.S. politician can rise to the top of the dunghill without kissing the buttocks of this lobby.
And kiss ass is exactly what Obama did.
Those were big wet kisses, along with words I love you Israel and so do all of the American people, who will make sure that your interests come first at all times.
Whether he was simply pandering or actually meant what he said is immaterial.
When AIPAC says jump a politician had better ask "how high" or answer "yes, master".
That's the reality of the situation.
This is Mr. Hope and Change, prepared to sacrifice America(which is bankrupt) to supply Israel with everything it needs.
Perhaps Obama will simply print up money or ask the Chinese to finance the promises he made
to his AIPAC masters.
In the meantime, American taxpayers are told that they live in the greatest country in the world.

And now we have Geithner, Mr. Obama's tax evading financial guru, pointing his finger at China, accusing them of manipulating their currency.
What a hypocritical farce this is.
The biggest manipulators of all things financial accuse others of manipulation.
I don't see much change here, it's business as usual.
 
BK said:
Much thanks GRiM for posting that transcript from the Obama AIPAC speech.
No U.S. politician can rise to the top of the dunghill without kissing the buttocks of this lobby.
And kiss ass is exactly what Obama did.
Those were big wet kisses, along with words I love you Israel and so do all of the American people, who will make sure that your interests come first at all times.
Whether he was simply pandering or actually meant what he said is immaterial.
When AIPAC says jump a politician had better ask "how high" or answer "yes, master".
That's the reality of the situation.
This is Mr. Hope and Change, prepared to sacrifice America(which is bankrupt) to supply Israel with everything it needs.
Perhaps Obama will simply print up money or ask the Chinese to finance the promises he made
to his AIPAC masters.
In the meantime, American taxpayers are told that they live in the greatest country in the world.

And now we have Geithner, Mr. Obama's tax evading financial guru, pointing his finger at China, accusing them of manipulating their currency.
What a hypocritical farce this is.
The biggest manipulators of all things financial accuse others of manipulation.
I don't see much change here, it's business as usual.
Click to expand...

Do you have any articles about Geithner, Bk?
 
Gimpy said:
Do you have any articles about Geithner, Bk?
Click to expand...

Here's an excerpt from the China story:
Source AP Jan 23, 2009
"President Obama — backed by the conclusions of a broad range of economists — believes that China is manipulating its currency," Geithner wrote in answer to questions submitted to him by members of the Senate Finance Committee.

"President Obama has pledged as president to use aggressively all the diplomatic avenues open to him to seek change in China's currency," Geithner said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/geithner_china

Chinese response:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090123/bs_afp/uspoliticsobamageithnerchinafinanceforex_20090123164129

Here's a link regarding Geithner's tax problem of failing to pay FICA tax on his earnings.
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/2009/01/21.html
 
GRiM said:
I found this video of a speech by Obama on June 4, 2008 to AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee). They talk about the great threat of Iran and its "reported" 150kg of uranium, "funding of terrorism" and more.
Click to expand...

Thank you Grim for this transcript.

Though i consider hypocrisy and double-triple-talk standard practice in career politics, here Obama truly does his best to say all the "right words" to the AIPAC's "ears"...
I agree with BK that regardless of whether Obama truly supports by heart these words or not (and i have little reason to doubt that he doesn't), he obviously seems to greatly "appreciate" the AIPAC's influence in American politics by offering such a passionate and unconcealed lip service! The fact that he is now on the White House, is a strong indication that some people feel rather safe and reassured by Obama loyalty and purpose. That speech sounds an awful lot like a job interview, and it seems he was found to be the right man for it. IMO, the "change" seems for now to be limited only to the surface of things, and actually it seems it was only skin deep...

:/
 
I am very confused about what is going on around this man as of late.And am also getting some mixed signals..I think. :/ I'm not even sure of that either.
I'm reading alot if articles you have up about Barrak Obama (sic?)and it seems sometimes it leans toward a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" approach. http://www.sott.net/articles/show/173889-Obama-Orders-Air-Strikes-on-Villages-in-Tribal-Area-in-Pakistan
Then other articles with tiny hints in the comments of him possibly being infiltrated...
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/173839-Obama-Attack-Inaugural-Speaker-Linked-to-Hamas

This isn't a question of where you guys stand Just merely pointing out what I see.What I am interested in , is just figuring out what the heck IS going on in our government and what is up it's blood-soaked sleeves.But first i have to peel back the layers of this stinking onion and get to the core.
Is he really someone who has ACTED like a good little puppet and has actually made it to the top of this perverted food chain to turn it on it's head?Or is he a good little puppet?Am I seeing real solid proof of change here? Or am I being mesmerised by impotent hollow rhetoric?
There has been lots of talk late last year and early this year...pre-innauguration.. about the comments made by VP Biden and Collin Powell about the president making "unpopular decisions" and I have my own humble theory on this..
See, I think some of the alternative outlets took it too literally and made it out as unpopular to "the people".And I will admit I had no reservations about thinkin this guy is just another evil so and so just to carry ot the "next phase" of this horrible,psychopathic machine.I think there is someting even worse approaching us.
MY translation of this is ...Obama is going to be making some vay unpopular decisions...unpopular to the neocon-zio-con-zio-christian...whatever you choose to call them..fundies.Things such as...

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/173963-Obama-to-Bush-I-Can-Release-Your-Records-Don-t-Like-It-Sue- or..

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/173806-Two-Encouraging-Signs-From-The-Obama-White-House

Minor adjustments in the grand scope of our state of things in this world but they are flickers of SOME hope.

I hope I am dead wrong about my feelings but something makes my gut tighten when I think about it. These psychopaths have had their "new Pearl Harbor" and next on their sick little script is a "new JFK".

Anyone else share this feeling? Or totally disagree?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom