Stunner: who is suddenly telling liberal jackals to attack Obama?
Stunner: who is suddenly telling liberal jackals to attack Obama?
by Jon Rappoport
May 16, 2013http://www.nomorefakenews.com
When Chris Matthews files for divorce from Barack Obama, you know the world is upside down.
When the liberal online rag, Politico, features a clip of Matthews saying, “[Obama] obviously likes giving speeches more than he does running the executive branch,” we’re through the Looking Glass.
Chris Matthews loses ‘thrill up leg’ …
The liberal jackals are stalking their own leader, the President. After making mind-bending excuses for Obama’s disastrous presidency, they’ve suddenly heard a supersonic whistle, and they’re out for blood.
Jonathan Turley, famous liberal constitutional lawyer, is counting Obama’s sins, ranging far beyond the current IRS and AP phone-tapping scandals.
James Goodale, former lawyer for the NY Times, is writing, at the Daily Beast, “Obama is fast becoming the worst national security press president, worse than Nixon, and it may not get any better.”
Liberal radio host Bill Press is calling for Obama to fire Eric Holder. Charley Rangel says, “No one believes that the president has given us a sufficient answer [to the IRS and DOJ scandals].”
Representative Zoe Lofgren and NBC’s Brian Williams are down Obama’s neck.
Just a few weeks ago, after the Boston bombing, Obama was unassailable. He was still the king with his own people. Now, he’s turning into lunch meat.
Liberals could be shouting and claiming that the IRS targeting of conservative, patriot, and constitutional groups had nothing to do with Obama, that he’s entirely innocent, that he just got rid of the IRS chief and all is well…but they’re not saying it.
They could be insisting that the DOJ tapping AP phones was all on Eric Holder, and Obama had nothing to do with it…but they’re not saying it.
The current press virus is: Obama is Nixon.
What’s going on?
Who’s giving liberals the order to go after Obama? Who shifted the political wind overnight?
Yesterday, I examined Watergate from the perspective of Nixon’s betrayal of the Rockefeller family. That was the key to his ouster from the presidency. The Washington Post was used as the attack dog. Are we looking at something similar here?
Has Obama failed to live up to his promises to people far more powerful than he is? If so, what is his betrayal?
Is it simply the fact that the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations have chosen Hillary Clinton as the next president—and in order to make that happen, major diversions have to guide the press and public away from her role in the Benghazi catastrophe? Is that why we’re suddenly seeing the IRS and DOJ scandals erupting?
Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission (TC) certainly wields enough power to torpedo Obama, if they want to. And they surround Obama.
Patrick Wood, author of Trilaterals Over Washington, points out there are only 87 members of the Trilateral Commission who live in America. Obama appointed eleven of them to posts in his administration.
Keep in mind that the original stated goal of the TC was to create “a new international economic order.” Consider the following TC members, who have held Obama posts:
Tim Geithner, Treasury Secretary;
James Jones, National Security Advisor;
Paul Volker, Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee;
Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence.
In the run-up to his inauguration after the 2008 presidential election, Obama was tutored by the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski.
The TC is the hand that feeds Obama. Has he bitten it?
Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote, four years before birthing the TC with his godfather, David Rockefeller: “[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”
A closer look at Tim Geithner’s circle of economic advisers reveals the chilling Trilateral effect: Paul Volker; Alan Greenspan; E. Gerald Corrigan (director, Goldman Sachs); and Peter G Peterson (former CEO, Lehman Brothers, former chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations). These men are all Trilateral members.
How many foxes in the hen house do we need, before we realize their Trilateral agenda is controlling the direction of our economy?
Any doubt on the question of TC goals is answered by David Rockefeller himself, the founder of the TC, in his Memoirs (2003):
“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
So yes, if the Trilateral Commission wanted to sink Obama’s presidency, they could call that shot. They could radically influence press coverage of the president, they could pull strings and end the worshipful celebration of Obama as the great prophet. They could bring hard doom to him.
Nixon started imposing tariffs on imported goods. That was his Waterloo. He ran afoul of the massive Rockefeller free trade agenda. What has Obama done?
Is he stalling on war with Iran? Has he gone too far in his embrace of Islamic partners? Has he finally balked at continuing the war in Afghanistan?
Setting economic and political policy for the US is a prime operation of the Trilateral Commission. If Obama has crossed swords with the TC, he would be treading on very dangerous ground.
From the shadows of history, let me give you an illustration of how far and deep the TC can reach. It really does boggle the mind.
Here is a close-up snap shot of a remarkable moment—in the form of a conversation between a reporter, Jeremiah Novak, and two Trilateral Commission members, Karl Kaiser and Richard Cooper.
The interview took place in 1978. It concerned the issue of who exactly, during President Carter’s administration, was formulating US economic and political policy.
The careless and off-hand attitude of Trilateralists Kaiser and Cooper is astonishing. It’s as if they’re saying, “What we’re revealing is already out in the open, it’s too late to do anything about it, why are you so worked up, we’ve already won…”
NOVAK (the reporter): Is it true that a private [Trilateral committee] led by Henry Owen of the US and made up of [Trilateral] representatives of the US, UK, West Germany, Japan, France and the EEC is coordinating the economic and political policies of the Trilateral countries [which would include the US]?
COOPER: Yes, they have met three times.
NOVAK: Yet, in your recent paper you state that this committee should remain informal because to formalize ‘this function might well prove offensive to some of the Trilateral and other countries which do not take part.’ Who are you afraid of?
KAISER: Many countries in Europe would resent the dominant role that West Germany plays at these [Trilateral] meetings.
COOPER: Many people still live in a world of separate nations, and they would resent such coordination [of policy].
NOVAK: But this [Trilateral] committee is essential to your whole policy. How can you keep it a secret or fail to try to get popular support [for its decisions on how Trilateral member nations will conduct their economic and political policies]?
COOPER: Well, I guess it’s the press’ job to publicize it.
NOVAK: Yes, but why doesn’t President Carter come out with it and tell the American people that [US] economic and political power is being coordinated by a [Trilateral] committee made up of Henry Owen and six others?After all, if [US] policy is being made on a multinational level, the people should know.
COOPER: President Carter and Secretary of State Vance have constantly alluded to this in their speeches.
KAISER: It just hasn’t become an issue.
Source: “Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management,” ed. by Holly Sklar, 1980. South End Press, Boston. Pages 192-3.
Of course, although Kaiser and Cooper claimed everything being manipulated by the Trilateral Commission committee was already out in the open, it wasn’t.
Their interview slipped under the mainstream media radar, which is to say, it was ignored and buried. It didn’t become a scandal on the level of, say, Watergate, although its essence was far larger than Watergate.
If the mainstream press had made hay out of this interview, had reported it widely, and commented upon it with relentless fervor and disgust and shock (a pipe dream, to be sure); if the interview had been pushed and publicized as a scandal of the greatest depth; if ensuing denials and distractions had been cast aside; the exposure of the Trilaterals would have shaken the country’s foundations, and the press would have had to admit all their coverage of government was a farce and a cartoon.
US economic and political policy run by a committee of the Trilateral Commission—the Commission had been been created in 1973 as an “informal discussion group” by David Rockefeller and his sidekick, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who would become Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor.
Shortly after Carter won the presidential election, his aide, Hamilton Jordan, said that, if after the inauguration, Cy Vance and Brzezinski came on board as secretary of state and national security adviser, “We’ve lost. And I’ll quit.” Lost—because both men were powerful members of the Trilateral Commission and their appointment to key positions would signal a surrender of White House control to the Commission.
Vance and Brzezinski were appointed secretary of state and national security adviser, as Jordan feared. But he didn’t quit. He became Carter’s chief of staff. He gave up.
That’s the kind of power we’re talking about. Barack Obama would merely be a minor figure blowing in the wind, if the TC decided he’d betrayed them. Obama’s administration is stacked with TC members.
They could foment the sudden liberal opposition to this president, which has bloomed overnight like a mushroom in the dark.
No one at the moment is playing the race card for Obama, which has been an effective strategy. No one in the press is claiming that Obama’s Republican opponents are racists. Why not?
The IRS and DOJ scandals are manageable. By themselves, absent the press firestorm, they can be contained. Eric Holder can go. The IRS chief has already been dispatched to nowhere land. The president can claim immunity from these two doofuses. Indeed, he may try that.
As long as his liberal allies keeping pounding on the fact that he’s a great president who has been served badly by his inferiors, the ship could hold water. But right now, that’s not happening. The sudden sea change is swamping the boat.
Remember, with Watergate, we saw a successful attack on the US Attorney General, John Mitchell, on the way to nailing Nixon and knocking him out of the box. That Rockefeller operation worked like a magic machine.
Eric Holder, the current Attorney General, has just testified before Congress that he doesn’t know anything about anything. He’s pretty much said, “Ask me a question about any scandal and I’ll plead vast ignorance. That’s my defense.”
Holder is ripe for a takedown. And then the press hounds would be that much closer to pinning blame on Obama himself.
I’m not saying Obama will be impeached or will resign—although in politics, never say never. I’m saying his presidency, such as it is, could be destroyed very quickly among and by his own supporters.
The clue here, again, is the sudden and boggling liberal press turnaround, their all-out assault on Obama. This kind of thing doesn’t happen by accident. It certainly doesn’t happen from the bowels of the president’s rabid worshipers. But it is happening.
That means marching orders. That means screws have been turned by people who expect and demand and can count on obedience. Those people are players who live far above government. Government is their mechanism, as is the press, when it needs to be.
And right now, it needs to be.